June 27, 2011
The diagram below illustrates best practice implementation of storm water management for local councils. It features the need for the careful integration with the Municipal Strategic Statement and Planning Scheme and the formulation of policy that is based on full analyses of local conditions and requirements. Readers should ask themselves how well and to what extent our council fulfills these requirements.
Stormwater Planning Controls Diagram-2
June 25, 2011
This is a lengthy post for which we beg your indulgence. It is also the most important post we have put up, since it reveals the total lack of vision of this council as exemplified in its MSS, and the abject failure to address problems which have plagued the municipality for eons. These problems are not being addressed, remediated, nor presented in an honest and informative manner.
The fact that items 9.7 (removal of infrastructure levy) and 9.13 (flood report) both appear on the same agenda is more than simply ironic. It highlights the hidden agendas and failure to act in the best interests of the community. By removing the Infrastructure Levy which is meant to pay for drainage on new developments, council is proclaiming open slather for developers and basically ignoring the environmental impacts on drains, streets, and residents. To further compound the problem we have the 9.13 report on the February 4th floods which ultimately says nothing, proposes nothing new, and basically maintains the current status quo. Council cannot have it both ways – if flooding and inadequate drainage are real risks, then removing a vital source of income to ameliorate this risk is nothing short of madness.
Here are some of the most unbelievable statements from these two reports:
Item 9.13 – Flood report
Council’s drains run into Melbourne Water. It follows that the effectiveness of a drainage system as a whole is the effectiveness of the local drain (Council) and the main drain (Melbourne Water).
COMMENT: Not one single word in this ‘report’ analyses the ‘effectiveness’ of council’s drains, nor provides information as to how many of its drains were involved in the February 4th flooding; when they were all last cleaned; what their condition was, etc.
“The overland flow washed soil, sand, silt and debris along its path depositing much of this material in low points. In some low points debris restricted or blocked pits and pipes so water could not drain away once the main storm surge had passed.”
COMMENT: How much of this ‘debris’ is a direct result of council’s insistence on piling mulch upon mulch in our parks and on our street trees? When were these specific pits last checked or cleaned?
“..many Council drains are laid almost flat due to the flat terrain in many parts of Glen Eira. As a consequence, leaves, soil and other debris that enter the drains tend to settle and build up in the pipes overtime. Council faces an ongoing challenge of builders washing silt and debris into Council drains. Property owners also build structures and plant trees over easement drains preventing access for maintenance and causing damage to the drains.”
COMMENT: Per usual, blame everyone else! The fact that planning law restricts building over easements is not acknowledged. Nor are any statistics provided to substantiate such claims.
“On average, Council proactively cleans about 30km of drains and 6,000 pits per annum and attends to 800 to 1,000 drainage service requests from the community. The cost of this service is about $700,000 per annum.
COMMENTS: Annual reports have shown a steady decline in ‘cleaning’ of drains.
“Council proactively attends to ‘hotspots’ and reactively to others. Hotspots are locations where flooding regularly occurs causing nuisance or damage to property. No one can guarantee that underground drains are always free of blockages. Council’s approach ensures that critical drains are generally clear of blockage prior to heavy rainfall. Council only allows for minimal maintenance of non-critical drains. A recent survey of a small proportion of the Council’s drainage network suggests that most non-critical drains are not functioning at full capacity. Council officers are currently investigating increasing Council’s drainage maintenance resources and will report on this in due course.
COMMENT: If ‘not functioning at full capacity’ then what has been done? – especially considering the Auditor General’s report of 2005 (which we’ve previously highlighted) and which placed Glen Eira near the bottom of nearly all its benchmarking performance criteria. So this is not a revelation – it has been known for years and years. Yet, nothing appears to have changed. Why? This also begs the question of how ‘non-critical drains’ are identified. Given the disasters of February 4th, how many ‘non-critical’ drains should now be included in the ‘hot-spot’ classification?
“Council contractors sweep the kerb and channel in the streets daily in shopping centres and monthly in residential streets. The primary purpose of the sweeping is to keep the streets clean but it also helps keep storm water flowing along the street and debris out of the underground drains. Council spends about $1.3 million each year sweeping its streets.”
COMMENTS: Is ‘monthly’ sufficient, especially in Autumn and Winter when deciduous trees lose their foliage en masse. How many residents can even claim that their streets have been cleaned monthly?
“Continuing its $3 million rolling program to renew and upgrade its drains on a priority basis. Review its proactive and reactive drainage maintenance program (discussed above) to ensure that it continues to provide best value to the community.”
COMMENT: So after all this, we’re still left with the same approaches, expenditure, and vision. Nothing has changed and the potential for disaster remains ever present.
Item 9.7 Amendment C84
“It is considered that the benefit gained from a DCPO has been comparatively small compared to the cost of implementation and administration, and to annual capital expenditure for drainage.”
COMMENT: One would have thought that any money collected is better than nothing! This also ignores the vital question of how well and often this levy is being collected; is the rate high enough; why can other councils maintain this levy and Glen Eira finds it of little ‘benefit’? Does this tell us more about the pro-development stance of council, or its administrative (in)efficiency, as opposed to ensuring that the community’s interests are the first priority?
“The DCPO has been proven to be an ineffective town planning tool if one of its aims was to moderate medium density dwellings. A far more moderating influence has been (only) Glen Eira’s increased standards applying to medium density dwellings in terms of reduced site coverage, increased rear setbacks, increased private open space and discouraging double storey development at the rear of sites. Furthermore, if Council were to replace the DCPO in the future, it is unlikely that the Minister for Planning would approve fees that are significantly higher than the original fees which could meaningfully contribute to drainage infrastructure. A continuing dampening influence on any ultimate fees is Glen Eira’s reduced site coverage of 50% in Minimal Change Areas (compared to 60% under standard ResCode provisions). The starting point would need to be a revised strategic assessment which is estimated to cost upwards of $100,000, with no certainty of approval.”
COMMENT: The primary objective of a development levy is NOT TO ‘MODERATE MEDIUM DENSITY DWELLING” – it is there to ensure that the developer pays his dues to the community via support for drainage infrastructure or money that is directed to ‘community’ infrastructure – ie kindergartens. Further, given the fortune that this council spends on concreting open space and other extravagances, then the expenditure of $100,000 is merely a drop in the ocean and far more essential than concrete plinthing in our parks and gardens.
CONCLUSION
If both of these reports are accepted by councillors then they are not only fools, but incapable of providing the vision and fiduciary oversight that they are charged with. What will they say when the next flood happens? How will they face the residents whose lives have been disrupted and their homes destroyed? When will they actually have the courage to look at the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and MSS and start to institute real reform that protects the environmental, social, and economic future of this municipality?
*************
As an afterthought, we’ve added these passages from the 2005 Auditor General’s report on Flood Risk Mitigation and ask – what has changed in the past 6 years? How many of these points and recommendations have been implemented by this council?
“Melbourne Water and Stonnington were rated as “excellent”. Both agencies clearly defined the goals of flood risk management and linked these with other planning and budgetary documents. They had a comprehensive knowledge of the flooding risks in their areas of operation and had consulted stakeholders about the implications”.
“The 4 “developing” councils (Bayside, Boroondara, Darebin, Glen Eira) had not created a focus on flood risk management with clearly communicated goals and objectives. They need to improve their performance. All councils were developing processes for this purpose, but to do so effectively they will need to set specific flood risk management objectives, gain stakeholder support for them and ensure that the objectives link to their strategy, planning and budgetary processes”.
“Bayside and Glen Eira were rated as “developing”. Both had started a program of catchment analysis studies to enable them to better understand the local flooding risks. However, neither had yet developed their detailed knowledge of drainage problems to a point where a risk assessment approach could be applied across the whole council area”.
“As most councils have not completed detailed mapping work for their own catchments, they are relying on Melbourne Water’s information about flood-prone areas. However, as Stonnington and Casey have done their own mapping, their overlays will be more comprehensive than those of the other councils we examined.”
“Agencies need to educate stakeholders about the nature and extent of flooding risks, and their plans for, and performance in, addressing those risks. Only then will residents understand how they might be affected and how their actions could increase the risk. Education in this area should be targeted at those most at risk of flooding and those behaviours most likely to increase flooding risks”.
“At Stonnington the mapping of local flood overlays, while expensive, has been critical in raising the council’s understanding of flooding risks and performance in this area. The overlays provided a consistent and high quality information base that significantly enhanced Stonnington’s ability to prioritise and plan for these risks. Importantly, they allowed the council to introduce uniform planning system controls across the whole municipality and not just in Melbourne Water’s area of responsibility”.
“Councils did not have effective strategies to address the existing flooding risks. The number of properties subject to flooding is unknown and needs to be established. Unless councils improve their practices, most will not be able to effectively prioritise and treat existing flooding risks. Councils also need to be more proactive in verifying the effectiveness of flooding treatments”.
“That councils develop flood risk management practices consistent with best practice risk management, and that these incorporate:
specific flood risk management goals and objectives, which are supported by stakeholders and clearly linked to the councils’ wider strategies, plans and budgets
a risk assessment and prioritisation process based on a sound knowledge of flood exposure
an option assessment process with clear criteria that would include costs of treatment options, effectiveness (in mitigating flooding risks), and impacts on the conservation and environmental goals of stormwater
management
a long-term flood risk management plan to achieve the objectives of these practices
an ongoing targeted community education program to raise awareness of flooding issues, ascertain community expectations and encourage behaviour that will limit flooding risks
performance indicators that measure the effectiveness of flood risk management treatments in lowering flooding exposure, the results of which should be regularly reported to the community.
June 24, 2011
The notion of open, transparent and accountable government remains a myth in Glen Eira when one considers the Pools Steering Committee minutes. Given the fuss and furore in recent weeks regarding the McKinnon Basketball Association’s failure to obtain court allocations and the appalling mess of membership subscriptions, we were entitled to hope that any meeting of this committee would have been far more informative than what has been dished up in the guise of ‘minutes’. All that Lipshutz as Chair can produce is:
“Matters considered
(i) General Business – Site Inspection
(ii) GESAC Project Update Report”
Records of assembly
Plenty of items here attracted our undivided attention. The most intriguing however was this one from the meeting of 31st May 2011
Esakoff – “a letter received from the municipal inspectors and a requirement to provide certain materials” (“The CEO and all officers apart from DCS (Burke) were asked to leave the Briefing Room”. So, should we conclude that the saga of investigation is far from over and that another one is possibly brewing? And who are the targets? Councillors or administrators?
There are also these little tit bits of information:
24th May – “Public questions taken on notice from Mr. Varvodic at the council meeting held on the 17 May 2011” and “Public Questions Policy”
Cr. Esakoff – “GESAC indoor court allocations and emails from members of the MBA ‘
Hyams – “responses to councillor requests, including alternative Town Planning Recommendations, to be emailed to councillors”
Penhalluriack – “advice to be provided in relation to changes to dates of meetings of the Audit committee”
Esakoff – “Occupational Health & safety” (bullying?)
6th June 2011 – Urgent Business – Magee ‘call for an in-camera report on the awarding of the use of the GESAC basketball courts”.
14th June 2011 – Magee – “his email to all councillors concerning the legal registered status of the Warriors Basketball club” Again, contracts being written for ineligible groups? Who is responsible for what could possibly be another foul up?
15th June 2011 – Esakoff – “6 June 2011 B (i) (f) adjust the wording” (so which version has been published? – the edited account, or the original version?)
June 24, 2011
Miracles do happen! Agenda items for next Tuesday’s council meeting are replete with surprises.
Once we have had time to carefully analyse the numerous items we will report back in detail.
June 23, 2011
Several of our readers have alerted us to the fact that the Caulfield Racecourse will now be the venue for just on a month long stretch of Silvers Circus performances. Looking at their website many of the dates include both matinees and evening shows. The seating for each show, according to booking diagrams, holds close to 800 people. It further looks like this will take place on the Guinea’s Car Park which is Crown Land.
Important questions arise out of this little arrangement – some of which have already been pointed out by our readers –
June 23, 2011
The following article from the Australian Jewish News is fascinating – especially in light of the fact that Glen Eira Council has no official policy on ‘affordable housing’!
MAY 13, 2011
AN unprecedented large parcel of land has been opened for development in an area sure to attract Jewish families. While homeowners in Jewish Melbourne are sitting on veritable gold mines, those looking to enter the housing market in suburbs such as Caulfield North or Caulfield South, or St Kilda East are facing a hefty battle.
But with Glen Eira Council’s decision two weeks ago to rezone carparks owned by the Melbourne Racing Club, there is potential for new, affordable housing close to Jewish community infrastructure.
While the Melbourne Racing Club did not return The AJN’s calls, the council confirmed it had approved a substantial amount of the club’s existing space for residential use. Councillor Jamie Hyams said he supported appropriate development. “One of the council’s policies is to encourage diversity of housing to cater for different accommodation needs throughout the community,” he said.
According to preliminary plans submitted by the racecourse management to council, the land will eventually include up to 1200 dwellings – or accommodate 4000 new residents – in apartments and individual houses. The residential area, it is proposed, would blend into the existing neighbourhoods on Kambrook Road, Caulfield North. There are also plans to include shops, a new supermarket, green spaces and offices on the site.
While the first sod will not be turned for many months, perhaps even years, Jewish community figures are supportive of the plan to increase the supply of housing in Caulfield.
Local Member David Southwick, himself a young father, said the cost and availability of residential property is a problem across the whole state. “Young members of the Jewish community have expressed a keen desire to live in Caulfield, but face the issues of housing shortages and affordability,” he said.
The Caulfield MP noted he would keenly monitor development. “My view is that more sensible development is needed because our community wishes to live around the schools, shuls and communal facilities in Caulfield,” he said.
“The proposed racecourse development provides an opportunity for more affordable housing options in Caulfield, but it is important that any affordable housing be integrated into the rest of the development.”
According to figures collected by Jewish Care, proximity to kosher shops, synagogues and Jewish schools is a priority for Jewish househunters – with 97 per cent of those seeking housing assistance from the social welfare organisation looking to stay close to the Jewish community.
Worryingly, in 2008-09 – the most recent figures available – Jewish Care received a 25 per cent increase in requests for housing assistance. And it is not surprising. According to Australian Property Monitors, the median house price in Caulfield North is $1.28 million; a unit will set you back, on average, $530,000.
Down the road in St Kilda East, $931,000 is the median house price and you will just get change from half a million dollars for a unit.
Caulfield South is the most affordable of the “typically Jewish” suburbs; there the median house price is $912,000. Jewish Community Council of Victoria president John Searle welcomed Glen Eira Council’s decision to rezone some of the vacant
land for residential use.
“But for the cost of a home in Caulfield, many more young families would choose to live in the heart of our community close to shuls, schools, kosher restaurants, families and friends,” Searle said, adding that the rezoning could represent an opportunity for more families to get a start in Caulfield. “The rezoning may certainly represent an exciting possibility for some enterprising developers to provide affordable housing for members of our community.”
NAOMI LEVIN
June 21, 2011
Recent events such as the GESAC fiasco raise the question of who is actually running council – our elected representatives, or those faceless and unelected bureaucrats? We therefore thought it might be a good idea to remind councillors of their legal and fiduciary duties – according to the guidelines set down by the MAV, State Government, and VLGA in their combined document The Good Governance Guide. All the quotes below derive from this publication.
“It is important that issues of transparency and accountability are considered with regard to Council briefings. If councillors determine their position through the briefing process, and only go through a brief or perfunctory endorsement at the meeting of Council, this can impact adversely on the public’s ability to follow the decision-making process. The opportunity to fully explore and address an issue in private must be balanced with the accountability and transparency requirements of good governance.
To ensure transparency and accountability, it is also important that the administration is made accountable for the formal advice it provides to the Council meeting which subsequently takes place. This advice may or may not be entirely consistent with the discussions which took place at the council briefing. (page 12)
The elected body is ultimately accountable for the financial management of the local government. While the elected body should not have a hands-on role in financial management, it needs to ensure that it has the information to be satisfied that the finances are in order and that budgetary and financial planning goals are being met.
The role differentiation between the elected body and the administration is important in this area. The elected body should not be micro-managing the finances, but must demand financial reporting which provides the information it requires to meet its financial accountability responsibilities. (p.32)
Councillors must ensure that they have all appropriate financial information regarding financial performance. It is not enough merely to rely on assurances by the administration that all is well. If the financial situation is not as it should be, councillors will still be held accountable, even if they maintain that they received assurances from the administration. Councillors should ask questions, until they are satisfied that they know and understand the financial situation. Other potential sources of information and assurance are the internal auditor and the audit committee. (p.35)
QUESTIONS:
June 20, 2011
From Council’s website –
| Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre membership sales |
| Foundation memberships, Stage One, closed on 17 June. From Monday 20 June 2011 the following Memberships will be available: | |
|
|||||||||
June 19, 2011
6th January 2010
LOCKYER Valley local government has been thrown into turmoil after council chief executive officer Colin O’Connor took three months sick leave after claiming the mayor was a bully. It is believed Mr O’Connor is currently on paid sick leave on an annual
salary approaching $250,000.
Gatton resident Bob Fowke, 71, said Mr O’Connor had the support of a majority four-member faction of councillors. Mr Fowke worked in local government for 35 years and has attended almost every meeting of the Lockyer Valley Regional Council since the government amalgamations in March, 2008.
He said he was present at the council meeting on September 23 when Mr O’Connor started distributing an unsigned letter accusing Mayor Steve Jones of bullying staff. Mr Fowke said the situation was quite the opposite as the faction of four councillors always used their votes to carry out Mr O’Connor’s wishes.
The faction, which has previously been highlighted by Mayor Jones, includes councillors Jim McDonald, Janice Holstein, Tanya Milligan and Graham Moon. Mr Fowke said the manipulation was blatantly obvious in chambers.
“(Mr O’Connor) shakes his head, nods his head, and smiles when he wants them to do something,” he said. “It is total manipulation in my book and he’s taken stress leave because people are waking up to it.”
Mr Fowke said his fellow ratepayers were disgusted council was being run by the only non-elected member, Mr O’Connor. “The CEO is virtually running the council and the councillors haven’t got a hell of a lot of say.”
On November 27, Mr O’Connor sent an email to staff informing them that his doctor had ordered him to take three months “sick” leave. He said in the letter he felt a “deep sense of failure” for not being able to “protect” staff from the mayor. On the same day,
Mr O’Connor lodged a Workplace Health and Safety claim for compensation. Mr Fowke said the scandal had halted progress of the council.
“Because the mayor keeps asking questions, he’s labelled a bully,” he said. “But these questions need to be asked, need to be addressed and these problems need to be solved. “Council needs to move forward. “I would like to see the council open up the book as it is closed by the faction at the moment. “So much is hidden from the ratepayer and it’s absolutely hindering good decision-making.”
One example of the faction’s power was highlighted after Mr O’Connor ordered the unauthorised clearing of a fauna sanctuary at Lake Apex in April. The council is facing a $165,000 fine for tampering with an animal breeding place without approval. Mayor Steve Jones wanted an independent body to investigate the incident. However, the faction voted that Mr O’Connor would compile the report on his own decision.
(http://www.gattonstar.com.au/story/2010/01/06/bullying-forces-ceo-to-sick-leave/)
Turmoil as councillors sue over bullying
Updated Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:43am
AEST
Peter Watson is calling for intervention after more councillors sue the city over bullying (ABC News). The Member for Albany Peter Watson has described the local council as the laughing stock of Western Australia. Two Albany councillors are threatening to sue the city after an independent investigation rejected allegations they had been involved in bullying.
Councillors Roley Paver and Jill Bostock are now claiming more than $500,000 in damages. The action comes after the dismissal of the city’s former chief executive, Paul Richards, who claimed he was bullied by councillors. Last month, the Local Government Standards panel found there was no evidence of bullying of Mr Richards who received a $250,000 payout when he left the
council. Mr Watson says the council is an embarrassment to the city and the Minister for Local Government John Castrilli is not doing anything about it.
“We’ve got a culture there at the City of Albany which is the laughing stock of Western Australia and if the Minister can’t see that, maybe he should be looking after a different portfolio and put someone into his portfolio of Local Government that’s got a bit of grunt,” he said.
Mr Watson says there must be intervention. “We have councillors suing the council, we have a CEO who’s been sacked who is suing the council, we had the previous CEO sue the council,” he said. “Obviously, there’s something wrong there and the longer the Minister sits on his hands, the worse it’s going to get.”
Mr Castrilli has declined to comment on the matter. Mr Watson says he will raise it in parliament at the next sitting.
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/25/2992687.htm)
June 18, 2011
Sadly, we are becoming increasingly accustomed to the games that this administration (and some councillors) insist on playing at the expense of proper governance and adherence to council’s own policies. The latest example involves public questions that have been ‘taken on notice’. A few facts first.
Council’s Local Law states that questions may be taken on notice and that responses “shall be given within a reasonable time (usually in less than ten working days).” Most people would assume that this means more than simply a letter of response to the questioner. Then there is also this: “Where an answer is given later in writing, the question shall be resubmitted to the meeting at which the answer is available and both the question and the answer shall be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.”
At the May 17th Council meeting a series of questions from Mr. Varvodic was taken on notice. Since then we have had another council meeting and no response to these questions has been forthcoming. If included in the next council meeting minutes, that will make it 6 weeks for a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the vast majority of these questions.
Readers will remember that the issue of ‘vexatious questions’ has previously come up under Lipshutz’s role on the Local Laws Committee. We simply ask:
Glen Eira Debates 