August 15, 2011

A Developer’s Delight!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[9] Comments 

Squeeze planned on car parking spaces

  • John Masanauskas
  • From: Herald Sun
  • August 15, 2011 12:00AM

FINDING a parking place could get much worse under State Government plans to slash the number of car spaces required for new apartment blocks, shopping centres and offices.

The legal number of spaces per dwelling could be cut from two to zero in dozens of activity zones to accommodate Melbourne’s booming population.

And the carpark requirement is set to be halved in many residential, entertainment and business centres outside those zones.

The proposals are part of a Planning Department review that aims to reduce reliance on cars and encourage other ways of getting around, such as public transport and bicycles.

Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said if implemented, the changes would lead to parking chaos. “Local residents will be hemmed in in their own streets, which will overflow with cars from high-rise apartments and shops built with few if any parking spots,” he said.

Protector of Public Lands Victoria secretary Julianne Bell said fewer parking spaces would not necessarily encourage public transport use.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy said the review was finalised by the previous Labor government. “It beggars belief Labor would now seek to blame their own handiwork on the current Government,” he said.

 

August 15, 2011

From Bayside Weekly

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments 

Site proof of residents’ angst

GLEN Eira’s own Wikileaks-style website has generated more than 100,000 hits in its first year, many from residents slamming the council’s planning decisions and governance.

But acting mayor Jamie Hyams said it was hard to take a website seriously when contributors did not put their names to it.

Two full-time moderators and two occasional helpers have managed the gleneira.wordpress. com site anonymously since it was founded in June 2010. Some contributors use their real names, others use a pseudonym.

The site publishes council meeting outcomes, petitions, reports and letters to and from councillors which residents analyse and discuss. Recent issues on the site include Glen Eira Swimming and Aquatic Centre’s construction and the Caulfield Racecourse development.

A moderator said several councillors had posted comments on the site and mentioned Glen Eira debates in council meetings, which showed the site was making councillors aware of the community’s discontent. ‘‘We don’t want to merely be hitting a nerve, we want dramatic change in the way this council has operated for over a decade now.’’

– Rebecca Thistleton

 

August 13, 2011

Public Questions

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s)
[7] Comments 

From the minutes of August 9th, 2011

Question 1. – Planning

“Could you please answer the following questions:

1. What is council’s policy and or current practice regarding notification to objectors as to the date of planning conferences?

2. On what criteria does determine the time span between the closing date of objections and the setting of the planning conference

3. Will council make the guidelines available to the community?

4. Why has the 15 August been selected which is only a week after objections close

5. Why is council website so behind – showing May 2011

6. Could council possibly postpone planning conference of 15 August?”

 The Acting Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“1. The administration of planning conferences policy states that:- “The Planning Office will send invitation letters to all parties five days prior to the scheduled meeting.” In this case the planning conference invitation letters were sent to all parties on 1 August 2011.

2. There are no particular criteria beyond Council’s statutory responsibility to decide town planning applications within 60 statutory days.

3. Yes if requested.

4. Objections do not “close” until the time the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee decides the application.

5. More information is needed to answer this question. Where on the website does it refer to “May 2011”.

6. No reason is seen to delay the planning conference. A planning conference is a non-statutory step Glen Eira City Council chooses to take in the town planning decision making process.”

Question 2 – Planning & Costs

“Would Council please advise the specific terms of reference provided to the DPCD for the Planning Panel Hearing on the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C83 (removal of Heritage Overlay HO114 on the properties at 466 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield South and 2A and 2B Seaview Street, Caulfield South).”

The Acting Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“The role of the Panel is to give submitters an opportunity to be heard by an independent forum in an informal, non-judicial manner. A Panel is not a court of law. Panels also give independent advice to the Planning Authority and the Minister about the
proposed amendment. Council does not provide the Panel with any terms of reference.”

Question 3 – Costs

3. What is the total cost to date for each of the following:

1. Engagement of an independent note taker

2. Engagement of a governance advisor to provide instruction as per the recommendations of the Municipal Inspector?

4. The total legal costs pertaining to the reappointment of the CEO in 2008?

5. The additional advice sought from 4 independent heritage advisors on the 466 Hawthorn Rd property?

6. What is the anticipated or actual cost for the external legal advice involved in the GESAC allocations to either the McKinnon Basketball Association, or the Oakleigh Warriors?

7. Will any of the above items be expected to accrue more costs? If so, which ones, and what is the range of this expectation?”

Part 3 of your question was deemed inappropriate pursuant to Local Law 232 (2) (j) (iv) as it refers to a matter which would, if answered, breach the confidentiality provisions of the Local Governmant Act 1989

  1. $5,148.00    2. $6,532.00     4. $29,502.83    5.$790.00   6. Current cost is $3,825.00

1 and 2 may accrue more costs and 6 will.

 

August 12, 2011

Newsflash: MRC Application

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

We’ve just learnt that the scheduled Planning Conference for next Monday evening HAS BEEN CANCELLED!

This is an extraordinary turn of events for several reasons:

  • In the first place, Council initially decided that a one week time lag between the closing date for objections and the holding of the planning conference was sufficient ‘notice’.  Given that objections might arrive at council late Friday afternoon, and that notification would then possibly not go out until the following Monday or Tuesday, this would mean that people would only receive notice of the meeting around Wednesday or Thursday – that is, 4 days notice only!
  • Now at the last minute, the meeting is cancelled. One can only speculate as to the reasons why and what is going on behind the scenes
  • The history of this application is definitely tainted – first the MRC withdraws just before the April 4th meeting; next there is the sudden ‘revitalisation’ of the application, and now, it’s pulled again.

Surely residents have every right to ask what is going on and who is responsible for all of the above?

 

August 12, 2011

MRC Application

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

A reminder that next Monday (15th August) the Planning Conference for the Centre of the Racecourse application is scheduled. Details are:

Time: 6.30pm

Location: Town Hall, Auditorium

 

August 11, 2011

Caulfield South: Sky’s The Limit

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
Comments Off on Caulfield South: Sky’s The Limit 

For a vision of what’s potentially around the corner, residents might be interested in the following report:

Caulfield South Housing Diversity 1-1

 

August 10, 2011

Penhalluriack’s “Right of Reply”

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

May it please Mr. Deputy Mayor and fellow Councillors; I thank you for this opportunity to make this right of reply.

I was born in Freeman   Street, not far from here.  I’ve conducted a business in the City of Glen Eira for over 35 years, and have come to know and love its residents and ratepayers.

During those 35 years I have witnessed the changes in the Municipality and in its shopping and amenities.  I have recently recalled that our local Member of Parliament, Mr. Southwick, worked in my shop part time while he was a student to earn himself some pocket money.

I have now built up my business and employ fifty people.  And so, in the autumn years of life, I decided to contribute to the community as a Councillor for the City of Glen Eira.  In 2008 I was so duly elected.

It has come as a shock, and with great disappointment, to be handed a copy of an article appearing in the current edition of the Melbourne Bayside Weekly.

The article refers to a “legal stoush”, and claims that residents are saying that Council has sought legal advice concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Andrew Newton.

I am embarrassed and demeaned by such an unfounded allegation reaching publication in such a widely circulated newspaper.  And I can safely presume our Chief Executive Officer will also suffer this embarrassment.

The article further claims that a ratepayer has asked Council for details of legal costs which Council has incurred concerning allegations that I have bullied our Chief Executive Officer.

The article makes constant reference to the secrecy of Council and the lack of transparency in Council’s dealings. And, it is further claimed in the article, that the City of Glen Eira has been plagued by a lack of transparency for the past fifteen years. And further that the blame lies with the administration and not with Councillors.

It is a common proof that an institution practising democracy will consist of democratically elected members representing the populace, and of a Secretariat — usually permanently appointed — to administer the will of the populace.  It is essential that the democratically elected members can freely and openly convey the will of the populace, and that every effort should be made by the secretariat to implement the directions given to it by the elected members.  Council will share my regret that there appears to be a perception in the community of differences appearing between the Council and the Secretariat of this, our Council.

I have entered Council in the latter years of life with goodwill and an endeavor to bring to Council the hopes and aspirations of our citizens.

As I address this Council Meeting on questions of transparency and openness I find that I am the subject of an allegation that, as a result of supporting a motion relating to a mulch bin, there are rumours that I have a conflict of interest because the mulch bin was closed, and I happen to sell mulch in my hardware and garden centre.  Of course, like dozens of other local businesses, I sell mulch.  I also employ some 50 people and carry a range of over 26,000 different items for sale. Obviously such an ill-founded rumour is absurd.

I request and expect Councillors and the staff of Council’s Secretariat be supported in the event of ill-founded and scurrilous rumours bringing the City of Glen Eira into disrepute.  It is now in the interests of our great Council that a new policy of openness and transparency be created, and every effort should be earnestly made to improve and expand our existing policies of openness and accountability to our ratepayers and our citizens.

 

August 9, 2011

Council Meeting Report

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s)
[9] Comments 

Perhaps this blog site needs to take a little credit for the miniscule advances that occurred tonight in regard to the Advisory Committee Reports. In the past, committee reports have simply been ‘noted’ and the motion has always included that the recommendations be accepted. Tonight things were different for the Local Laws Committee and the (intended?) removal of the
public questions section from the local law. The report was merely ‘noted’! Here is the sequence of events:

Hyams started off by saying that since these minutes ‘have more substance’ than usual, they’ll deal with them separately. Lipshutz moved that the minutes of the Local Laws Committee ‘be duly noted’. Seconded by Pilling.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘ordinarily I would be moving a motion that would also seek a recommendation …..(but in this case)…this is the beginning of a process…..we also looked at the issue of public questions… (wanted to move an amendment that the word repetitive’ be put into Tang’s request for a report from officers on time taken to respond)….public questions are (currently governed by the Local Law….(which is a) very very blunt instrument…you can’t amend that very quickly….(so we want public questions as policy) which makes it more flexible….(gave examples of other councils where public questions come from the floor) we can’t even look at that….but if it were in policy we could look at all that….and make it more flexible for….the public….(so that’s one issue to bring back to council).

Went on to discuss the local law 326 about permits …..people in gallery ‘will note there have been many questions about this issue by one particular gentleman’….’we looked at the use of our land….we have again made certain recommendations….awaiting officers to come back to us with proposals….it will take some time to get it right….. Nothing will be done until there is a ‘formalised recommendation’ to make to Council. Then public submission.

PILLING; ‘I did have concerns about the public question ….(in favour of) more open procedure….having a more flexible policy can allow for this…changing the local law takes a year or so…..(so supportive of this).

PENHALLURIACK: Local Law 326 has concerned me for a long while…my concern is that we are (comparing like with ike)….don’t think there is any necessity to try and define what sort of sporting body can register’. Supported the other aspects which would allow Council ‘to experiment’ a bit…

LIPSHUTZ: thanked Penhalluriack for his comments and said that 326 was a ‘vexed question’ ….(and the committee looked at) how best to use public land….it was a very very long meeting, much discussion….and not yet considered completed….(once officers’ proposal comes in he is sure that councillors) will play around with….and hopefully come up with something that works best….

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSULTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES

Penhalluriack moved motion to accept recommendations. Seconded by Lipshutz

PENHALLURIACK: ‘These minutes are more comprehensive ….particularly with recommendations from the public…. sets out a vision….’

HYAMS: ‘certainly a fairly significant set of recommendations….we did debate it at quite great length….whether to have an aspirational committee plan above the council plan….(but came to compromise)….and long term council plan which includes a vision …..plan be developed by steering committee (which has 3 external community reps)….asking officers to draft (new engagement strategy based on submissions from public)….and the committee will consider it when (drafted)….in turn will come to council for adoption….(outlined changes such as) ‘proactive engagement’ ‘to clarify where there is input and where there is feedback’….

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

RESPONSES TO PUBLIC QUESTIONS

There were a number of public questions. Several by Mr. Varvodic were again declared inappropriate and classified as ‘harassment’.Responses to others that residents should note are:

1. The application by the MRC for the Centre of the Racecourse will come under the auspices of the Special Committee and NOT FULL COUNCIL

2. Ratepayers will be footing the bill for the convened Planning Panel to consider the 466 Hawthorn Rd Heritage listed properties

3. 20 full page colour ads for GESAC in the Leader over the past few months were reported as costing only $20,000

4. Questions as to policy on notifying residents of planning conference meetings remained unanswered – although ‘responded to’.

5. Questions taken on notice at last council meeting were tabled.

Finally, Cr. Penhalluriack used his ‘Right of Reply’ option to address council on the Bayside Weekly article which appeared this week. We will present a summary of his speech in the next few days.

 

August 9, 2011

Southwick’s Letter To The Editor

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[7] Comments 

From Caulfield Glen Eira Leader

Close eye on development

THE final Caulfield Village project came about as a result of extensive negotiation and involved many stakeholders (‘‘Libs on back foot’’, Leader, July 5).

As a candidate, I said that ‘‘we need developments that add to the community’’, and I stand by this.

As a result of my involvement in these negotiations, the centre of the racecourse is being improved with a $1.8 million contribution by the MRC.

I raised three other specific concerns about this development, which I am glad have been addressed:

HEIGHT restrictions have been put in place on the entire site, which range from two to three storeys at the Kambrook Rd end to no more than 20 storeys at the Monash University end.

THE parking requirements put in place are higher than both recent comparable developments and recent decisions made by VCAT. There will also be restrictions on on-street parking.

COMMUNITY concerns over high density, low cost housing have been heard and restrictions have been put in place to ensure any residential development does not have a detrimental effect on public safety.

As this development continues, I will be monitoring its progress to ensure the view of our community are heard.

 

August 8, 2011

Final VEAC Report

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

The VEAC report was released today. We have not had time for a thorough read, however the following paragraphs are pertinent to this council and its performance. The full report may be accessed at: http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC152-MMI-Final-Report-FINAL-low-res.pdf

Recently released Australia Bureau of Statistics’ population estimates for metropolitan Melbourne indicate that the current population in some municipalities (Bayside, Brimbank, Glen Eira and Moonee Valley) has already exceeded the projections for 2016 (that is, population growth has been more rapid than anticipated).

Development of facilities on public open space in Caulfield Park

Caulfield Park is in the south-eastern Melbourne suburb of North Caulfield. The Park is about 25 hectares in area and is on Crown land. It was permanently reserved for public park, gardens and public recreation in 1866. It is managed by Glen Eira City Council as a committee of management. Much of the park contains sportsgrounds and hard courts, while the western end contains a parkland area. The park also contains a playground and conservatory.

The construction of a new Caulfield Park Pavilion in the central part of the park was completed in 2009. The 0.4 hectare pavilion and car park replaced a small sports building and storage shed (0.04 hectares in size). The footprint of the new pavilion is significantly larger than that of the old building and shed, and involved the construction of an additional access road in the park. The expansion of the pavilion transformed freely accessible public open space into an enclosed area where access generally requires membership of a particular sports club or payment of hire fees.

Sporting groups using the park generally favoured the construction of the new building as it enhanced their sporting activities. There was, however, opposition to the redevelopment from other users who were concerned about the loss of amenity and reduced area available for non-organised recreation and informal activities at the park.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R6 Prior to considering proposals that would result in the reduction of open space, government and local councils undertake a public process to assist them to determine the costs and benefits to the community of proposed reductions in public open space on public land and land owned by local councils.

R7 The principle of no net loss of area be applied when public open space on public land and land owned by local councils is used to deliver non-park related services and facilities.

R8 Public open space on public land and land owned by local councils be managed to maximise public access and to provide the widest range of user opportunities.

R9 Government review the open space contribution policy and provisions in the Victoria Planning Provisions and Subdivision Act 1988 with the aim of assisting metropolitan local councils meet the challenges of population increase by maximising the contribution of open space through subdivision of land. This would include:

(a) reviewing the contribution level in the Subdivision Act to determine whether the minimum contribution should be set at five per cent

(b) streamlining the process for creating a contribution schedule to clause 52.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions

(c) removing the uncertainties in the interpretation and use of the SubdivisionAct and clause 52.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions

(d) reviewing the provisions in the Subdivision Act and clause 52.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions that exempt some subdivisions from the requirement to make an open space contribution

(e) considering whether the open space objectives in clause 56.05-2 of the Victoria Planning Provisions, which detail standards for neighbourhood open space, can be made to operate with the provisions in clause 52.01, which require people proposing to subdivide to make specified contributions to the local council.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »