We’ve repeatedly highlighted the inadequacy and shortcomings of Council’s ‘consultation’ methodology, methods and feedback loops. This was really apparent in the Planning Scheme Review which we’ve contrasted with the extensive approach(es) taken by Bayside. As further evidence of what can be done where there is a will and genuine attempt to gauge community feeling, we compare and contrast the questions that both Councils put to residents on the Planning Scheme.

All Glen Eira produced in its so called ‘discussion paper’ were vague statements not generally tied to specific issues and/or objectives and that were also dependent on an extensive knowledge of State  and local Planning Policy that was not fully explained. Some examples were:

Does the MSS represent Glen Eira’s general planning policy directions?

Does it reflect sound planning principles?

Are the policies effective in terms of providing housing opportunities on the one hand and a level of protection to valued neighbourhoods on the other? 

Do State Government ideals match local community expectations?

Bayside on the other hand is asking for residents’ feedback by directly linking their questions with the 34 page review (and numerous ‘fact sheets’). Questions are specific, open ended, wide ranging and always tied to the objectives and goals identified in the preliminary review. – ie

“Your thoughts about the Bayside Planning Scheme Review:

Through reviews of the Planning Scheme over the last 10 years a number of key issues/aspirations have been identified (refer to page 8 of the review). 

Q1a. Do you agree with these key issues/aspirations on page 8 and are they still relevant today?  Please list any new issues that you think should be included, in order of priority 

Q2a. Do you think that the Bayside Planning Scheme adequately addresses the key issues/aspirations listed on page 8? If no, what do you think needs to be improved?  

Q3. What additional strategic work should Council be undertaking to address the key issues/aspirations listed on page 8?  

Q4. Do you find the Planning Scheme easy to use when either preparing or responding to a permit application? If no, what would make it easier to use?  

Q5. What issues, if any do you encounter when using the Local Planning Policy Framework? Are they hard to use? Do they cause you problems? What are these problems?  

Q6. Are the Zone and Overlays Schedules difficult to interpret? If so, which zones and overlays? Can you recommend any improvements?  

Q7. Are you aware of any recent VCAT decisions that raise issues that are currently not addressed by the Bayside Planning Scheme?  

Q8. Can you think of a property/area that you believe to be inappropriately zoned or have inappropriate overlay controls? If yes, what is the address and what do you think it should be zoned as (used for) and/or what overlay should it have/not have over it?  

Q9. Do you think that there are any directions contained with the State Planning Policy Framework that the Bayside Planning Scheme does not implement?  

Q10. How prescriptive do you think the Bayside Planning Scheme should be in relation to built form?

Prescriptive – applications determined on the basis of whether they meet mandatory height and setback controls.

Performance based – applications determined on the basis of whether they meet defined objectives. 

Q11. Please use the space below to provide any other comments on the Preliminary Planning Scheme Review and ways the Bayside Planning Scheme can be improved. You may of course add additional pages if required.

A previous post concentrated on the fact that numerous other Councils appear to have no qualms in making public their Staff Code of Conduct. In Glen Eira everything is under wraps. Why? What is there to be gained by such practices? Perhaps a better question is: What is there to hide? What could be so ‘private’ that ratepayers have no idea as to the protocols, values, and mechanisms that they are paying for. We’ve continually harped on the fact that in terms of transparency and accountability Glen Eira appears to fall well below the mark of its neighbouring and benchmark councils. Is this ‘ethical’; is this the kind of behaviour that residents are willing to put up with?

Here are some examples to illustrate our point. Please note how ETHICS is highlighted in the following councils’ Codes of Conduct.  We’ve linked some of these documents so that residents may read them for themselves.

KINGSTON

“Kingston is a major metropolitan Council for whom ethics and business conduct is a key requirement. We care about obtaining good results for our community and care equally about how those results are achieved. The CEO must also exercise delegated powers in ways consistent with previously established guidance or direction from the Council.  

The Guide recognises Council’s duties, responsibilities and community aims and values. It describes what is needed from us all to keep the good faith and trust of Council and its many stakeholders, and is based on what we value most:

Honesty and Integrity – Doing what we say we will do. 

The spirit and letter of the law and all relevant legislation will be obeyed. 

Unless you are authorised to do so, do not use Council resources or staff services for private purposes. 

BAYSIDE 

“The purpose of this guideline is to assist all Bayside staff in the maintenance of ethical standards of professional integrity and conduct….

Accountability at Bayside means we are mutually accountable and take responsibility for our actions, behaviours and results. It is: meeting promises/commitments; managing expectations; admitting mistakes; providing leadership.” 

Achievement at Bayside means that we are motivated to succeed through service by making a contribution to our community using our unique skills and abilities, and being recognised for what we achieved.” 

The way we work is to: always welcome the opinions of the community. Accept the differences in members of the team and the community and welcome their contributions 

No council materials should be used for non council purposes.”

______________________________________

So we ask – how similar or different is the Glen Eira policy? Does it highlight ethics? Community? Service? Overall values? If the Councillors’ Code of Conduct is freely available, then we maintain that the Staff Code of Conduct should be equally transparent and visible. How else can the community judge officers’ performance if they have no ratified gauge against which to evaluate such performance? 

 

 

Passing the buck  

I REFER to your front page article (‘‘Drain blame game’’, Leader, March 2). I live in Grange Rd, Carnegie, and have raised this issue with the council and I got a letter back saying the issue was being investigated. I was not given a timeline as to when I would be given the council’s findings, or what they intended to do about it. It appears to me Glen Eira Council and Melbourne Water will both play the pass the buck on this subject. Grange Rd has no drains on the side I live on. But who is responsible for this – council or Melbourne Water? 

Cramming has to stop  

GLENHUNTLY Rd is already overcrowded with cars (‘‘Still no to Coles plan’’, Leader, March 1). The trams are also overcrowded. We cannot keep on with this endless cramming in of more people. It is wrecking the whole character of the area as well.  

Time to Wake Up 

THIS sort of excessive development should never be allowed (‘‘Still no to Coles plan’’, Leader, March 1). Wake up, council and State Government, we don’t want this!

David a great MP  

DAVID Southwick was out there when flooding hit Caulfield, clearing drains for flooded-out residents and helping locals to get other essential assistance (‘‘Big pride, little policy’’, Leader, February 22). This is typical of David: when someone needs help, he pitches in to make things better. Many throughout the community already know about his generous spirit and ability to cut through the static and get things moving. That is why so many local people backed him so enthusiastically when he first ran for office in 2004, and why they have stuck with him ever since. He will be a great member for Caulfield.

Below are some extracts taken from a presentation by the NSW Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour on 9th September, 2010

 “….if standards of ethical conduct are so clear and well established – why do we need to continually raise and discuss them? Surely once they are set down that is enough? Well no, it is not enough. If they are not modelled by those in authority, not regularly discussed, if they are not re-enforced, if they are not made part of the day to day operational landscape, they can and will slip from the public sector consciousness.

When we are focussed only on the outcome, there is often less concern about the process. People find short cuts, and the ends are too often considered to justify the means.

This of course is not the only reason for ethical breaches. There are those in public service who, when given the opportunity, will choose to act unethically. Unfortunately, human nature means we will never be completely rid of all unethical conduct.

Firstly, there needs to be genuine and strong leadership. A clear and consistent message from the top. Prime Ministers, Premiers, Ministers, Chief Executive Officers, Directors General and senior managers need to commit to core principles. This involves not only saying the right thing – which is easy to do – but also doing the right thing, and leading by example.

This commitment is key, yet as several of the examples I gave earlier show it is not always present, indeed the initial source of resistance when my office has dealt with agencies has sometimes been at the Chief Executive or senior manager level. Once staff see this response, this example being set, it sets the tone for all our dealings with that organisation.

We’ve published these selected highlights for several reasons:

  • Their relevance to the question of ‘legality’ versus ‘ethics’ at Glen Eira
  • The simple fact that Glen Eira has only a ‘Councillor Code of Conduct’ as opposed to a ‘Code of Governance’ as other councils have implemented
  • Other Councils have their Officer Code of Conduct, or their Business Code of Conduct freely available. Glen Eira’s requisite document is kept secret and locked away. This only makes us wonder what it contains that it should be regarded as ‘off limits’ to resident ratepayers. It also raises questions as to how different this document might be to the Councillor Code of Conduct?
  • After three Municipal Investigations we believe that ‘ethics’ and ethical conduct by councillors and administrators is far more important to ratepayers than mumbo jumbo legalese and whether or not there has been a ‘technical breach’ of the Local Government Act.

PS: As an afterthought, we’ve uploaded the Bayside Staff Conduct Guidelines (here). Please note the consistent use of the following terms in their policy – ‘community’; ‘trust’; ‘admitting mistakes’; ‘values’ and plenty more. Whilst these may also been seen as ‘motherhood statements’, they clearly indicate a philosophy which is geared to service to the community and collaboration with the community. We would be most surprised (but would welcome it) if this kind of emphasis exists in any Glen Eira policy. But of course, since this is not out in the public domain, we can only speculate and guess!!!!!

Thursday, 3rd March –

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 

Questions resumed.

Planning: Caulfield Village development

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Western Metropolitan) —

My question is to the Minister for Planning, and it relates to the C60 planning scheme amendment. The Melbourne Racing Club has been attempting to resolve issues related to the Caulfield Village proposal with the Liberal-controlled Glen Eira City Council for some four years. The Caulfield Village represents an up-front investment by the club of some $20 million and a close relationship with Monash University. It is a project that has been endorsed by Planning Panels Victoria. The club has received positive endorsements from council officers who have recommended that the amendment be adopted, yet council will not act on the amendment. I ask: what steps will the minister take to resolve this matter so that this major investment can proceed?  

Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — I appreciate the question from Mr Pakula. It is very timely. I met with staff from the Glen Eira council this week to seek their views on the proposals that have been put forward for the redevelopment of Caulfield Village. There are issues around car parking which are yet to be resolved. Unlike its predecessor this government will play a key role in trying to facilitate an outcome that suits both the council and the redevelopment of the course to ensure that we achieve for the community the effective use of open space and a great new development for the Caulfield Village. 

Supplementary question

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Western Metropolitan) — In relation to some of the concerns that have been raised by council and the local community, I am advised that the club has agreed to develop the infield to include barbecues, play areas, toilets and jogging tracks as well as providing the public with permanent access to an area around the lake — —

An honourable member interjected.  

Hon. M. P. PAKULA — No, it was by the club. Despite this, the council has recently advised the club that they will not support parking in the infield of the racecourse for race day purposes — a situation that means racing may become unviable at Caulfield Racecourse. Coupled with the council’s refusal to address the C60 amendment, this in effect leaves the club without recourse and threatens not just the development but the future of racing at Caulfield. My supplementary question is: are there any circumstances in which the minister would step in and bring the matter to a conclusion?  

Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — Again I say to Mr Pakula that these are very timely and important questions in relation to the future of that redevelopment opportunity and the issues that council has raised. As Mr Pakula would know, the questions raised by council are not new. They have been around for a long period of time. I have given a commitment to the council that I will allow it to get on with the process of the C60 planning scheme amendment. I have also met with the Melbourne Racing Club a number of times to ensure that we resolve those issues so that ministerial intervention would only be an extreme last resort, although I believe very firmly that this government will work with the council and the MRC quite cooperatively. Without pre-empting anything I am very confident that there will be an outcome which will render that unnecessary.

The following Media Release was issued today. As per usual, it is extremely vague and provides very little information for residents. Instead, there is a bevy of questions that need answering:

  • Will the new centre be paid for entirely by Council?
  • Will this proposed new centre mean the closing down of others and the ‘amalgamation’ of several?
  • If ‘amalgamation’ occurs, will council guarantee that no child will be disadvantaged or unable to find a place?
  • Will such an amalgamation mean staff cuts?
  • What plans are being pursued if the Alfred Health public land is not made available?
  • Is there no other land or building suitable in Glen Eira?
  • The continual policy line by council has been that it is unfair to take from one sector of the community in order to support another – ie. that priorities will have to change if childcare and kindergarten facilities are to come out of the budget. Why is it now possible to envision such a change? What current ‘priorities’ will have to go?
  • If there is amalgamation and the closure of certain centres, will council guarantee that these properties will not be sold off?

 

 Thursday 3 March 2011

Child care in Elsternwick

Glen Eira City Council has written to Alfred Health regarding its preferred options for the ongoing provision of child care in the Elsternwick area.

In May last year, Alfred Health informed Council that it would not extend the lease on the Kooyong Road building, which has been home to Elsternwick Children’s Centre for more than 20 years.

Glen Eira Mayor Cr Margaret Esakoff said Council’s preference is for the Centre to remain open under the current lease arrangements.

“This arrangement has been working well for the last 20 years and Council would like to see it continue — as would the families who have and do currently utilise the centre,” Cr Esakoff said.

“However, if Alfred Health is unable to commit to an ongoing lease then Council will seek to build a new childcare centre on available Crown land currently part of the Caulfield Campus of Alfred Health.

“Council believes a new purpose-built centre will not only provide a greater security of tenure, but an improved child care offering for the area.”

Cr Esakoff said Council intends to discuss the availability of Crown land with Local Members of Parliament and Ministers.

“Assuming Crown land is made available, Council also intends to seek a commitment from Alfred Health that the current lease arrangement continues until such time as the new centre is built,” Cr Esakoff said.

A media release from Andrew Robb, MP

Defence against disaster in Glen Eira

04-March-2009

Goldstein Media Releases, Environment, Funding

Glen Eira City Council has been allocated $40,000 to undertake a stormwater flood mitigation study as a part of the Government’s Natural Disaster Mitigation Program.

“The Glen Eira study aims to accurately assess the level of flood risk across the municipality, identify priority flood protection works and incorporate land use and development overlay controls into Glen Eira City Council’s planning Scheme.

“Competition for these funds is fierce, and I congratulate the Council on its successful application,” Andrew Robb, Federal Member for Goldstein, said.

For more information about the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program visit the Emergency Management Australia website:
http://www.ema.gov.au/agd/ema/emainternet.nsf/Page/Communities_Natural_Disasters_Australian_Government_Assistance_for_Natural_Disasters

Media contact: Skye Buttenshaw, 9557 4644

QUESTIONS:

1. Where is the report?

2. What were the outcomes/actions resulting from this report?

3. What if any changes were made to the Planning Scheme as a result of this study?

4. What has eventuated as a result of the other grant listed – ie. 2006: $50,000 for Natural Disaster Mitigation Programme – stormwater disaster risk management

5. $90,000 grants in the past 5 years for Storm Water mitigation/risk management – what has this council learnt that could have prevented the Feb 4th floods? – or is this simply a case of $90,000 down the drain?!!!!

Fired up over McKinnon ‘monstrosity’

1 Mar 11 @ 05:00pm by Jessica Bennett

This period house could be replaced by 25 apartments.

RESIDENTS are gearing up to fight the development of a three-storey “monstrosity” in McKinnon.

A 25-apartment complex with a 30-space basement car park is proposed for the corner of Nicholson and Lees streets, near McKinnon Rd. A substantial old house on the 1480sq m block would have to be demolished.

Glen Eira Council has received more than 80 objections.

One resident, Belinda Clark, said 70 objectors attended a community meeting about the development. She said they feared a significant rise in traffic in surrounding streets and a strain on local infrastructure. Residents were also concerned about impacts on their quality of life and privacy, as most homes in the street were only one or two storeys.

“This is inappropriate on all levels and will set a bad precedent for other developments in the area,” Ms Clark said. “We appreciate the space may be developed some day and we are not against progress, but not like this.”

McKinnon real estate agent Eric Cohen said developers were attacking Glen Eira suburbs. “They are coming in street by street and trying to set up high-density housing that is not suitable for this area,” Mr Cohen said. “Developers are not concerned about the repercussions for the neighbourhood. There needs to be some conscious decisions made about this by the developers and the council.”

Developer Peter Lewis said the application conformed with the requirements of Rescode. “I am of the view that McKinnon is nothing short of a great suburb and the design as prepared would, I believe, be nothing short of the best development that the area has ever seen,” Mr Lewis said.

The council will hold a planning conference this month before the application is considered at the April 5 council meeting.

There’s a new Media Release  put out by Council which states: 

“Glen Eira City Council is pleased to report that all children have been offered a place (for 4 year old kindergarten) — including the nine children who have decided to remain on the waiting list for their first preference. Glen Eira Mayor Cr Margaret Esakoff said 736 places have been accepted.”

If true, then this is indeed fantastic. However, there are a few points that are not made clear and which perhaps cast some doubt on the veracity of the above claim.

As late as June 2010, the Age carried this paragraph in its story of kindergarten shortages: “Glen Eira mayor Steven Tang said 285 four-year-olds would miss out on a kindergarten place if no further funding were provided. In order to provide the 15 hours, Glen Eira would need $4 million to build six new kindergartens and replace another facility.”

The Caulfield Leader (18th May, 2010) also said – “Mayor Steven Tang said there were fears three-year-old kindergarten places would also be cut.” And “Murrumbeena Kindergarten teacher Michelle Ball said parents and teachers were concerned the extended hours could sacrifice three-year-old kinder children”.

From Council’s own commissioned report  ‘Universal Access’ there is the following paragraph:

“The clear view of the Glen Eira community is that implementation of 15 hours universal access should not be at the expense of the current service system (particularly three year-old kindergarten) and additional kindergarten facilities should be built to meet this new Council of Australian Governments (COAG) policy requirement. Three-year-old
kindergarten is seen as important in Glen Eira, and is in high demand. Many of the kindergartens that offer three-year-old kindergarten programs report extensive waiting lists. Any reduction in the overall availability of three-year-old programs in future would exacerbate already excessive demand.”

We therefore ask:

  • How has Council achieved such a remarkable turnaround in the space of 6 months?
  • What has happened to 3 year old kindergarten places? Have these been ‘sacrificed’ in order to fill 4 year old places?
  • What other cost cutting has taken place in this ‘achievement’?
  • Is the Media Release merely another example of not telling the whole story?

Council slashes funds

A lobby group finds finance for childcare centres has been cut by $400,000

 FREEDOM of Information documents obtained by a childcare lobby group show Glen Eira Council has been stripping funding from childcare centres since 2006.

Save Local Childcare Coalition spokeswoman Bronwyn Burton said the documents show ‘‘the council has slashed a $500,000 investment in 2006/07 to $95,000 in 2009/10’’.

A petition to save the Elsternwick Children’s Centre will be handed to the council this month.

More than 900 residents and traders have signed the petition after the council announced the closure of the Kooyong Rd centre in May. The building’s owner, Alfred Health, said it could not extend the centre’s lease beyond December. The council, which has ruled out buying the building or finding a replacement, voted in October to lobby the State Government to ensure land continued to be used for child care.

In a letter sent this month, Glen Eira Mayor Margaret Esakoff reiterated the council’s interests to Alfred Health. Alfred Health chief executive Andrew Way said the board of directors was ‘‘cognisant of the problems caused by the uncertainty’’ around the centre. ‘‘The board of directors has asked me to explore with the Victorian Department of Health ways in which this uncertainty can be overcome more quickly than the currently anticipated timescale of June/July,’’ he said.

 COMMENT: Our new members of Parliament should take careful note of this report. Glen Eira’s tactics have always been to ‘pass the buck’ onto State and Federal Governments or taking the Clayton’s approach of ‘action’ such as ‘advocating’ and ‘making representations’ to authorities.  Perhaps if State and Federal funding to Council was also cut by $500,000 then the blame game would stop and Council would be forced to budget appropriately and responsibly.

+++++++++++++++

Drain blame game  

Climate changes after flow map revealed 

GLEN Eira Council has slammed Melbourne Water’s drainage system and defended its response to flash floods which wreaked havoc across the city. Mayor Margaret Esakoff has called for a r eport into the February 4 event, and is seeking ‘‘urgent attention’’ from the water authority and the Government to improve main drains to reduce repeated flooding. 

The report will cover damage to Glen Eira properties, response times, Melbourne Water and the council’s drainage maintenance programs and Melbourne Water’s plans to reduce flooding in riskprone areas. It follows nearly a decade of council lobbying after Melbourne Water released a map of areas which would experience ‘‘overland flows’’ during intense rainfall because the capacity of the drains would be exceeded. 

‘‘The flooding of housing and businesses which occurred on February 4 closely matched this map,’’ a council report said. More than 100 Glen Eira homes were significantly affected. Cr Michael Lipshutz said Melbourne Water needed to ‘‘get its act together’’. ‘‘We are seeing climate change and we’re seeing more flooding in our areas,’’ Cr Lipshutz said. 

Cr Esakoff had admitted that the council had not adequately responded after outraged residents slammed its ‘ ‘ slow and uncoordinated’’ reaction. But at last week’s council meeting, she did a backflip, saying: ‘ ‘ Since then, information reviewed showed that this was not the case. The council was not slow to respond’’. But Melbourne Water floodplain manager Phillip Neville said Melbourne’s drainage system ‘‘does a great job’’. ‘‘We saw in excess of a one-in-500year storm in some parts of Melbourne,’’ Mr Neville said. ‘‘ An event of that magnitude would stretch the capacity of any drainage system.’’ 

THOUGH authorities have touted the recent flood as a ‘‘one-in-500-year storm’’, Glen Eira residents will tell you otherwise. Downpours cause repeated flooding in parts of the municipality, including the underpass on Normanby Rd near Caulfield racecourse and Boyd park in Murrumbeena.

Councillor Michael Lipshutz said his neighbours had been flooded four times in 12 months while Cr Jim Magee’s Bentleigh street has been flooded twice.  

In 2000 Melbourne Water, responsible for nine drainage systems in Glen Eira, released a map identifying areas expected to flood because the capacity of drains would be exceeded. Those areas include streets west of Orrong Rd in Ripponlea, streets either side of Hawthorn Rd south of Glenhuntly Rd, between Glenhuntly and Koornang roads in Carnegie, and between Murrumbeena and Poath roads in Murrumbeena. Melbourne Water floodplain manager Phillip Neville said when new properties were built, ‘‘ they’re built to a standard which would lessen the consequences if flooding does occur’’

COMMENT: We repeat our previous questions. How much of the flooding is a result of lack of maintenance of COUNCIL’S DRAINS and not Melbourne Water’s? How much of the flooding could have been avoided? Will Council produce a map of the drains under its responsibility? And if Council performed so ‘adequately’, then surely it can’t be mere coincidence that in the Tender Section of Saturday’s Age newspaper we find this advertisement: “Contract No.: 2011.014 Provision of Reactive Drain and Pit Cleaning Services

Requirement: Provision of stormwater drain/pit cleaning, jetting and root cutting services using a purpose built combination vehicle to supplement Council’s own service. Three year contract with an option on the part of Council to extend for a further period of two years”.

 +++++++++++++

Letters to the Editor

Take public open land discussion seriously  

GLEN Eira Council (councillors and administration) should be publicly pilloried for their appalling response to the Victorian Environment Assessment Council discussion paper on public open land. 

Glen Eira, which has the least public open space in Melbourne and numerous highly paid executives, should have been able to put together a detailed submission that was more than a hastily written onepage letter that lacked substance. Neighbouring councils and individual residents prepared detailed submissions – why didn’t Glen Eira Council?