February 24, 2012

Agenda: More Smoke & Mirrors

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

For all those residents who want a clear understanding of how the Glen Eira bureaucracy works to obfuscate issues, hide the truth, contain (deliberate?) inaccuracies, and befuddle councillors with nonsense, then the agenda items for the upcoming council meeting are the perfect example. We’ll go through these one by one.

FLOODS, DRAINS AND ‘IMPERVIOUS SURFACES’

The Environmental Advisory Committee has been contemplating the need to do something about the amount of ‘impervious surfaces’ allowed on new developments.  Four months later, there is finally a ‘report’ written by Jeff Akehurst. True to form (ie. ESD design) the general gist of the argument goes– ‘let’s advocate to state government because we really don’t want each municipality to have its own set of rules and regulations, and of course Glen Eira Council has already got in place its own ‘existing tools’ to deal with this problem.” The only concession is that the Council will ‘advocate’ to government to allow them to reduce the current 80% limit – but only in MINIMAL CHANGE AREAS!! Tough luck if you happen to live in the majority of HOUSING DIVERSITY! Here are some wonderful quotes from this “report”.

“It is acknowledged that impervious surfaces and water run-off are important issues but it is considered preferable that they are managed in a more broad and uniform way rather than differently by each municipality. It follows that State initiated controls are favoured.”

“…as an interim measure only, an “Impervious Surface and Storm Water Practice Note” could be developed.”

“If policy is regarded as too onerous by the development industry, it will be challenged and most likely successfully challenged through the VCAT process.”

“A further policy limitation is the time it takes to amend the planning scheme to incorporate new policy. It could take years and ultimately there is a risk it may never be approved by the Minister.”

“Any policy, procedure or practice note to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces or retain water on site is not a long term substitute to upgrading the drainage system.”

Overall solutions recommended – an ‘information kit’; advocate for only Minimal Change Areas.

GESAC: POOLS STEERING COMMITTEE (9th February)

Most of this contains the Lipshutz ‘statement’ that’s on the GESAC webpage. However, under the heading of ‘cash flow’ we find: “The actual forecast reflects that the project is behind schedule and that council has levied significant Liquidated Damages due to delays”. Yet, we are still told that the project is ‘under budget’! Exactly what this means is anybody’s guess considering that expenses keep rolling in and that income is non-existent! Surely the more honest approach would not be to claim that the implied entire project is under budget, but just that the building contract may be – that’s if Hansen and Yuncken decide not to challenge the Liquidated Damages! Finally, there is a little note stating that Liipshutz actually ‘requests’ that councillors be briefed ‘at the next opportunity’!!!!

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY (6th and 13th December – so much for January and half of Feb!)

These ‘records’ are nothing short of astounding. First off, we make the observation that there is incredible inconsistency in the declarations of conflict of interest by various individuals. Repeatedly councillors and administrators leave the room for a minute or two with no clear indication as to whether there has been a conflict of interest declared or whether this is simply another case of weak bladders!

One such instance is that Andrew Newton has left the room when the Grill’d item is discussed. We wonder: did he declare a conflict of interest? Is that why he has left the room? Is that why this item was deemed ‘confidential” when every other lease agreement is reported openly? If this was a declaration of conflict of interest, then why isn’t it recorded as such in the records of assembly?

Another important item reads: “Cr Penhalluriack – said that a Councillor Conduct Panel hearing was being held at the Town Hall tomorrow. He advised that his solicitor has written a letter”. This is an extraordinary inclusion since the decision to send Penhalluriack to a Panel was obviously taken ‘in camera’. Previously we’ve had numerous excuses as to why in camera items cannot be disclosed. Yet, here we have a seeming lapse in ‘confidentiality’ from those responsible in the creation of the document. Again, we have to ponder the consistency, rationale, and agenda of all such publications.

Also worthy of note is the number of ‘amendments’ to these records suggested by Hyams.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS REPORT

‘Clerical errors’ are becoming a way of life with this council. This is now the second time that there is an inaccuracy in reporting on public questions. We are told that 19 questions were asked from October to December and that only 1 was declared inadmissible. Again, totally wrong. Our records show that at least two public questions were declared inadmissible during this period due to ‘harassment’. Further, two questions were taken on notice at the December 13th council meeting, but only one has been recorded in the February minutes. Again, the other clerical error contained in this ‘response’ is that the questioners’ NAME AND ADDRESS are included in these public minutes. This breaches the Information Privacy Act!

There is plenty more in this agenda that we will report on in the coming days.

 

February 23, 2012

Transparency, Accountability & Who Do Councillors Really Represent?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning
[18] Comments 

We’ve received the following email from a resident –

“Hello

The planning conference last evening regarding the development on Mavho Street was a joke! We had a great turnout of objectors from Mavho and surrounds. We were disappointed with the way the proceedings were moderated by the Councillor in chair Michael Lipshutz. There were other Councillors present in the room – Mayor and CrLobo. At the end of the session, the objectors left feeling rather dejected about the attitude of the moderator and the inability to have a more open session of Q & A.

We were instructed to discuss the issue just once and if more than one person wanted to reiterate a point about traffic, parking or bulk or privacy, it would not be permitted as it been heard and noted. ( Does the Council ever hear orlisten to anything?)

An important point raised was about what the council saw as medium density and the answer was that they had no idea what the definition of medium density was! Even the planning person could not clarify that one! The response was that this Urban Village Policy was formulated in 2000, way before their time and the community was consulted. We have requested to see the process under FOI. In my opinion, if there is no definition to a important part of a policy  -medium density housing within the urban village – there can be no informed voting.

There was one representation from Urbis development. The lady mentioned the site was selected as it was within the urban village scheme and had no heritage listing.Their proposal was in line with the neighbourhood character, which she explained was a mix of everything! We were not allowed to ask her any questions at all! I thought the purpose of this meeting was to have an open discussion about ourconcerns and be able to ask the developer questions. There could be only 2 reasons for this. One, the councillor wanted to get home, two, he was protecting the representative from the objectors. The whole process did not seem particularly transparent.

A resident raised whether there had been an pre application planning meeting with developer and if so, the application of such a nature should have been thrown out of the door to save everyone’s time. The planning rep would not comment whether a pre app session did take place. Clearly this developer, Urbis and builder, Vujic, have a good understanding of the Councils modus operandi!

We’ll continue to lobby the councillors and work on a strategy to get more people involved in the fight against raising monstrosities in residential areas”.

 

February 23, 2012

More Sell-Offs?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

The Monash vision to redevelop the Caulfield Campus is now firmly set with the confirmation of its Master Plan. What is less well known is Monash’s vision for its sporting facilities – and in particular its plans that include the Caulfield East Reserve.

We believe that in recent times Monash people have had discussions with Council which included issues surrounding the redevelopment and use of the Caulfield East Reserve – owned by Council and leased to Monash.

Given the fact that Glen Eira is now facing a “cash crisis”, has been classified as “high risk” and GESAC is probably losing money hand over fist due to its failure to open in the summer season, residents have every right to be apprehensive about this valuable piece of real estate. Our fear is that under these circumstances, the Newton vision will be further sell offs and more public land lost to residents. What makes us even more suspicious is this sentence from the draft Monash sport plans – “Develop relationship with Glen Eira City Council and enhance facilities and management control at East Caulfield Reserve”. (Uploaded)

Watch this space we say!

PS: In order to illustrate the basis of our above comments we’ve uploaded the draft ‘Sports Vision’. Readers should pay careful attention to the highlighted sections and as always with such documents, possibly read between the lines!

 

February 21, 2012

The Myth Of Minimal Change

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning
[7] Comments 

So, you think you’re safe because you’re one of the lucky minority that happen to live in the designated ‘Minimal Change Areas’ listed in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. Yes, you think that because you’re in the 20% of supposedly ‘protected’ neighbourhoods, your property, your lifestyle, your privacy, and your capital asset is safe from encroachment by (greedy) developers. Think again! Under the policies of this Council and the inconsistency in decision making, no-one is safe. Minimal Change Areas are not immune to rampant over-development. This is why. According to the Planning Scheme:

  • Single dwellings can suddenly metamorphasise into double houses/units. If the second unit is built at the back, then recent examples have them as double storeys – even though the planning scheme ‘recommends’ back units as being limited to only single storey
  • If the block is large then you’re in real trouble. Multiple storeys and multiple units are a real possibility because council states that it is not against high density in large lots – ie. “The proposal meets the tests of the Minimal Change Area Policy allowing consideration of a more intensive form of development. The Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone does not apply in this instance because Res Code does not apply to four storey proposals”. (Minutes – 3rd February 2009 – rest of quotes are from these minutes). We’re really in Catch 22 territory now!
  • Bad luck if you happen to sit right alongside a Housing Diversity area, or if council has already approved some 2 or 3 storeys down the road. Then you’re facing this predicament – “The prevailing development on abutting properties is characterised by multidwelling development of up to 3 storeys (in the form of developments constructed, and approved but yet to be constructed)”.
  • And don’t try to object by screaming about lack of open space and overshadowing because Council’s view is: “It is considered that the private open spaces are sufficient in the form of balconies. All dwellings are provided with balconies with adequate access to sunlight and daylight and provide an appropriate level of internal amenity for future occupiers”.
  • Finally, none of these ‘standards’ are set in concrete and applied consistently. Developers are merely ‘encouraged’ to do what’s right and permits are granted when only a couple of the requisite boxes are ticked off and others remain outstanding.

By way of example, we’ve gone through some of the minutes from 2008 until now and selected a few of the decisions on developments in Minimal Change Areas or those areas adjoining Minimal Change. Please note, these are only the ones that actually arrive for Council decision – we simply do not know how many others are rubber stamped by the officers under their delegated authority.  We’ve prepared a table which we hope is self explanatory

ADDRESS

 DETAILS OF   APPLICATION OFFICER   RECOMMENDATION

COUNCILLORS’   DECISION
7-13 Dudley   St., Caulfield East A four storey building comprising 112 dwellings with two levels of basement car parking, and a reduction of the standard car parking requirement Permit – (three storey   building/up to75 dwellings)

Permit –   unanimous
846-848 Centre Rd, Bentleigh Construction of a two (2) storey building comprising fourteen (14) dwellings with basement carpark permit – allowing the construction of a two (2) storey building   comprising up to ten (10) dwellings

Permit –   carried
264-266 Grange Road, Carnegie Construction of four (4) double storey and two (2) single storey dwellings and alteration of vehicle access to a main road Permit – for the   construction offour (4) double storey and two (2) single storey   dwellings

Permit –   unanimous
29 Holloway street, Ormond A two storey building comprising 14 dwellings and basement carpark Permit – the construction   of a two storey building for up to 10 dwellings

Permit – on   casting vote of chairperson
332 Alma road, Caulfield Nth Construction of 10 dwellings Permit

Permit –   carried
19 Parker St., Ormond Construction of four dwellings (two double-storey dwellings at the   front of the site and two single storey dwellings at the rear) Permit – allowing the   construction of four dwellings (one double-storey dwellings at the front of   the site and three single-storey dwellings at the rear)-

Permit –   carried
56 Morgan St., Carnegie -Construction of two (2) double storey attached dwellings on land affected by a Special Building Overlay Permit

Permit –   carried
12 the Highway Bentleigh Addition (carport) to the existing dwelling and the construction of a double storey dwelling to the rear Permit

Permit –   unanimous
31-39 Anthony St., Ormond Subdivide the land into six (6) lots – Heritage Overlay Permit

Permit –   unanimous
 

February 20, 2012

Connecting The Dots

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[34] Comments 

The current ‘Community Plan Forums’ have consistently highlighted serious resident dissatisfaction with Council’s overall planning, traffic management and consultation practices. ‘Listening’ to the community is only part of Council’s task. Their job now is to implement radical change and to connect the dots between all three major issues.

It is a fallacy to see the above and other ‘problems’ such as flooding, parking, and ‘neighbourhood character’ as separate components or entirely State, Federal or Utility responsibility. There is much council can do via its planning scheme. All these problems are connected and solutions need to recognise this and provide answers that are not piece meal, ad hoc, and ineffectual. Amendments (such as C87) remain limited in scope and vision and in no way provide a remedy for the ills which currently beset the entire municipality. Yet, this has been council’s approach for the past decade – a little reactive and superficial tinkering here and there instead of a complete overhaul of its current housing strategy and activity centres policy.

Nowhere is this made more obvious that in the failed C49 Amendment where an independent Panel rejected Council’s meagre attempts at ‘control’ of the environment because the amendment lacked ‘strategic justification’. In other words, no grand integrated vision, and the lack of necessary homework. This is still true today. Many of the current policies that form the basis of the current Planning Scheme are not only outdated, but archaic. Housing dates back to 1996; open space to the same era; activity centres to 1999. This is not the way to plan for a community. Nor is the Glen Eira approach of continually tinkering with the edges such as the so called ‘transition zone’ amendment of last year that laughably is not a ‘zone’ at all. Now we have the C87 – again, an amendment that basically attempts to look after only 1000 or so properties.

We have in the past compared Glen Eira’s track record in planning with other councils – especially in relation to structure plans, height limits, parking precinct plans, public realm, etc. Glen Eira has none of these! Worse, residents have never been provided with any sound justification for the failure to include any of the above in the Planning Scheme.

We are not arguing that structure plans are a universal panacea that will solve all problems of overdevelopment. What we are arguing is that by refusing to go down this path, this administration and its councillors are not fulfilling their mandate to represent constituents and to ensure that development is planned, cohesive and embraces the principles of social, environmental and economic benefit to the community. We have to again ask why each of the following councils sees fit to have structure plans and either interim or permanent height controls, and why Glen Eira is again, and again, the odd man out? The list of these councils, and we’re sure there are plenty more, includes:

  • Bayside
  • Boroondara
  • Casey
  • Darebin
  • Frankston
  • Geelong
  • Hobson’s Bay
  • Hume
  • Kingston
  • Manningham
  • Moonee Valley
  • Port Phillip
  • Stonnington
  • Yarra City

Residents should start asking their councillors why this is so and demanding full and comprehensive answers.

 

February 18, 2012

GESAC: Dec., Jan., Feb., March, April, May….?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 
GESAC — an update from the Pools Steering Committee Chairman  
Dear fellow resident,
Following the industry shut down, construction at GESAC resumed on 16 January 2012. Council has taken every possible step to ensure that the construction is completed in a timely manner but, regrettably, construction is still under way in sections of the site, particularly the pool hall which lies in the centre of GESAC. As GESAC continues to be a construction site with significant plant and equipment in operation, it is not practicable to have public use and construction going on in the one facility. Council is disappointed at the construction delay.
Council expects to be granted partial access to some parts of the building this month in order to commission the plant and install equipment. That includes the multi-purpose courts, crèche, café, change rooms and parts of the gym. That will save some time in moving from the end of construction to the opening to the public.
GESAC will open as soon as possible but that is unlikely to be before the end of schools’ Term One (30 March).
Yours faithfully,
Cr Michael Lipshutz Chairman Pools Steering Committee

 

PS: This announcement was NOT ON COUNCIL’S HOME PAGE. It was ‘buried’ on the GESAC Facebook page!
 

February 18, 2012

Higher & Higher

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments 

Towers all the go

BY THE end of this decade, Dandenong Road, which runs through several sleepy  south-eastern suburbs, could be home to an abundance of  apartment towers.

Carnegie is the next suburb earmarked for a  project, with developers lodging  plans to build 173 flats within two apartment towers, the tallest rising 11  levels.

On the site of a rundown office at 1060 Dandenong Road, between Grange and  Koornang roads, the  development  would  include a commercial podium at the  lower level, facing the road. The apartment buildings will fill up  the  4152-square-metre block,  which backs on to the  train line between Caulfield  and Carnegie stations.

In the introduction of the application, lodged with the Glen Eira council two  months ago, the developer cites the Melbourne 2030 planning policy and  the Melbourne @ 5 Million amendment, which were annulled  by the  Baillieu government in 2011.

The design, it says, responds to the dense mixed-use nature of Carnegie.

Elsewhere in the area, a $500 million development including an office  building, and hotel, both rising about 12 levels, is  proposed for part of the   Chadstone Shopping Centre, in Dandenong Road.

Closer to town, plans are also advanced to develop apartment towers on the  Caulfield Racetrack, near the Caulfield station.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/daly-street-site-we-can-take-you-higher-20120217-1tejl.html#ixzz1mgPiOWkq

PS: There’s an informative new post up on GERA’s website analysing the history of council’s approach to neighbourhood protection, height limits, etc. See: http://geresidents.wordpress.com/

 

February 17, 2012

Penhalluriack & VCAT Directions Hearing

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

The hearing apparently went for just under half an hour this morning. Both Council and Penhalluriack were represented by lawyers. The sequence of events went something like this:

  • Member asked each lawyer how long they anticipated the full hearing would go. Council’s lawyer said 3 days; Penhalluriack’s 5 to 7 days.
  • Council’s lawyer asked (with agreement from Penhalluriack’s lawyer) that the names of Donna Graham and Margaret Esakoff be removed and that Glen Eira City Council be substituted. Penhalluriack is the respondent.
  • Penhalluriack’s lawyer then raised some points about how nebulous and vague the 128 page document of allegations presented by Council were. For example: alleged failure to declare a conflict of interest but no precise reference to what the conflict may have been, nor the date, time, etc. Another allegation was ‘interactions’ with Mr. Newton and again no specifics. It was claimed that basically, the allegations lacked detail and substance and therefore council needed to specify their case far more clearly.
  • The member ordered that council produce a summary of the allegations that would be far more specific. He also ordered a compulsory conference and stated that there are two possible outcomes – either, the parties agree to some resolution, or if this fails, then the full VCAT hearing to proceed. Council was ordered to have the summary completed by early March and the conference to occur soon after.
  • Apparently Penhalluriack has also lodged an FOI application which council are opposing him on. This matter is to be heard before the compulsory conference. More residents’ funds going to lawyers!
  • Costs were reserved

COMMENT

Judging by all of the above it seems as if ratepayers are in for a very expensive ride. If QCs are employed for a week then we are really talking major expenditure – and this does not take into account briefing barristers or solicitors, much less the funding that has already gone into this exercise!

It’s also quite laughable that after so much ‘legal advice’, council still cannot get its act into gear and has to be ordered to produce a summary of 128 pages of vague, non-specific, allegations. We simply are left to ponder exactly how much this obviously sub standard tome has cost ratepayers!

 

February 16, 2012

News Flash: Glen Eira v Penhalluriack

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

The VCAT Daily Law List for tomorrow contains the following item under ‘Directions Hearing’ –

“9:30 AM G8/2012 Councillor Conduct Panel – Glen Eira CC Donna Graham, Councillor Conduct Panel – Glen Eira CC Margaret Esakoff v Mr Frank Penhalluriak”

This is really a startling development and adds another tawdry and expensive item to the saga of poor governance in Glen Eira. We surmise the following:

  • Council, or individual councillors, have sent Penhalluriack to a Councillor Conduct Panel. Since Glen Eira CC is noted and Esakoff was the Mayor last year, we conclude this is a formal Council decision taken some time back and again in secret. This may explain the countless in camera items over the past few months that referred to ‘legal advice’. Start counting the cost!
  • If this has ended up at VCAT, then one of two things must have happened. Either the Panel directed that the matters be heard at VCAT, but only after they’ve found a case of misconduct – which is unlikely since under legislation council has 28 days to publish the findings – OR Penhalluriack himself (as the respondent) has asked for the issue to go to VCAT. This is within his rights.
  • Since no findings have been included in council minutes, we conclude that Penhalluriack has decided to ask for a full VCAT hearing. 

The consequences of this are enormous. According to the MAV, a panel hearing would be a minimum of $1500 just for the sitting members. This does not include lawyers’ work prior to this. The legal fees for one lawyer at the Heritage Panel review which lasted a few hours was $9,000. We cringe at how much this may have cost. Next, there’s the fees for lawyers at VCAT – and if this goes for 2 or 3 days, then we’re literally talking tens and tens of thousands of dollars. If Penhalluriack chooses to employ a QC, then Council pays for his legal bills as well. All in all, ratepayers could be looking at something in the vicinity of well over $100,000 – and for what? 

As to the actual charges, then again, we have to conclude that they involve things like Newton’s allegations of ‘bullying’ and since Penhalluriack was excluded from the CEO Special Committee, which had as part of its schedule the extraordinary clause of Occupational & Health matters, then let’s throw in potential conflict of interest claims as well. We’re sure there are countless other charges.  

The fact that ratepayers’ money is being expended on, what in our view, is an attempt to silence an outspoken councillor, then this signals the death of free speech in Glen Eira. It also signals the death of councillors daring to question administrators and seeking quantified justifications for their recommendations. If councillors voted for this action, then they are culpable in the wastage of resident funds and in foresaking their commitment to transparency, accountability and good governance.

 

 

February 15, 2012

What A Difference!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
[9] Comments 

Stonnington Council has the following on its website (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/whats-new-detail/?ID=30). We wish to highlight how this council has approached a major development in stark contrast to Glen Eira. Readers should note:

  • The impact on social amenity is emphasised
  • The existence of interim height regulations and now Council’s application for permanent controls
  • The joint effort with local community groups and the community at large

Glen Eira’s effort in the C60 debacle should be kept firmly in mind – especially the claim that Glen Eira actually set ‘limits’ to the development by its acceptance of 20 storeys.

590 Orrong Road

Planning Application

Stonnington Council refused a planning application by Lend Lease for a major development at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale at a special meeting of Council on 30 January 2012, with over 200 people attending.

The planning application was for a development of 475 units, up to a height of 13 storeys.

Mayor, Councillor John Chandler said: “Council refused the planning application as it represents a significant overdevelopment of the site. There were a number of reasons for this including excessive height and bulk in an area that has much lower density, impact on the community and neighbourhood character, lack of quality open space, overshadowing, plus traffic and access issues. Council received over 600 objections for the development.

“The 2.5 hectare site at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, located adjacent to Toorak Station and Toorak Park, is one of the most important redevelopment sites in Stonnington and it is important that the right balance is achieved to ensure an appropriate outcome for the site.”

Cr Chandler said Stonnington Council had initially refused to exhibit a planning scheme amendment for a major development from Lend Lease in December 2010, including a proposal for 480 dwellings with building heights up to 16 storeys at the subject site.

He said: “Over the past 18 months, Council has undertaken extensive consultation and received feedback from all stakeholders on this important strategic site.

“Stonnington recently sought interim planning controls, which, if approved by the Minister for Planning, would take effect immediately.  Council has also submitted a request to the Minister for Planning to exhibit an amendment to introduce permanent controls for the site. This would mean that any developer and VCAT would be obliged to take the controls into account with regard to development proposals. We’re eagerly awaiting the Minister for Planning’s approval to exhibit the Amendment.”

To view information on the planning application for 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale click here

Adopted Urban Design Framework – Planning Scheme Amendment

As quoted above, Council has submitted a request to the Planning Minister to apply permanent controls for the site through a planning scheme amendment which would go out for further consultation.  The permanent controls propose to restrict the height to 17 metres and a site yield of 250 units.

Council adopted the revised Urban Design Framework at Council on 21 November 2011 following community feedback.  For further information on the Urban Design Framework  and planning scheme amendment visit  www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/590orrongroad

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »