March 17, 2012

There’s Glen Eira & Then There Are Others

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 
Audit Committee – Expressions of interest  
Kingston City Council is seeking an independent, suitably qualified member of its Audit Committee for a 3 year term. The Audit Committee meets on a quarterly basis and is an independent advisory committee to Council operating in accordance with an adopted Audit Committee Charter.
Council welcomes expressions of interest from individuals with finance and accounting skills, legal compliance and risk management backgrounds. Additionally, applicants must be able to demonstrate a well developed ability to apply appropriate analytical and strategic management skills.
Further details on the requirements and a copy of the Audit Committee Charter can be downloaded here. Written expressions of interest close at 5pm on Friday, 13 April 2012 and should be forwarded to Sharon Banks, Kingston City Council, PO Box 1000, Mentone 3194 or emailed to sharon.banks@kingston.vic.gov.au.
Links
Download Files Information Package – Member Audit Committee 2012
 

March 16, 2012

Agenda Items

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[5] Comments 

If any further evidence was required as to the machinations of this administration then readers need to look no further than the agenda for the upcoming council meeting. We will highlight just a few examples.

AUDIT COMMITTEE

The incamera section of the agenda contains this item: “12.3 under s89 (2)(a) “personnel” which relates to Council’s Audit Committee membership”. We assume that this refers to the reappointment (again, and again, and again) of either Mr Gibbs, or Mr McLean. We highlight the secrecy once more and the questionable probity of the potential presence of these men for a consistent and extended period of time on the most important committee in a council.

We also note the recommendations in the Officer’s Report (no name attached to this report – Again!) to reappoint Cr. Lipshutz and Magee to this advisory committee. We have previously stated our concerns about the unbroken presence of Cr. Lipshutz on this committee. If Council is really concerned about potential perceptions of good governance, and adhering to national and state standards, then there must be regular rotation of committee members. We have also stated that we believe the best candidates for this most important position are Crs Lobo and Penhalluriack.  Given their business and banking acumen and their long years of experience in worrying about bottom line figures and fiduciary responsibilities, they are both in our view, ideal councillor representatives on such a committee.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

There are at least 2 highly contentious planning applications before council – the Morrice St, 2 storey 120 place child care centre, and the 3 story Mahvo St., development with 10 apartments. We have again noted how this planning department fails to adequately inform residents; how the number of notifications sent out appear to be directly correlated to the number of anticipated objections. For example: the erection of lighting in Caulfield Park, literally hundreds of metres away from the nearest house, occasioned over 500 notices. C60 which will have a direct and devastating impact on humdreds of homes, also had about 500-600 notices. Now we have these two applications, both of which were recommended for planning permit approval –

Morrice St – 20 properties notified; 23 notices; 76 objections & 1 letter of support.

Mahvo St. – 10 properties notified; 11 notices; 47 objections

In contrast we find the Lillimir application (which is already inundated with 3 storey developments and major multi units) received  86 notices sent and garnered 10 objections. This is not to decry the importance of this area. We are simply tired of the continual failure of the planning department to inform residents and to ensure that notices in all areas are distributed equitably and fairly. If people don’t know what’s going on, then how can they object? Could this in fact be the hidden agenda?

We are also taken aback at the sheer nonsense and gobbledygood that features in these officers reports. The reports lack substance, detail, statistics, and most importantly, they repeatedly fail to adequately address residents’ concerns. Here are just a few examples of this nonsense. We urge readers to note the vacuous/evasive language often used –

“Whilst there would be an appreciable increase in traffic volumes during the morning and afternoon periods, these additional vehicle movements would not have an unreasonable effect on the current level of amenity of Morrice Street which would remain quiet throughout most of the day and at weekends.”

“Applying the State Government tests set out in Rescode, there will be no excessive overshadowing impacts on residential properties. There will be some overshadowing impacts to the habitable windows at 34 Mavho Street….The recommended increased setbacks at the first and second storeys will also assist in improving the degree of overshadowing.”

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

There are countless tit-bits of information in these ‘records’ that lead on to countless questions of planning, especially for GESAC. Here are a few –

7th February 2012 – GESAC indoor courts – update. Mayor to contact Bentleigh Secondary College

14th February – GESAC an update on the situation in relation to the allocation of time for basketball.

We’re also told that meeting resumed only in the presence of councillors. If so, then where is the ‘independent minute taker’? Was he/she present? If so, then why not listed? If not, then why not given the last Municipal Inspector’s recommendation and councillors promise to accept these recommendations?

Cr Hyams – informed the meeting that he had received a telephone call from the Municipal Inspectorate in relation to complaints and investigations.

Make of the above what you will!!!!!

 

March 16, 2012

Age Editorial

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
Comments Off on Age Editorial 

Good planning  must balance rights

March 16, 2012

STRIKING a balance between efficiency and fairness in urban planning is a  vexing challenge for state governments of whatever political persuasion. It is  precisely this tension – the need for a streamlined system of planning approvals  as against the rights of residents to shape their communities – that informs the  debate over a dramatic overhaul to Victoria’s planning system scheduled to be  introduced in State Parliament by July.

In one of the biggest reforms of the state’s planning laws in a decade,  councils and communities will define what development is allowed in their area,  including height and density. Building applications that comply with the  guidelines would then be fast-tracked through the planning system. Crucially,  once the system is in place residents will no longer be notified of new  development proposals and will not be able to object.

The government envisages this ”code assess” system applying to more than  one in five development applications and will require them to be processed  within 10 working days. While councils will initially use the system to develop  guidelines for low-level applications – extensions and dual occupancy  developments, for instance – the changes are also intended to govern more  significant proposals, including high-rise towers in key suburbs targeted for  urban growth, such as Box Hill, Frankston, Ringwood and Dandenong.

The case for a planning shake-up is a compelling one. Developers, councils  and indeed the wider community pay a heavy price for the excessive red tape,  uncertainty and litigiousness that characterise the current system. The problems  consume council resources, and pose a threat to both the short-term imperative  of economic growth and the longer-term goal of urban consolidation. But given  the emphatic changes to residents’ rights, and we’re potentially talking about  residents watching helplessly as a high-rise suddenly goes up next door, the  onus is on the Planning Minister to ensure the laws do not strike at local  democracy. Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, is  correct in warning, ”clear policy and objective criteria must be agreed with  the community” before basic rights be removed.

The legislation must enshrine the principle of genuine community consultation  in the development of guidelines. And developers too must be denied  wriggle-room, losing all right of appeal if planning applications fall foul of  the guidelines. Certainty in planning must cut both ways.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/good-planning-must-balance-rights-20120315-1v86s.html#ixzz1pEPjMqUZ

 

March 15, 2012

GERA Forum

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[9] Comments 

Tonight’s GERA Overdevelopment Forum was a major success with well over 80 people cramming into the Bentleigh Club and, we’re told, many new memberships to GERA resulting.

Unfortunately Cr. Thomann was a no show, but Cr. West from Kingston was most informative and engaging. Residents received the clear message on how different Kingston Council was in its planning processes compared to Glen Eira. For example: the manner in which planning conferences are held, restricting planning officers’ delegatory powers, Kingston’s hiring of ‘experts’ to support resident objectors, and in the mere fact that Kingston has all those things which Glen Eira doesn’t – structure plans, height limits, developer contributions etc. Cr. West also emphasised the importance of lobbying individual councillors, especially with elections around the corner, and standing candidates who are truly representative of community wishes.

Speaking with people afterwards, their comments revealed how much they had learnt about good planning processes and how much needs to change in Glen Eira.

It was also obvious that upon listening to the audience’s questions and comments Cr. West was astounded at some of the stories and how planning matters are handled in our fair city.

We congratulate GERA for their efforts in this inaugural event and look forward to many more forums that focus on residents and their concerns.

 

March 15, 2012

Another Windsor Hotel Exercise?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[7] Comments 

Planning reform blocks appeals

Jason Dowling
March 15, 2012

A DRAMATIC overhaul to the state’s planning system will soon mean residents will not be notified of thousands of new development proposals or be able to object to them.

The government says the new planning system to be introduced in State Parliament by July will cut red tape, reduce waiting times and free up council resources for complex planning issues.

Under the changes – one of the biggest overhauls of the state’s planning laws in a decade – councils and communities will define what development is allowed in their area, including height and density, and then applications matching the definition will be fast-tracked through the planning system.
0pposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said the new system would reduce community consultation in planning decisions.

”Communities will be locked out and watch helplessly as historical buildings and tree-lined streets are attacked by [Planning Minister Matthew Guy’s] wrecking ball and replaced by high-rise skyscrapers,” he said.

The new planning system is expected to apply to more than one in five development applications and will require them to be processed within 10 working days with no notification or appeal rights for neighbours.

The system, called ”code assess”, will initially be used by local councils for processing low-level planning issues such as extensions and dual occupancy developments.

But the system is also intended for key development areas across Melbourne – Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Footscray, Frankston, and Ringwood – to process development applications that could include apartment towers of more than 20 storeys.

Mr Guy said the new system would add ”certainty and clarity” to planning.

He said guidelines for development set by councils and communities would be mandatory and developers would only be able to appeal a council’s decision if it was inconsistent with the area’s new planning code.

”It will determine what can be built and where,” he said.

Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, said the planning system needed improvement but warned, ”clear policy and objective criteria must be agreed with the community before removing public notice and third party appeal rights”.

”Until this happens, councils will remain concerned about including some single dwellings, extensions and multi-units in a fast-track process,” he said.

Mary Drost, from community group Planning Backlash, said councils and the community should set the rules for development in their areas and developers should not be able to appeal the decisions under the new accelerated planning process. ”If it’s out – it’s out,” she said.

Victoria’s building and development industry has long advocated for an accelerated planning application system. The Property Council’s Victorian executive director, Jennifer Cunich, said changes to planning laws would help economic growth.

Gil King, of the Housing Industry Association, said developments that met existing planning guidelines were chewing up council time and resources in a drawn-out approval process.

”This will actually make it clearer, if it meets the requirements it will be approved much more quickly, it will streamline the whole process.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/planning-reform-blocks-appeals-20120314-1v3li.html#ixzz1p87UvdML

 

March 15, 2012

GERA On Overdevelopment

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
1 Comment 

A reminder about tonight’s GERA Community Forum.

TIME: 7.30 (nibbles at 7)

VENUE: The Bentleigh Club, Yawla St., Bentleigh.

For full information see: http://geresidents.wordpress.com

PS: From today’s Age. Does C60 and 1400 units also qualify?

Health fear on  estates

Miki Perkins
March 15, 2012

NEW suburbs in Melbourne are so poorly designed that residents face an  epidemic of chronic diseases such as obesity and depression that will cost the  health system millions of dollars, a state government inquiry has been told.

Councils in  outer growth areas say soaring populations have outstripped  their ability to provide basic infrastructure such as public transport, parks  and medical services, and are creating ”obesogenic” environments that promote  weight gain.

The concerns have prompted a state government inquiry into the impacts of  urban design on health, and fuelled calls to make health a priority in planning  laws.  ”When it comes to urban planning, we are building suburbs that in 20  years will be ghettos of ill health,” said Margaret Beavis, a Melbourne doctor  who appeared before the inquiry.

Wyndham, in Melbourne’s outer west, is the fastest growing municipality in  Australia in percentage terms. Each week about 60 babies are born and the  council receives 120 new requests for a bin service.

Mayor Kim McAliney said research showed residents were  suffering from an  ”epidemic” of obesity and diabetes exacerbated by decades of car-focused  planning, which meant locals had limited or no public transport within walking  distance.

”We are beholden to the annual budget cycles of central governments to get  buses, trains and arterial roads,” said Ms McAliney. ”Being the fastest  growing area is not something we wear as a badge of honour.”

Other councils in areas of rapid growth – such as Whittlesea, which  expects  a 90 per cent increase in population in the next two decades – face similar  concerns.

A VicHealth submission said children living in  growth areas reported higher  hospital admissions for respiratory problems, which were likely to be from air  pollution from road traffic.

VicHealth also wants planning regulations to take account of the risks  associated with bottle shops, which are concentrated in poorer communities.

For every 10,000 litres of pure alcohol sold from a liquor shop, the risk of  violence on residential properties nearby increased by 26 per cent.

”We are designing communities that are making people sick and politicians  have to listen to that,” said opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee.

Melbourne University planning expert Carolyn Whitzman said Melbourne needed  to stick to its urban growth boundary and encourage mid-rise development  throughout, rather than ”sprawl”  on the fringes and high-rise in and around  the centre.

In 2010, the Brumby government extended Melbourne’s urban growth boundary by 43,600 hectares – increasing what was already one of the world’s most sprawling  urban areas,  stretching 100 kilometres from east to west.

Many experts told the panel that health needed to be made a key objective in  the state’s planning laws.   The Age contacted Planning Minister  Matthew Guy but did not receive a comment before deadline.

The committee is expected to release its report by June.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/health-fear-on-estates-20120314-1v3lw.html#ixzz1p7r0VxVr

 

March 14, 2012

Money, Mulch & Bloody Mindedness

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

VCAT LAW LIST FOR 15TH MARCH

Room 1.3 – Senior Member J. Smithers
11:00 AM G657/2011 Cr Frank Penhalluriack v Glen Eira CC

Tomorrow will feature Cr Penhalluriack’s FOI application to VCAT for documents related to the closure of the mulch facility in Glen Huntly Park. From previous articles in the Leader we understand that the basis of this FOI application is to gain access to some incredibly important materials related to the scientific consultant’s report – such as, the very first version of their report that went to Senior Officers, rather than councillors. Readers will remember that the final public document was not the first version of the report, but subsequent ones.

This entire saga has done nothing except cost ratepayers money and will continue to do so. We ask:

  • Why is this administration denying a councillor documents which are integral to councillors’ decision making
  • Why is council willing to spend mega-bucks on barristers/lawyers to fight this application?
  • Why is council running the risk of having all costs awarded against them?
  • By not producing these documents is there possibly a major cover up?
  • If released would such documents reveal ‘interference’ by administrators?
  • Is it mere coincidence that the Leader has just this week run another story on the mulch facility?
  • By not dismantling the mulch shed immediately following the 7 to 2 council resolution how much has the hire of steel fencing for nearly one year cost residents?

We conclude that this issue is far broader than a mere mulch heap. It again goes to the heart of good governance. Councillors are elected to make decisions based on the information provided to them. If this information is skewed, incomplete, ‘doctored’, or simply withheld, then the decisions must inevitably also be flawed. Administrators should be nothing more than a conduit for such information. We also maintain that councillors have every right to ask for documents that pertain to issues that they are required to decide upon. It is extraordinary that an elected councillor has to go through an FOI process in an attempt to secure the complete information. The refusal by administrators to accede to this request, and to fight it at ratepayers’ expense is simply beyond belief. If there’s absolutely nothing to hide then why take up the cudgels as this administration has so obviously done? In the public interest it is essential that all versions of this report, as well as other documents, are available for close scrutiny.

 

March 13, 2012

Customer Service Or Merely Plugging The Holes?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

Another email from our disgruntled Rowan St. resident –

“Good afternoon Jamie- I’ve just received in the mail  a Notice from GE Council that Road Works (road profiling & new asphalt) will be undertaken in Rowan Street Elsternwick (but just between Shoobra & Orrong Rods)- interestingly not in Rowan Street over Orrong Rd.

I would like to know how much this will cost ratepayers. Also I would like to know how much the ‘Keep Left Roundabout sign’ cost to erect? If you recall I  reported the incident where the sign was totally flattened by a speeding driver (because there are no speed limit signs or any other deterrent for drivers to stop them driving at speeds they wish!).
The fact Council is doing the road works is astounding me – where is the rationale for this action, and how will this action improve road safety for local residents, other pedestrians & pets?
In fact this situation presents a great opportunity for Council to actually put in (at the same time some key safety measures in this stretch of Rowan Street, for example, expanding the boundary of the roundabout to ensure drivers slow down at that point, or erecting one speed hump at the downward slope in the street towards Orriong Rd, or erecting speed limit sign & CHEAPER for ratepayers as you are already doing works here!). Any one of these measures would have demonstrated a Council that is strategic, thinks broadly & spends ratepayers $s cost effectively, instead of adhoc, piecemeal & with disregard for spending ratepayers $s wisely, as this action actually shows.
In fact it probably would have been cheaper by now for Council to have erected one speed hump than have to replace the above mentioned sign.
What is needed is measures that slow down traffic in local streets, not improving the surface so that cars can travel as fast as they wish.
I look forward to your reply to the questions I posed above, at the earliest opportunity.
I note I have not received any response from you to my other 2 emails.  Please advise when I can expect to receive your response to these?
Thanks,
 

March 13, 2012

Some Planning Stats

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments 

Below are a couple of pages extracted from the DPCD report on building/planning activity in all municipal localities. They make for some very interesting reading – particularly in the number of applications for 2 to 10 lot residences. We are not entirely convinced however as to the accuracy of some of the figures – ie. the number cited for vegetation removal and car parking waivers. Readers need to click on the image in order to get a clearer view or refer directly to the SECOND HALF of the report which is uploaded HERE

 

March 12, 2012

Same Horse, Different Jockey!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[3] Comments 

Since becoming Mayor, Jamie Hyams has not exactly covered himself with glory in his chairing of meetings. This is most surprising given his legal background and obvious penchant for a little pedantry.  With these credentials, one could be forgiven for hoping that the general running of such meetings would have proven to be far more in line with good governance. However, old habits and ties obviously die hard as evidenced at the last council meeting.

Hyams did not disallow what we strongly suspect were several requests for reports that did not adhere to the ‘no surprises’ policy of Council. In other words, there was no requisite written notice.

He declared a matter as Urgent business without putting it to the vote in the first place, and secondly, the ‘urgent business’ referred to was the VCAT decision regarding the Penhalluriack Code of Conduct matter which occurred weeks earlier and hence could not have been deemed as urgent business according to council’s local law – ie. the event/circumstance/situation did not eventuate between the printing of the agenda and the night of the council meeting.

It thus looks like residents are in for more of the same – sham governance; sham accountability, and no transparency. For the winner of a ‘two-up’ competition (versus being ‘elected’), this is not an auspicious start to his mayoralty!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »