February 6, 2012

Funny Business Is Getting Funnier!

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

We’ve just had an email from an alert reader informing us that the Grill’d restaurant (where public seating was removed and replaced with private (commercial) tables and chairs) now has a LIQUOR permit application sticker on its window. Even more strange is the fact that the table and chairs which had begun in Koornang Rd and then spilled over into Jersey Parade have recently disappeared from the latter location.

The plot gets murkier day by day. First the disappearance of public seating to be replaced by the restaurant’s private table and chairs; next an in camera decision on the lease of land; no announcement of result and now, this perhaps final piece in the jigsaw. A liquor licence application for public open space right next to a library where kids, mothers etc. frequent.

We simply ask: what funny buggers have and still are going on? Why the secrecy? Why a land lease in the first place instead of a normal permit application for tables and chairs? Why no announcement and why at this point in time (after the awarding we presume of the ‘land’) there is now a liquor application? Does this mean that liquor will be consumed out in the open at those private tables and chairs? Should there be any concerns about the chronology of these events? How much did councillors know about anything? All questions that require answers councillors!

 

February 5, 2012

Consultation Via ‘Consultants’: The Biggest Con?

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

Consultants are generally hired on the recommendation of administrators. The public never gets to know how much these high priced ‘consultants’ cost and we doubt that councillors even know. We have also long suspected that in Glen Eira such consultancies simply deliver pre-arranged and pre-determined findings or outcomes. In other words, they are nothing but a huge and expensive public relations exercise that gives the pretence of actually listening to the community – but the outcomes are already fixed and set in yellow concrete. It’s the old story of ‘he who pays the piper plays the tune’ and more importantly, he who writes the brief and gives instructions, controls the so called ‘findings’ and outcomes.

Nothing illustrates this more than the processes involved in the current C87 proposed Amendment. Please note the following:

  • Both Bayside (in 2008) and Glen Eira used PLANISPHERE to conduct the research on Significant Character Overlays
  • Both Bayside and Glen Eira used PLANISPHERE to conduct the review of the original Neighbourhood Character Research

What we present below is a table comparing the comments by PLANISPHERE from the Bayside study (uploaded here) as opposed to the Glen Eira study.  The differences in tone, content, methodology, level of community engagement and depth of analysis is mind boggling. As we stated earlier – you get what you pay for and what the carefully scripted brief (plus private conversations?) tell PLANISPHERE to ‘research’. We conclude that the C87 report is nothing more than an administration directed document that totally fails to incorporate community views and values as mandated by the legislation.

BAYSIDE PLANISPHERE REPORT

GLEN EIRA PLANISPHERE REPORT
“Since the   completion of the Stage 1 Review, other streets were identified for   investigation by Council and   community groups, and these have been included in the study” (p.4)

 

“The Study   area included areas that were identified in Stage 1 of the Review by   Planisphere as well as those additional areas or streets that were   subsequently identified by Councillors,   planning staff or the community”.   (p.6)

 “These   were new areas of significant neighbourhood character or extensions to   previous areas and were either recommended   by Council officersor recognised by the study team…..” (p.23)

 

COMMENT:   Even councillors don’t get a look in in Glen Eira!

 
“At Council’s request consultation   with property owners and residents was conducted as the next stage of the   project. This included an information   package with feedback forms sent to all owners and occupiers and ‘open-house’   drop in information sessions.

Over 1,000 submissions were received   via feedback forms and individually drafted responses. The consultation provided vital input into the study in regard to the   values placed by the local community on these areas and their response to the   recommended planning controls. The submissions have been analysed in   detail and recommendations for each area in view of the additional   information received have been finalised. This has involved additional site work and in some instances   adjustments to precinct boundaries have been made”. (p. 4)

 

 “A   preliminary survey and assessment was also undertaken of the 15 SCAs listed   in the Minimal Change Area Policy of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme (Clause   22.08) as well as potential areas of significant neighbourhood character recommended by Council”. (p. 5)

 

“Community   awareness of the importance of
neighbourhood character issues is an essential aspect of implementation.   This applies to a range of different groups in the community where a range of   approaches to communication are required. This includes:

  •   Education   of real estate agents and developers
  •   Working with residents’ groups and landowners   generally
  •   Education of design and building professionals

The final   report and Design Guidelines will form a large part of this communication. Additional techniques that could be   used include:

  •   Awards or encouragement schemes for ‘good   character’ developments
  •   Workshops with residents’ groups, Council   staff, developers, or design professionals
  •   Public displays
  •   Media articles/events”. (p.61)
“Exclude   Lawrence Street which has been recommended   for Heritage Overlay controls”. (p. 19)“Neighbourhood   Character Overlay to apply to the south western side of Loller St, and a   Heritage Overlay to apply to Lawrence Street”. (p. 19) “Whilst   this report identifies potential heritage significance it does not go so far as to make recommendations on future Council   actions in relation to heritage matters”.(p.13) 
“Consultation with the community has   provided an indication of the types of development pressures taking place in   each area, and the community views of this”. (p.30) “An understanding of the pressure for   development in each area has also been gained from discussions with Council’s   planning staff”. (p.37) AND“Field   trips around Glen Eira’s residential neighbourhoods revealed to the study team a range of scenarios where inappropriate design responses were felt to impact adversely upon neighbourhood character”. (p.27)

Nothing about the C87 Amendment has been transparent and accountable. It has been designed, and orchestrated ‘internally’. No officer’s report has been tabled at a council meeting recommending sending off to the Minister for permission to exhibit – as is the case with practically all proposed Amendments. Instead, the ‘legal’ excuse undoubtedly used here, harks back to Council’s resolution of 2010 which included as an Addendum to the sham of the Planning Scheme Review, the C87 proposed amendment. But even this resolution contained the words “with the approval of council”! Hence, a vague rider to a resolution taken 18 months ago is now the legal ‘excuse’ for no report, no consultation, and no explanation. Another minor little hiccup in legalities, if not democratic process, is the fact that council announced the exhibition of C87 on January 31st. It was not gazetted until February 2nd! Obviously the legal requirement of one month’s notice to the public occasioned this oversight. We must therefore conclude that there is an almighty rush to push this Amendment through! Why the hurry we ask? After 18 months surely a proper discussion paper, outlining the objectives and the rationale, together with the pitfalls, could have been produced and distributed to all those interested?

The community should be outraged at the money that is spent on such spurious ‘consultations’. Either we employ consultants who are given free reign to explore an issue fully and comprehensively or councillors should put a stop to such flagrant misuse of public funds. It’s definitely time that councillors took control and demanded answers to the following basic questions:

  • How much has each external consultancy cost ratepayers?
  • What was the precise brief given to each of these consultants? What private conversations ensued? Where are these documented as part of the public record?
  • Were draft reports ever ‘ordered’ to be altered? If so, did councillors know of these ‘alterations’?
  • Were councillors privy to the briefs? If not, why not?
  • How do councillors justify the spending of this money without any genuine involvement from the community?

We will in the weeks ahead, also be commenting on the other current consultant’s report on the Community Plan – which as council freely admits is really the Council Plan! At least this latter nomenclature is spot on!

 

February 4, 2012

Glen Eira Residents’ Association, Inc.

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[29] Comments 

We’ve received an email from the Glen Eira Residents’ Association, Inc., announcing their new revamped and reinvigorated website. A cursory look tells us that the issues that feature are those that are clearly causing the most angst amongst residents – traffic, lack of adequate planning and overdevelopment, and consultation methods and processes.

We extend our best wishes to this new community website and urge all concerned Glen Eira residents to take out membership given that this is the only incorporated group dedicated to dealing with broad local issues. The website is now located at:

http://geresidents.wordpress.com/

EMAIL: geresidents@hotmail.com

 

February 3, 2012

Agenda Items: More Secrecy & Sham

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

A new year has begun, but nothing seems to have changed in terms of accountability and transparency when it comes to Glen Eira City Council. We note the TOTAL SILENCE on the following crucial issues:

  • No Pools Steering Committee report on GESAC. Given the absolute schemozzle, public outcries, and the fact that we are now into February, residents have every right to expect an up-to-date report on the progress of the pool. And by some miracle, an announcement of opening date.
  • No Audit Committee Annual Report! Regardless of whether this has been presented in secret at an assembly meeting, it should still be published and disclosed to residents.
  • No Records of Assembly. The last published record dates back to 22nd November. That means that all of December and January meetings remain undisclosed. We cannot believe that it takes two months to prepare a set of skeletal and non-informative records!

Other major lowlights are:

  • The ceding of public land via a section 173 agreement. In return, Council will gain a public toilet – but will still have to pay for maintenance, water and electricity. In the meantime, the developer gains 4 storey multi-units.
  • More secret ‘legal advice’ – this time about VCAT

What really caught our eye was the proposed development in Balaclava Rd – 4 storey, offices, retail and 14 units. It seems that the original application for 2 units lapsed and this is now a second bite at the cherry – with the increased residential component. We’ve had a good laugh at the following statements from the Officer’s Report (Ms Snell) and urge readers to carefully note the double speak of the following:

“There will be no excessive overshadowing impacts on residential properties due to the orientation of the site.”

“A relatively high level of natural light will be provided to each dwelling through the use of suitably located windows. In addition all bedrooms have direct access to natural light and allow for adequate natural ventilation with the exception of four dwellings.”

”It is also recommended that the disabled car space be converted to a visitor car space”. (Please note: the recommendation is that 22 onsite car parking spots are sufficient for 14 units, offices and retail shops).

‘No on-site loading facilities are proposed. This is considered to be appropriate given service vehicles can use Stanley Parade”.

Once again this Council fails to adhere to its own planning scheme and regulations.

 

February 2, 2012

A Resident’s Point Of View

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

Paul Burke is dissembling once again. The consultation held prior to the adoption of the detestable Urban Villages policy did not support the vision that Council chose to adopt. At *no stage* did the community authorize Council to waive compliance with ResCode. The community has never accepted that developer profit is sufficient reason to waive compliance. Council refuses to invest in the infrastructure necessary to support quality high-density living. People who read the policy will be aware that there are obligations on Council around not exacerabiting existing traffic congestion problems.

Council has never explained who or what a “pedestrian driver” is, or why some developers have been allowed to build without a Planning Permit. Even the recent pathetic response from Paul Burke about the loss of trees at Council reminds us that car parking for council officers is more important. This is despite them being located on 2 different modes of public transport. The hasty vote to expand the carpark at GESAC rather than provide adequate public transport reinforces the message that they simply don’t believe in their policy. The lack of Structure Plans for areas targetted for the highest densities is extraordinary considering the benefits DPCD claims for them.

We have crumbling infrastructure that Council can’t maintain. Developers don’t pay for the infrastructure needed to support their profits–we the community are expected to subsidize them. So what does Council do? It votes to remove Development Contributions Overlays. (If you can believe Council, $150K was inadequate, and it cost them more than that to collect.)

Even the way C87 has been handled shows contempt for us. Council has published an “Explanatory Report” which is supposed to answer why the amendment is necessary and what the benefits are. It claims its needed because a Planisphere report recommended it. The Planisphere outlines what Council told it to do, and it has done as Council has asked (and paid them to do). Note also that Planisphere was explicitly told *not* to consider any property outside of the Minimal Change areas. The benefits listed apply only to the chosen few residents and seem to undermine Council’s pro-development arguments elsewhere.

As Council has been forced to admit, the Objectives of Planning in Victoria include “to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use” of land, and “to secure a pleasant, efficient, and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians”. It has failed to demonstrate in the propaganda distributed with C87 how it has met *any* of these Objectives. There’s certainly nothing fair about Council’s policies, very little that’s pleasant about the consequences, and its failure to provide open space within safe walking distance of the urban ghettos its encouraging, despite collecting money to pay for it, is simply insulting.

 

February 1, 2012

GESAC & McKinnon Basketball

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

The MBA Executive have put out the following statement:

Dear Members,

GESAC Update from Council Meeting 14-Dec-2011

We are very keen for the MBA to have a presence in GESAC as we see ourselves as clearly the most logical occupant. Consequently we will work with Council and the Warriors to see whether there is a way in which the proposal as outlined below can be made to work.

However, what the motion does not contemplate is the fact that the court space we currently occupy is not ours to allocate to others as we see fit. As such we will need to work with our relevant schools to determine whether they would be agreeable to such an arrangement. This process has already commenced. It is important to stress this point as some recent media reports suggest that we have already agreed to the proposal as outlined in the motion, we have only made such commitments subject to agreement from our existing landlords.

On December 14, 2011 a motion was put before Glen Eira City Council by Councillors Hyams and Lipshitz, the motion read as follows:

That Council

  1. Note that:
    1. As the result of a fair and proper Expression of Interest (EoI) process, the use of the GESAC indoor courts for basketball was allocated to the Warriors;
    2. In the interests of maximising the use of the GESAC indoor courts by the community, Council’s preferred position is that the basketball allocation be shared between the Warriors and the McKinnon Basketball Association (MBA); and
    3. Notwithstanding the allocation referred to in (a), the Warriors have indicated a willingness to share that allocation with the MBA.
  2. Allocate the use of the GESAC indoor courts to the Warriors on Fridays from 6pm to 11pm and Sundays from 9am to 11pm.
  3. Allocate the use of the GESAC indoor courts to the MBA on Saturdays from 8am to 11pm subject to the MBA agreeing by January 15 2012 to provide two alternative basketball courts to the Warriors from 8am to 7pm on Saturdays to the reasonable satisfaction of the Warriors, or, if such agreement is not reached, or observed, allocate the GESAC indoor courts to the Warriors on Saturdays from 8am to 7pm.
  4. In all other respects, apply the terms and conditions of the allocation referred to in 1(a) to the use of the courts by the Warriors and, if applicable, to the MBA.
  5. Authorise officers to give effect to this resolution.
  6. Incorporate this resolution and this report in the public Minutes of this Meeting apart from Council’s legal advice at section 3.4 of this report and in the attachments.

DIVISION Cr Magee called for a Division on voting of the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION FOR: Cr Tang, Cr Hyams, Cr Lipshutz, Cr Forge AGAINST: Cr Magee, Cr Penhalluriack, Cr Pilling, Cr Esakoff

The SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was put and CARRIED on the casting Vote of the Chairperson (Mayor Cr. Hyams)

Finally, it is worth noting that this allocation is for 12 months and that it is our understanding that should the Warriors be unable to fully utilize the space they have committed to for their own use, any surplus capacity will be reallocated by Council and must first be offered to McKinnon.

Kind regards

MBA Executive Committee

Source: http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?client=1-4059-0-0-0

 

 

January 31, 2012

C87: The ‘Great Pretender’

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[16] Comments 

When residents are screaming that their neighbourhoods are being raped and pillaged by overdevelopment and that the (discriminatory?) 80/20 Minimal Change Area is simply not working, how does Council respond? With more ‘discrimination’ via its spin that the c87 Amendment will solve all these problems. Yes, the proposed Significant Character Overlay (SCO) will be more prescriptive, and yes it will ‘protect’ some aspects of street scape – but it will never solve the problems that the Planning Scheme has created. In fact the suggested amendment will only cover less than 2% of all housing in Glen Eira! So instead of an 80/20 policy we are marching towards a 98/2 policy.

In case there is any doubt about these figures, we’ve done a quick count of the properties earmarked in the documentation. Here’s the table taken directly from the provided documentation (Plenisphere). Please note that the ‘approx’ are the result of possible alleyways which weren’t discernible on the maps – but we’ve included these as part of the property count.

SITE NO. OF   PROPERTIES
The   Highway, Bentleigh 34
Chestnut   St., Carnegie 23
McPherson   Ave., Carnegie 68
Queens   Ave., Caulfield East 50
Clarinda   St., Caulfield South 31
Derby   Cresc., Caulfield East 30
Downshire   Rd., Elsternwick 192   (approx)
James   Pde., Elsternwick 138   (approx)
Exhibition   St., McKinnon 61
Field St.,   McKinnon 38
Lindsay   Ave., Murrumbeena 47
Oakdene   Cresc., Murrumbeena 69
Boyd Park,   Murrumbeena 238   (approx)
Lydson   St., Murrumbeena 20
Murray   St., Elsternwick 49
Prentice   St., Elsternwick 27
Kambea   Gve., Caulfield North 30
TOTAL – 17   AREAS 1085   PROPERTIES

 

To illustrate the above more graphically, we’ve also uploaded the map which shows exactly how little of the entire municipality is considered to be worthy of greater protection.

 

January 31, 2012

Why Some Are So Much More Equal Than Others

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[6] Comments 

Council has put out a Media Release (and a Public Notice in today’s Leader) regarding Amendment C87 which proposes to simply tinker with the current inadequacies of the Planning Scheme rather than addressing the root problems. We will be dissecting this proposed Amendment which we believe is inequitable in that only 17 designated areas within the municipality will receive greater ‘protection’.  Is it a case of ‘to hell with the rest’ and more open slather for developers? Below is the Media Release and the usual spin!

Neighbourhood character amendment on exhibition

The Glen Eira community has until Monday 5 March to provide written feedback on Glen Eira City Council’s proposed amendment to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.

Amendment C87 proposes to introduce new planning scheme controls — neighbourhood character overlays and design and development overlays to control dwellings and to help protect 17 residential areas identified as having a high-level of neighbourhood character significance against inappropriate development.

A key focus of the amendment is to provide more detailed information about these distinctive areas through improved character descriptions and a preferred character statement for each.

There will also be a requirement to apply for a planning permit for demolition, alteration and additions to single dwellings, new dwellings and front fencing in these areas.

Council’s Director City Development Jeff Akehurst said these controls are based on a rigorous assessment of neighbourhood character conducted by planning consultants and completed in 2011.

“By proceeding with the amendment, it will give Council greater control over all dwellings, which can often through their siting and design, pose a real threat to neighbourhood character,” Mr Akehurst said.

Further information regarding Amendment C87 is available from Council’s Service Centre Council’s libraries and Council’s website: www.gleneira.vic.gov.au

 

January 30, 2012

Compare & Contrast: Stonnington Versus Glen Eira

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[10] Comments 

Council to  reject massive project

Jason Dowling
January 30, 2012
Stonnington Council will consider an application for one of Melbourne’s  biggest housing proposals at 590 Orrong Road, Armadale, at a special meeting  tonight.

STONNINGTON Council is expected to reject a planning application for one of  Melbourne’s biggest  housing proposals at a special meeting at Malvern Town Hall  tonight.

The council is widely tipped to refuse a planning application from developer  Vivas Lend Lease to build 475 dwellings in apartment towers of up to 12 storeys  on a 2.5-hectare site at 590 Orrong Road, Armadale.

Council planning officers have advised the council to block the proposal  because it  ”fails to respect the existing amenity of surrounding dwellings”  and ”does not reflect the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural  identity of the community, nor does it enhance the liveability, diversity,  amenity and safety of the public realm”.

It is the second attempt by the developer to have plans approved for the  site. The first, in 2010, was for 479 dwellings in towers of up to 16  storeys.

The council received more than 600 objections to the latest  application and  more than 100 residents are expected to attend tonight’s meeting.

Well-organised residents have campaigned strongly against the  plans for more  than two years.

Unlike  other key development sites across Melbourne, the Baillieu and former  Brumby governments have not intervened in the  dispute at Orrong Road,  close to  the marginal seat of Prahran, which changed hands at the last election.

Even opponents of the development proposal agree the site – with no local  height control and six kilometres from the CBD, close to Toorak train station,  Malvern Road trams and parks – is ideal for  housing.

But locals are bitterly opposed to the scale of the development.

In a sign it  is almost certain to reject the  proposal, the council has  submitted a request to Planning Minister Matthew Guy for permanent planning  controls for the site that would restrict future development to a height of 17  metres – the height of the existing six-storey office building on the site – and  limit housing to 250 units.

Another factor weighing against councils approving contentious planning  proposals are council elections in October.

Margot Carroll, from the Orrong Group of residents, said there was strong  local opposition to the Vivas Lend Lease proposal.

”The proposal would be totally out of character with the heritage,  low-density surrounding area of Armadale/Prahran/Toorak and would introduce  CBD-type  high-rise development to these suburbs,” she said in a statement.

Should the council reject the development proposal, Vivas Lend Lease is  expected to appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Lend Lease’s Ben Coughlan said the company ”remains fully committed to  delivering one of Melbourne’s finest and greenest residential communities at 590  Orrong Road, Armadale”.

“The council officers’ report unfortunately doesn’t recognise the major  redesign of the original plans for the site, which was undertaken to respond to  community concerns over shadows, height, density, traffic and open space,” he  said.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/council-to-reject-massive-project-20120129-1qo16.html#ixzz1kuQykT7Z

 

January 29, 2012

We Were Right!

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

New boundaries are being declared along the Elster Creek Trail – as we suspected! We’ve previously highlighted what this implies regarding Council’s planning department and how poorly they do their requisite homework. For example:

  • The claiming of land has been known to council for at least 15 years
  • They’ve spent a fortune on a concrete path without first checking to see whether they have constructed this path on, or far too close to private property
  • The most interesting query is whether ratepayers will be forking out money to ensure that this and potentially other new fences do not sit on, or right next to the yellow brick road. If money is handed over to landowners, then what’s the cost to residents for something that should never have happened?

We reiterate – we do not have any problem with landowners claiming what is their legal right to land. At anywhere between $1000 and $2000 per square foot this is not a negligible sum that many would be ready to forego. What we do have a major problem with, is the failure of this council to ensure that all necessary planning has been done beforehand. When you create a flood plain (as the raising of this path has done), and when you don’t know where public and private land meet, then we believe there is cause for concern as to the competence of those responsible.

The slideshow reveals the ‘before’ and ‘after’ view and the amount of land that has now been ‘reclaimed’. Please also note that the new fence line is directly over major drainage and a lightpole. Who pays for relocating, removing is another fascinating query. We also wonder whether the landowner fully realises that this particular section of the trail is more often than not under several inches of water thanks to the new yellow brick road!

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »