March 17, 2011

Is There a Cover Up?

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

At council meeting on Tuesday night, under ‘Councillor Questions’ Penhalluriack asked Newton a question related to the Glenhuntly mulch storage facility. In a long preamble to the actual question Penhalluriack outlined the following:

  • Newton prides himself on correct ‘risk management’ procedures & policies.
  • Scientific Consultants were called in to evaluate the public health risk at the Glen Huntly depot
  • Part of their findings was that legionella ‘and fungi’ were presenting some risk to workers and the general public
  • Several recommendations were made to reduce the risk – ie sprinklers, training, protective gloves/clothing, the importance of washing hands and signage alerting the public

The question asked of Newton had several parts:

  • Why did Council ‘twice deny that there was any danger to the community’s health’ when he had twice asked about it
  • Why did he have to go to the Audit committee and raise the question for a third time before anything was done?
  • ‘why hasn’t (the report) been circulated to councillors?’
  • Were areas ‘adjacent to the mulch bin’ also analysed such as the school, playground, car park areas?
  • Penhalluriack also sought an explanation as to why it appears that none of the recommendations of the report have been carried out?

Newton took the question on Notice

COMMENTS:  Penhalluriack’s question makes it abundantly clear that information within this Council is ‘filtered’ and that only a select few are privy to information that could have major repercussions on the entire community and council’s liability. We remind readers of the composition of the audit committee (especially Lipshutz). If the audit committee did have this information, then why wasn’t it distributed to all councillors according to best practice and council’s audit committee charter? Why does it take a councillor 3 requests before any response is forthcoming? Why does it take months and months for any remediation of what might potentially be a public health risk? And the most important question: Why the cover up?

 

March 16, 2011

Cr. Pilling Responds

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance
[15] Comments 

This comment was posted by Cr. Pilling. We repeat it as a post.

“I will certainly stand on my record as always voting wholely on the merit of a motion without fear or favor.

Three weeks ago I fully supported and voted for Cr Penhalluriack’s previous motion articulating Council’s vision for the increased public amentity and access at the Caulfield Racecourse as reported in this blog- I did so because I felt it was a sound and important motion that codified Council’s position.

Last nights motion again moved by Cr. Penhalluriack was concerned with how and where Council would negotiate with the MRC- Ultimately I felt it was a poor motion and not practical in providing a professional framework for negotiations to begin and succeed – This is the reason I voted against it and I totally reject the accusations directed at myself and other fellow Crs on this matter.”

 

March 16, 2011

Racecourse: Round 1 to the ‘Gang of Five’

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s)
[17] Comments 

Forgive this long post, but we believe it’s important!

Penhalluriack moved his motion under ‘Urgent Business’. It was seconded by Forge. Again a rousing speech which began by going over the history of the original grant and its 3 purposes – a racecourse, a recreation area, and a public park. ‘We don’t have a public recreation ground; nor do we have a public park’. It is important that we negotiate to ‘share this land….It is a huge land and many people here tonight have never been inside this land’. Last meeting proposed that we be given access to ‘all the land inside the training tracks’ – most of the land anyway is taken up with racing and training tracks. ‘For 150 years we have been kept out of it’. ‘It’s about time that we stood up and fought for our rights…..the Melbourne Racing Club has used that land for their own purposes…..we have 20 or 21 race meetings a year. That’s all!….but they have training every morning and every afternoon and that means that we can’t go on it….they are using land that is close to 2,000 million dollars…..2,000 million dollars for 20 bloody race meetings a year! Get real! It is our land……It’s time that we negotiate with the Melbourne Racing Club to take back this land…..The only fair and equitable way to do this is to invite the Melbourne Racing Club …to come to a meeting of all nine councillors and discuss it’.

Penhalluriack then stated that if he loses the motion and three councillors go off to negotiate that he ‘wouldn’t be happy when they come back and say this is the best we could get….because I won’t believe it is the best we can get and I’m sure Councillor Pilling will feel the same’. Lobo will also feel the same. ‘This is our land’. ‘we need to have access, unrestricted access to the land’….The trustees meet twice a year’, they haven’t done anything, councillors are 2 or 3 against 13 or 15.

Penhalluriack claimed that he comes from a business background and that it’s ‘common sense’ to him that ‘we should all be partaking of this exercise’….we need to get value for our money.

Forge then spoke stating that most of the community had ‘no idea’ that there were three purposes to the racecourse. School and sporting communities ‘are crying for space’ and ‘we’re looking at a sand belt in the middle and nothing for the public…..at the moment the horses are being treated much better than the public….not one of the 15 recommendations (from the public lands inquiry panel) has gone through…..what’s Glen Eira Council doing for us? We have put no ideas on paper….I think we have to be far more explicit….Cr. Penhalluriack and I have had more experience about this industry than anyone else (on council)….we have to look more closely at the makeup of people’ who will be representing us to the MRC.

Pilling then got up and commended the ‘passion’ of both Penhalluriack and Forge and the work they’d put in ‘but this motion is about the best way to negotiate with the MRC.’ Penhalluraick’s motion isn’t the best way to negotiate. ‘I won’t support the motion’.

Tang then asked whether it would be a meeting open to the public. Penhalluraick responded that no it wouldn’t be – just councillors.

Lipshutz continued the ‘theme’ by congratulating Forge and Penhalluraick for the work they’ve done and that ‘no one can suggest that they’re not passionate about this HOWEVER, this is not about passion. He objected to penhalluriacks remarks about the past. He was a member of council in 2005 and ‘took a very strong stance’ about opening up the park. The fact that they didn’t achieve this ‘was not because of lack of trying….because we had a government that wasn’t prepared to assist us…..this is about how to best achieve the result we want…..Penhalluriack said that he wouldn’t trust that (if 3 councillors came back with a proposal)….at all times this council delegates…..and when I vote for someone I trust them; I trust every member of this council. I believe every member of this council is reliable, is trustworthy….when I vote for someone to go off and represent council I trust them, so I reject what Cr. Penhalluriack says’. Claimed that how many racemeetings were irrelevant and that the real issue is ‘how best to negotiate’. No negotiation should ‘bring people in, have 9 people’ trying to negotiate. It ends up as a ‘free for all’. The example was a councillor saying that he wants fences removed and another councillor saying I don’t want that – I want something else. ‘so where do you go?’ You negotiate by good will, not by bringing in 9 councillors and having a free for all. Compared decision making to what happens at council – that is committees are set up to discuss issues. ‘I want as much as anyone here the racecourse to be opened up…..this (Penhalluriack’s motion) is a recipe for absolute disaster’. It basically says that this council ‘has no idea how to negotiate…we’re a professional council and we should do this properly….’

MAGEE said that the MRC will undoubtedly have their legal advisors, as council could, but that the meeting ‘should be held on council’s grounds….we can only put forward what we as councillors think is appropriate….anything that puts all the cards on the table and lets everyone know where we stand is a good meeting….

HYAMS then threw in his ‘dorothy dixer’ asking Tang to explain why, when every other time the racecourse had come up for discussion he had declared a conflict of interest, yet tonight he did not

TANG stated that his position as trustee put him in a difficult situation. He would ‘dearly love’ to be able to discuss these issues but ‘unfortunately they are a risk to council…..as a trustee I have responsibility to the Trust’. He is a ‘councillor nominee’ which enables him to ‘passionately advocate for the community’s interests’ by putting people’s ideas to the trustee meetings. He has ‘conflicting duties’ when ‘matters of policy affect matters of the Trust’ and since this discussion is not about changing policy he can comment(!!!!!!!) so since no questions affecting the trust are being considered now, there is no conflict of interest.

HYAMS then asked what happens if the MRC says ‘no’

Penhalluriack replied that ‘we are under pressure from this government and so are the MRC. I don’t believe they would stand up’ and say no.

HYAMS then asked about the composition and Penhalluraick responded ‘I don’t expect all councillors to show up….I would like to see all nine councillors come along and share the passion that Cr. Forge and I….we are democratically elected to represent our constituents…..if councillors want to turn up, if the MRC all want to turn up we can go and hire the pavilion….’

HYAMS then asked what would happen if the MRC wanted to go away and deliberate and how this would impact on council’s meeting schedule. He stated he ‘doesn’t disagree’ with the motion but the most important thing is that we act ‘reasonably’….in negotiation each side sends its representatives….they discuss…..they then go back to report to their constituent bodies…..and they see where they go from there…..I’m concerned (that we might be seen to be) ‘acting unreasonably’…the only question is how best to go about it…..we need to be reasonable’. Hyams also admires the passion and commitment of Forge and Penhalluriack, BUT ‘sometimes someone can get so close….you don’t know when to step back…..so close to something that you don’t trust anyone else to do it…..and when we reach a situation where that might be the best for everyone we don’t see that that might be the best for everyone…..it’s time to step back’. He doesn’t doubt Forge’s and Penhalluriack’s intentions, just the method of achieving what ‘we all want to achieve’.

TANG: ‘I resent what Cr. Penhalluriack has said…..(it is) self serving….Noone can doubt that they’ve been active in this issue…..I’ve dealt with Penhalluriack and Froge when they weren’t councillors….Council made very strong representation (and the Select Committee)….’we were all very interested…..it is annoying and frustrating when it becomes about personalities; who should negotiate….we’re now debating personality rather than policy….but I’m here to tell you that on policy everyone agrees…..’. Tang then claimed that it was the previous government’s fault and that the Liberals were no different now. ‘I agree we want the best possible negotiating team on behalf of the community….it is not about personality….we should be supporting each other in achieving that outcome….’

Penhalluriack summed up that the feeling is that we need to be ‘reasonable and my motion is not reasonable…..Last meeting we passed’ what everyone now seems to think was excellent points.’Prior to that meeting I had to negotiate, cajole, beg four councillors to vote with me….Those four councillors as it happens are all in their second term….and those four councillors….most vigorously oppose this….Well so be it. But I believe they will live to regret it. Those four councillors have achieved nothing by way of opening up (the racecourse)….absolutely nothing….This council has allowed the racecourse and the training areas to expand and expand….to the detriment of what we, the community wants…..and now we’re forced to negotiate with the MRC with one hand tied behind our back’. Lipshutz claimed that in 2005 they tried to open it up but the government wouldn’t assist – ‘well I’m sorry we’re also a local government….it’s up to us to negotiate to get this thing through. It’s our land…..’.

‘it’s not going to be a free for all….we are responsible citizens, councillors are all responsible citizens….this (council meeting) is the only area where council can make policy….this is supposed to be where these things are debated…..in public in an open and transparent manner….I think councillor Tang should perhaps consider resigning his position…and appointing someone else who doesn’t feel that moral obligation…of not being able to report to us….the whole purpose of having a councillor as trustee is that so we know in an open transparent manner what is happening…..’

Esakoff put the motion to the vote. IT WAS LOST.

PENHALLURIACK CALLED FOR A DIVISION.

PENHALLURIACK, FORGE, MAGEE, LOBO VOTED FOR

LIPSHUTZ, TANG, HYAMS, PILLING AND ESAKOFF AGAINST.

 

Lipshutz then moved a motion that Newton, Eskakoff represent council in negotiations with the MRC. Motion was passed. Only Forge and Penhalluriack voted against.

CORRECTION: The Lipshutz motion also included himself and Magee as the councillors to ‘negotiate’ with the MRC.

 

March 14, 2011

The Plot Thickens……….

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[7] Comments 

It is important that we first establish the credentials of the extract we are about to cite. It comes from Page 19 of a document entitled “Best Practice Guidelines Local Government Entity Audit Committees & Internal Audit” (June 2000). These guidelines were prepared by “the Auditing & Assurance Standards Board of the Australian Accounting Research Foundation, with the support of The Institute of Internal Auditors – Australia and the Australian Institute of Company Directors for the Department of Infrastructure (DoI) and endorsed by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) and Local Government Professionals (LGPro).” 

The extract which primarily concerns us, is: 

“Appointments of external persons shall be made by Council by way of a public advertisement and be for a maximum term of three years. The terms of the appointment should be arranged to ensure an orderly rotation and continuity of membership despite changes to Council’s elected representatives.” (page 19) 

Of the 8 authors listed one name stands out – MR. DAVID GIBBS – the Chair of Glen Eira’s Audit Committee!

What we have here is a highly respected ‘authority’ producing guidelines for local government, yet NOT ADHERING TO HIS OWN GUIDELINES. Mr Gibbs and Mr. MacLean have both been with Glen Eira since at least 1998. Both their names are continually mentioned in the 2005 Whelan Report, as well as in the 1998 Walsh Report.  That means that for at least the past 13 years the external members of the Glen Eira audit committee have NOT CHANGED.

The ratepayers of Glen Eira need and demand answers to the following questions:

  1. Why have both Gibbs and McLean been given such lengthy and uninterrupted tenure on Council’s Audit Committee?
  2. Why has Mr. Gibbs failed to adhere to his own guidelines and not resigned from the Council Audit Committee?
  3. Why is Mr. Gibbs said to be consulting with Andrew Newton on a ‘staffing’ matter as outlined in the Whelan Report, when officer staffing is the exclusive domain of the administration?
  4. How does Council respond to the growing perception, and hence alarm, within the community that all is, and has not been, 100% “kosher” with its Audit Committee?
 

March 14, 2011

The Minister, Lipshutz & Tang and the Whole Shebang

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

In late January this year, the Minister for Local Government, Jeanette Powell, gazetted a comprehensive 42 page blueprint for Audit Committee reform and accountability. Whilst only ‘guidelines’ the Minister also stated  that Local Governments are “strongly encouraged to adopt and use the Guide when establishing their audit committees”.  Much of what the 42 page document entails has a direct bearing on the Audit Committee as constituted in Glen Eira. It is timely to consider this issue now since the agenda items listed for discussion next Tuesday night clearly fly in the face of the Minister’s recommendations in several key areas.  

We discuss the central issues under several headings – 

  1. Composition and tenure of Audit Committee Membership 

The recommendation from the Minister is: 

“Periodic rotation of the members of the audit committee is encouraged as this will enhance the perception and reality of audit committee independence… To ensure continuity, ideally no more than one member should leave the audit committee pursuant to rotation in any one year. …..LGE members will be subject to council elections every four years and accordingly the tenure of LGE members on the audit committee needs to be set to allow for their rotation among the nominated LGE members….The period of tenure for independent members could be two to three years, again with options for reappointment after periodic performance reviews. The LGE might also consider setting a maximum number of terms of reappointment for independent members.” 

COMMENT: The latest agenda items contain committee nominations for 2010/11. Lipshutz and Tang again feature prominently. In fact, their tenure on the Audit Committee, as well as other important committees within Glen Eira (such as Local Laws; Racecourse Issues and previously Finance) has been extraordinary. The table below illustrates clearly how this council and its councillors have allowed two individuals to dominate the most important committees and which we argue is now in complete opposition to the position expressed by the Minister. 

Year Lipshutz Tang
2005/6 Audit; Finance; Local Laws Environment; Finance; Local Laws; racecourse
2006/7 Audit; Finance; Local Laws; Pools; Finance; Local Laws
2007/8 Audit; finance; Local Laws; Pools Environment; Financé; Local Laws; Roads; Caulfield Reserve
2008/9 Audit; Finance; Local Laws; Pools; Racecourse Reserve Racecourse Reserve; Trustee; Audit; Local Laws;
2009/10 Racecourse; Audit; Local Laws; Pools; Finance Racecourse; Audit; Local Laws;Recreation
PROPOSED 2010/11 Audit; Community Consultation; Local Laws; Pools; Racecourse Arts & Culture; Citizen of the Year; Environment; Local Laws; Racecourse; Sport & Recreation

 2.     Further Recommendations from the Minister

Some more extracts from the guidelines –

“To be effective, the audit committee must be independent from management and free from any undue influence”. 

COMMENT: In Glen Eira the ‘Finance Committee’ has suddenly become defunct –  no meetings of this committee were recorded in the Annual Report for the previous two years and it has now vanished from the upcoming committee delegations. Yet the table above reveals that Lipshutz was a member of this committee whilst he was also on the Audit Committee! A great example of ‘independence’ and perhaps ‘conflict of interest’ we ask? 

“Review internal audit’s mission, charter, and resources such that this charter maintains internal audit’s independence from management. This is achieved through its reporting structures and rights of access to all levels of management and relevant information…..Ensure that all work is reported through to the audit committee and is not censored or held up by management”. 

COMMENT: Not only Lipshutz but Gibbs and McLean have also been sitting on the audit committee for eons and have been extremely well reimbursed for their time and effort. We ask again why the Minister’s guidelines recommending rotation should not apply in the case of the latter two members? As the Minister states,  it is important to ‘also to provide a fresh perspective through succession planning and the selection process.” 

Finally, there are many comments throughout the document related to ethics, governance, and of particular emphases is the development of a charter that clearly enunciates all mechanisms, roles, expectations, and evaluations of the committee itself, and its individual members. The facts that readers should keep in mind are: 

  1. These guidelines were published on January 31st 2011 and gazetted on 8th February 2011
  2. Council has thus had ample time to read, absorb, and plan for their implementation. This has not been done!
  3. Instead, we have basically the same old members; the same old accounting firms; the same old protocols, and hence the same old questions about independence, good governance and perceptions of all too cosy relationships with external and internal members 
  4. Are Lipshutz and Tang in particular, so extraordinary in their skills, acumen, and vast accounting and/or expansive legal experience that they are indispensible on all these major committees? And is it mere coincidence, or the councillors’ own wishes, that Penhalluriack and Forge only manage to get on three committees, and Oscar Lobo is only on one? Should ratepayers conclude that no other councillor can fill the shoes of Lipshutz and Tang – that these individuals have the time to do a job properly when they are sitting on 6 committees each?  Or is there another agenda being played out here which has been ongoing for years?
 

March 13, 2011

Urgent Business: Racecourse

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s)
[17] Comments 

Agenda for Glen Eira Council Meeting, 15th March 2011. 

10.      Urgent Business 

Seek leave to raise an item of urgent business. 

Involves a request by the Minister for Planning to negotiate with the Melbourne Racing Club to ensure a public benefit from the Crown Land known as the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.   There is no other motion from Council to permit these negotiations to proceed.  We are dealing with 56 hectares of land worth over $2 billion. 

Motion:  (Moved by Cr. Penhalluriack; seconded by Cr. Pilling.) 

That Council invites authorized representatives of the Melbourne Racing Club to a meeting with Councillors to discuss future arrangements, including timetables, for the sharing of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land.  The Mayor shall open the meeting, and introduce Councillors Forge and Magee who shall explain, using overheads, Council’s position.  The meeting shall then be open for all to contribute.  The meeting shall be sound-recorded and minutes shall be prepared.

 

March 12, 2011

C60 & Caulfield Racecourse

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

Dear Friends of the Caulfield Racecourse Recreation Reserve,

Now we have a new government it is a good time to write to our members and remind them of their pre-election promises to revise projects. The C60 is a proposed large ghetto development which will only add to the chaos which has been experienced with the Caravan and Camping Show. The area around here was absolutely gridlocked and some of the roads closed without notice. The area described as Caulfield East will have over 300% increase in population if the plan proceeds; as well as 23 storey and 15 storey office towers and 15,000 square metres of retail. All with limited parking and no open space! We also need to tell them in no uncertain terms that the racecourse reserve must be opened up and we the citizens of Victoria given a reasonable oportunity to recreate there freely without feeling like a trespasser who is forbidden to play a ball game therein! The area is about 55 hectares.

The members who should be contacted are:- David Southwick Member for Caulfield who ran a campaign against large scale development and whose consistent slogan was ‘working with community’ – 193 Balaclava Road Caulfield North 3161. Louise Asher Member for Brighton  – 228-130 Bay Street Brighton 3186

 Andrea Coote Member for Southern Metropolitan 306 Bay Street Port Melbourne 3207

David Davis Member for Southern Metropolitan, 4/975 Riversdale Road Camberwell,3124

Denis Napthine Minister for Racing 94 Liebig Street, Warrnambool, 3280

Sue Penniciuk Southern Metropolitan Member, 206 Bay Street Brighton 3186

Ann Barker Member for Oakleigh, 19 Station Street, Oakleigh 3166 (she represents all who live east of the Racecourse )

 Elizabeth Miller Member for Bentleigh,, 9557 666, 379 Centre Road, Bentleigh, 3204

Martin Pakula Member for Western Metropolitan , apparently he grew up in Ormond, is a member of the MRC and asked a question in house (Hansard) regarding holdup of C60. 3 Ballarat Street, Yarraville, 3013

Andrea Coote Member for Southern Metropolitan, 306 Bay Street, Port Melbourne, 9681-9555

Michael O’ Brien Minister for Gaming 1/313 Waverley Road East Malvern 3145

It would seem that now a new party is in power they are becoming a little softer in the development line meetings with Windsor development in the city — so we must keep up the political pressure now! KEEP IN MIND ONCE THE OPEN LAND DISAPPEARS IT WILL NEVER BE AVAILABLE AGAIN FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO TAKE A BREATH OF FRESH AIR OR TAKE IN VITAMIN D WHICH IS NECESSARY TO HEALTHY LIVING AND REQUIRES 15 MINUTES OF SUNLIGHT PER DAY!! IF WE CANNOT KICK THE FOOTBALL ANY MORE IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFLOAD ENERGY IN A WHOLESOME AND HEALTH BOOSTING MANNER. WE MUST PRESERVE OPEN SPACE.

Bye for now,

Mary Healy

 

March 11, 2011

Agenda Items

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s)
[2] Comments 

Planning Applications

Looks like the ‘inverse ratio’ principle is still alive and well when it comes to planning applications. The more objections, the less notifications as a rule.

Property Notification Objections
Ames Ave, Carnegie (Housing Diversity) 8 properties notified (10 notices sent) 19 objections
815 Centre Rd., Bentleigh (Housing Diversity) 7 properties notified (9 notices sent) 22 objections
13-17 Cecil St., Bentleigh (Minimal Change – non residential use) 13 properties notified (17 notices sent) 6 objections
Amendment C75 – Virginia Park (Industrial & Business 3 Zone) “Letters to over 600 owners” 14 submissions received – no submission to Panel

 

Assemblies of Councillors

Councillors’ bladders are still a major cause of concern. The comings and goings from these meetings are incredible. Of particular note is the meeting of 22nd Feb., which began at 10.10pm and only had Paul Burke present. The subject of discussion was: ‘Public question responses from the February 1 meeting’. This is the meeting where all questions by Mr. Varvodic were taken on notice and follows a previous meeting where Penhalluriack expressed his disenchantment with the tone of responses.

Readers also need to take careful note of Tang’s continual declaration of ‘conflict of interest’ re the Racecourse. We can only conclude that he takes his ‘duty’ to the MRC, more seriously than his obligations to resident ratepayers!

We also direct readers’ attention to the topics listed in the record of assembly for the weekend away. Our bet is that child care fees are going to go through the roof again – without justification!

Advisory Committees

Same old, same old. Lipshutz again on: audit, local laws, pools, racecourse. Pity that Council does not appear to have read the Minister’s latest guidelines which strongly suggest that Audit Committee Members be rotated and changed regularly.  

Elsternwick Childcare

There appears to be some glacial like movement at the station in regard to childcare. A letter from Esakoff to Alfred Health advocating for a “purpose built child care centre on Crown Land in Elsternwick.”. Give us the land (currently Arthritis Vic) and we’ll build a centre. No detail as to when, what, who pays, or what will close if this ever eventuates. But at least ratepayers can be assured that Council continues to ‘advocate’! 

Incamera Items

Golly, gosh! Newton’s contract (or performance review) it seems, is still taking up meeting after meeting! They just can’t get it right. Do any other councils take months and months to perform such a task we ask? 

 

March 10, 2011

Do We Have a Problem, Houston?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[6] Comments 

A recent comment by ‘Ben’ has alerted us to the current advertising by Council of  an Amendment. The objective is to remove Heritage status from properties in Hawthorn Road and Seaview Avenue. We thought this was important enough to go back to the original Officer’s report and to analyse the content and ultimate recommendations.

The report was tabled at Council on 31st August, 2010. The name of the officer under Enquiries was Jacquie Brasher, Strategic Planner. The motion put by Lipshutz and Pilling to remove Heritage Status  from all of the properties and to seek the Minister’s approval to advertise,  was accepted unanimously by Council with Esakoff declaring 3 ‘conflicts of interest’. We present our analysis below –

The original Heritage status was applied in 2003 under Amendment C19. Only the property in Hawthorn Road was listed in the original amendment although all properties were incorporated into the map overlay, hence there is an ‘anomaly’. Further, the owners of the Seaview properties were not informed at the time that they were now under the Heritage Overlay. Brasher recommends that as a consequence all 3 properties should be included in the Heritage status. 

The arguments are: 

  • ‘Consultation’ only involved the 3 owners of the properties. Two ‘submissions’ were received in response. Brasher includes the points raised in these submissions – perhaps more extensively than other planning applications that come to council. Some of the issues raised include: development will be stymied; ‘building is not sufficiently notable’; building has deteriorated so will involve ‘substantial costs’ to ‘rectify’; the design does not ‘cater for the needs…of modern day living’; it’s a Housing Diversity area so will ultimately ‘detract, and demean any perceived value’ of the property; heritage listing detracts from housing needs of the area;  
  • Brasher then posits the argument that changes may still be made especially to the inside of buildings hence “the application of the Heritage Overlay may restrain but does not completely prohibit changes to the building. The building can be altered to cater for the needs of modern living”. 

The final section of the report includes the current Council Heritage Advisor’s comments, as well as a report from the original advisor (2000) which resulted in the properties’ listing. Some of these comments are: 

“In my opinion, all three apartments should be included in the Heritage Overlay. In fact, the rear two apartments are perhaps slightly more intact than the front apartment, as tapestry brick embellishments remain unpainted (these have been over-painted on the front apartment). 

I would agree (with the Statement of Significance) that this apartment block, clearly influenced by the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, is unusual in the context of this municipality, and even beyond, and I think individual protection of the site is warranted. 

It is considered that this individually significant building at 466 Hawthorn Road, 2A and 2B Sea View Street should be included in the Heritage Overlay. Therefore an amendment to modify the schedule to the Heritage Overlay to include 2A and 2B Sea View Street at HO114 is warranted and should be commenced as soon as possible to rectify the anomaly.” 

Andrew Ward, 2000 wrote: “They (the properties) are aesthetically significant (Criterion E) as uncommon examples of residential buildings undertaken in a manner directly influenced by the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, comparing in Glen Eira only with the house at no.45 Balaclava Road but demonstrating that the influence of his work was still being felt in Melbourne during the late Inter War years”. 

QUESTIONS: 

  • What is the point of council having Heritage Advisors when their professional opinion on a matter strictly to do with ‘heritage’ is overlooked and ignored?
  • Why have Heritage listings in Diversity Areas at all if the argument is that ‘development’ should have priority?
  • Why have Heritage Listings if the facile argument that such dwellings do not accommodate ‘modern living’ are given credence?
  • Are the current Heritage guidelines in the Planning Scheme/MSS explicit enough to protect such properties? 
  • Is development classified as more important than ‘cultural heritage’ in Glen Eira?

This amendment is only one of a series, including planning applications, where we seriously question the content, logic, and recommendations produced in such reports and the logic then (mis)applied by councillors. Not only do residents need clear arguments and logic, but so do those individuals who apply for permits. Consistency, logic, and comprehensiveness in considering all issues is what is needed. We will be following this issue closely.

 

March 10, 2011

Governance: C60 etc!

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

Baillieu defends meetings with Urbis

Marika Dobbin

March 10, 2011

PREMIER Ted Baillieu has defended his government over its meetings with developers of a 140-metre skyscraper proposed for the parliamentary precinct that would eclipse the adjacent Windsor Hotel redevelopment.

He said it was appropriate for Planning Minister Matthew Guy and his department to have met representatives of the developers from consultancy Urbis recently, ahead of a formal permit application being lodged.

”We have never had a problem with pre-application meetings,” he said. ”I think it’s important in those situations that it is all documented and that will be a distinguishing feature of this government.”

An Ombudsman’s report into the Windsor Hotel fiasco criticised the former government for failing to keep accurate records of meetings. Mr Baillieu said he had not seen the proposal for the Palace Theatre site – but hinted he would be against it.

Questions:

  • How many pre-application meetings took place between government, MRC and/or council regarding the C60
  • How comprehensive is the record keeping of these meetings?
  • How well informed were councillors of the existence of these meetings?
  • How well informed were councillors of the progress of these meetings?
  • How comprehensive are the records of meetings post application?
  • Are councillors privy to these records? Should they be?
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »