December 5, 2010

Consultation and Planning: #2

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

Reprobate has commented on the Racecourse and Election Candidates – but we feel that his ideas warrant a separate post. His views are also pertinent to the whole issue of ‘consultation and planning’. Readers may remember that the ‘consultation’ process for the Planning Scheme Review consisted of 3 ‘forums’, one negligible ‘discussion paper’ and submissions which never saw daylight. This sequence of events would place Glen Eira Council at Stage 2  –  4 of the ladder reproduced in the previous post. Still a long, long, way off from ’empowering’ residents and paying heed to their concerns.

Reprobate’s comment reads:

We’re getting to the pointy end of planning decisions regarding the Racecourse, and there has been a substantial shift away from Labor. I was one of them (not that I was ever a fan of Labor’s version of democracy). Our ex-Minister against Planning has gifted the MRC a significant parcel of Crown Land, yet ensured that most of the land within the Caulfield Racecourse and Park Reserve remains under the control of the MRC. The MRC desperately needs its much-sought planning permission to build a massive carpark in the centre of the racecourse reserve since it plans to develop the Member Carparks 1 and 2. As their justification for C60 states, they need to find ways to make more money because interest in racing is dwindling. So much for being a non-profit organisation.

A key question is just how much of public assets should be devoted to helping that clique make money. They have been poor custodians of the crown land in the centre of the reserve for 140 years, and little wonder as we increase density that people are keen to break their monopoly. I have absolutely zero confidence in my Council to plan for the area, since over the 4 years I have taken an interest in planning matters:

* Approved dozens of 3-storey developments that fail to comply with the standards contained in Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
* Approved 4+ storey developments next/adjacent/opposite to single-storey developments (not GEPS policy).
* Ignored traffic congestion as an issue, going so far as to lecture objectors because the problem will go away in 20 years.
* Decided that open space is not necessary to support high density living.
* Accepted that developer profit is sufficient reason to waive non-compliance with GEPS.
* Made cars a higher priority than pedestrian safety in Carnegie Major Activity Centre.
* Allowed a major development to build without a Planning Permit for 8 months (9 Morton Avenue).
* Failed to ensure the so-called Spotlight Centre (Carnegie Fringe) complies with its Planning Permit.
* Contradicted Parliament’s Road Safety Committee’s report that strongly recommended strengthening standards for off-street parking, by arguing for no standards with respect to gradients and sightlines.
* Published a review of the Planning Scheme in which *no* changes to the scheme were recommended, and failed to identify a single problem with the current Scheme, while unilaterally deciding that no multi-unit development should or need comply.
* Failed to publish any statistics to show whether all the development activity they have supported have contributed to their stated goals (e.g. housing diversity, employment, ageing population, reduction in greenhouse gases).
* Supported 100% site coverage and no landscaping, to help developers make more money.
* Allowed a developer to build something that failed to comply with their Planning Permit, then support the developer at VCAT in getting a retrospective amendment to make it legal.
* Usurped limited playground space at Carnegie Primary School for a kindergarten to replace the land they wanted redeveloped at the former Uniting Church.
* Allowed the Developer Contributions Overlay to lapse, so that developers don’t have to contribute to the costs of infrastructure to support their developments. Ratepayers are expected to subsidise not only the Developers’ planning applications, we’re expected to subsidize all infrastructure, and accept a loss of amenity from congestion, safety, loss of diversity.
* Restricted the provision of valuable services close to where people live, preferring that they drive to one of the 3 “major activity centres”, but then creating the economic conditions that make those centres far from active. Its one of the few arguments in favour of C60, or otherwise people will in the future need to do their shopping in another Municipality (e.g. Stonnington).

Essentially GEPS is a fraud. It has been used both by Council and VCAT to support development, regardless of the clauses designed to protect residential amenity. This situation exists mostly because people allow it, choosing not to get involved until they are the target. I don’t like that attitude. We should be insisting on fair and ethical treatment of all residents, on the basis of how we would wish to be treated ourselves.

 

December 5, 2010

Consultation and Planning

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication
[5] Comments 

From the classic Sherry Arnstein ‘s  A Ladder of Citizen Participation

The bottom rungs of the ladder are (1) Manipulation and (2) Therapy. These two rungs describe levels of “non-participation” that have been contrived by some to substitute for genuine participation. Their real objective is not to enable people to participate in planning or conducting programs, but to enable powerholders to “educate” or “cure” the participants. Rungs 3 and 4 progress to levels of “tokenism” that allow the have-nots to hear and to have a voice: (3) Informing and (4) Consultation. When they are proffered by powerholders as the total extent of participation, citizens may indeed hear and be heard. But under these conditions they lack the power to insure that their views will be heeded by the powerful. When participation is restricted to these levels, there is no follow-through, no “muscle,” hence no assurance of changing the status quo. Rung (5) Placation is simply a higher level tokenism because the ground rules allow have-nots to advise, but retain for the powerholders the continued right to decide.

Further up the ladder are levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision-making clout. Citizens can enter into a (6) Partnership that enables them to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with traditional power holders. At the topmost rungs, (7) Delegated Power and (8) Citizen Control, have-not citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial power.

In the name of citizen participation, people are placed on rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose of “educating” them or engineering their support. Instead of genuine citizen participation, the bottom rung of the ladder signifies the distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle by powerholders.

In some respects group therapy, masked as citizen participation, should be on the lowest rung of the ladder because it is both dishonest and arrogant.

Informing citizens of their rights, responsibilities, and options can be the most important first step toward legitimate citizen participation. However, too frequently the emphasis is placed on a one-way flow of information – from officials to citizens – with no channel provided for feedback and no power for negotiation. Under these conditions, particularly when information is provided at a late stage in planning, people have little opportunity to influence the program designed “for their benefit.” The most frequent tools used for such one-way communication are the news media, pamphlets, posters, and responses to inquiries.

Meetings can also be turned into vehicles for one-way communication by the simple device of providing superficial information, discouraging questions, or giving irrelevant answers.

Inviting citizens’ opinions, like informing them, can be a legitimate step toward their full participation. But if consulting them is not combined with other modes of participation, this rung of the ladder is still a sham since it offers no assurance that citizen concerns and ideas will be taken into account. The most frequent methods used for consulting people are attitude surveys, neighborhood meetings, and public hearings.

When powerholders restrict the input of citizens’ ideas solely to this level, participation remains just a window-dressing ritual. People are primarily perceived as statistical abstractions, and participation is measured by how many come to meetings, take brochures home, or answer a questionnaire. What citizens achieve in all this activity is that they have “participated in participation.” And what powerholders achieve is the evidence that they have gone through the required motions of involving “those people.”

 

 

December 3, 2010

Consultation

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication
[7] Comments 

A report from the Consultation Committee was tabled, and its recommendations adopted, on November 3rd, 2010.  

One recommendation read: 

The Committee agreed that the current consultation framework should include the following information to better inform the community about Council consultation processes.

􀂃 The benefits of community engagement;

􀂃 Principles for undertaking community engagement;

􀂃 How Council will communicate and engage with the community; and

􀂃 Tools that Council will use to engage with the community.

Recommendation: Officers to review the ‘Six sets (sic) to community consultation’ paper approved by Council in 2007.

Moved Cr Pilling, Seconded Cr Hyams. Motion Carried.

The above motion inevitably leads to questions:

  1. Is the objective of the recommendation merely to ‘better inform’ – that is, will the ‘review’ actually alter/adapt/amend anything that is currently contained in the policy? Or will it merely represent another exercise in ‘spin’?
  2. In requesting a ‘review’ by officers, which will presumably then come before council for decision, will the public have an opportunity for comment? Ironically, will the community be ‘consulted’ on this new version of the ‘consultation’ policy? Or will council again rubber stamp a document written, directed, and engineered by officers and the public will be excluded from comment?
  3. With what confidence can the community accept that this will be a fair dinkum review of ‘consultation’, when all the directives involve ‘engagement’ as opposed to ‘consultation’. The difference is fundamental to outcomes. Does this therefore represent a lack of knowledge by councillors, or a deliberate manoeuvring – in short a ‘clayton’s review’?
  4. Will this review provide what is currently missing – detailed scenarios, criteria, and performance and evaluation measures that clearly and unequivocably establish the VARIETY of consultation methods for each possible project, policy, master plan, etc. In other words, will the community have council’s commitment to utilise a multiplicity of ‘consultation methods’ that are correlated with the perceived impact of any policy? For example: will council commit to a policy that mandates the use of three ‘consultation’ methods when the potential impact of the proposal is likely to affect 20% of the community? Or four methods when the impact will reach 40% of the community? Or will it become mandatory that all methods are used for something as vital as the budget, the council plan, or issues such as the racecourse?
  5. Will there be any recommendations that list options to IMPROVE current methodology and method?

 Of course, any consultation policy, methodology, and method is only as good as the underlying philosophies and practices which generate the policy. If there is real commitment to ‘engage and consult’ in order to better inform decision making, then it is likely that anything will work. When however, we have a situation that is designed to merely pay lip service to such principles, then all methods will produce the desired result! Time will tell with this one!

 

December 1, 2010

C60: ‘Winky Pop’ & Conflict of Interest

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[5] Comments 

We have spent a large part of today seeking legal opinion as to the claims of ‘conflict of interest’ which are currently sidelining 4 councillors from voting on the C60 Amendment and the Centre of the Racecourse Planning application. Some background first.

The Councillors Racecourse Committee was established as a Special Committee to oversee Council and MRC ‘business’. The major rationale behind this was, as we understand, that since several councillors were trustees, and others were under threat of being ‘winky popped’, that council would not have a quorum in order to carry out its duties. The Special Committee was therefore created with full powers of delegation. Thus it became ‘law’ that four councillors were to determine the future of all matters relating to the Racecourse. That is, according to Glen Eira Council and their way of doing things!

This approach however is certainly questionable, and definitely not universal. Port Phillip City Council in 2008 (following the Winky Pop decision) also created a Special Committee under Section 86 of the Local Government Act to oversee the planning processes of a proposed development in their municipality. In stark contrast to Glen Eira however, their committee comprised:

community representatives, members with planning expertise, and councillor representation. The panel should have an odd number of members for voting purposes, so an appropriate makeup might be two community representatives, two members with planning expertise, and one councillor.

 Fully aware of the Winky Pop decision, the report went on to state: 

It should also be noted that part of the Winky Pop Supreme Court judgement by Justice Kaye reads:

“In determining whether there was prejudgment on behalf of a councillor, it must be borne in mind that councils are democratically elected, and that councillors necessarily carry out political and legislative roles. Accordingly, a councillor is not necessarily disqualified from participating in a decision because the councillor, previously, has held and expressed views on the matter in question.”

3.11. It seems likely that the judgement made about councillor actions in Winky Pop could also be applied to other members of a committee or panel with statutory planning powers.

3.12. Therefore, if a panel was established to decide on the planning application for the Kyme Place site, then people who have fully prejudged the matter should not participate in the voting and decision making process (bearing in mind Justice Kaye’s words that previously holding or expressing views does not automatically constitute prejudgement).

Clearly, the council would want to include high quality community, expert and councillor representation on this panel to decide the planning application. It is likely that this representation would include people who have previously held an opinion or expressed a view.

 These officer recommendations were carried by Council. (23rd June, 2008) 

So why is one Council so restrictive, and another capable of working within the parameters set by the Winky Pop decision, yet still maintaining direct community input and full voting rights for the majority of councillors? Is it really a case of ‘conflict of interest’ and Winky Pop, or merely what Penhalluriack labelled as ‘anti-community and anti-democratic’ – but not from the legislation alone in this case, but its interpretation by certain individuals within Council. 

The legislation covering councillor ‘conflict of interest’ has now been extended and elaborated upon. There are two kinds – ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ conflict of interest. The former largely involves ‘pecuniary’ advantage and the latter, advantage of family and other relationships. In the context of the Racecourse however, we do not believe that trustees have a ‘conflict of interest’. This is based on the fact that:

  • Councillor trustees are not paid for their “services” – hence there is no pecuniary interest and since the legislation was amended, hospitality is no longer applicable
  • The MRC is technically a ‘not for profit’ organisation and hence the legislation exempts such groups from the conflict of interest provisions, and
  • Council does not ‘select’ the trustees – they merely put forward several councillor names. Selection is thus not the province of the Council

Given the above, it is therefore perfectly reasonable to argue that both Magee and Tang are exempt from the ‘conflict of interest’ provisions which would prevent them from participating in the C60 and centre of the racecourse decision making. That leaves at least 7 councillors (and the possibility of  all of them) to partake in the decision making. The need for a quorum is thus fulfilled and the existence of the Racecourse Committee with its delegated powers becomes unnecessary.

At the last council meeting the arguments opposing the abandonment of this Special Committee were all about ‘risk’ – risk from a challenge by the MRC, risk about process, risk about liability. We maintain that the greatest risk to the community lies with allowing a Committee of 4 individuals exercising their delegated powers when there is no legitimate reason for them to do so. The Committee should be disbanded, its delegation powers removed, and the vote taken in a normal council meeting where the vast majority of councillors may present their arguments and vote.

 

December 1, 2010

Our Stats: November

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[2] Comments 

Records keep being broken almost every day on Glen Eira Debates. A summary of this month is provided below. 

MONTH NO. OF HITS
October 7,721
November 11,109

 

  • 767 search terms were entered into search engines such as Google to find us. We assume that the vast majority of these searches are from first time readers, since many ‘old timers’ would either have bookmarked us, or the URL is already embedded in their browser. This means that we’re attracting a constant new flood of readers.
  • Subscriptions have tripled in the past month
  • In the past two weeks our daily average has soared to 413 hits per day and our record is 679 hits on November 24th.
  • Average no. of comments for our entire duration online is now over 5 comments per post. If we take the past two months, then the average is 8 comments per post. This of course does not include the hundreds and hundreds of people who read but don’t comment.

We’re really pleased with these figures. They are a clear indication that:

  • Our ‘fame’ is rapidly spreading
  • People like what we offer – otherwise they wouldn’t be back
  • People are interested in ‘fact’ not council ‘fictions’
  • People want current council news that is devoid of ‘spin’.
  • 11,000 plus hits per month is NOT the result of a mere handful of disgruntled residents. It represents a growing groundswell within a community which is increasingly frustrated with what is happening. 

We promise our readers to keep plugging away. To publish all opinions, to research events as best we can, and if the information is simply not forthcoming, or is not freely available, then we will continue to draw our own conclusions. Sadly, there would not be the need for Glen Eira Debates if transparency and accountability and genuine community consultation were the realities underpinning the existence of Glen Eira Council.

 

November 30, 2010

Public Realm: Consultation

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

This email and an attachment arrived this morning:

Dear Gleneira Debates,
 
I just read your entry on the middle of the Racecourse and I am appalled at the way such a Public issue is being handled. But then I am not surprised at that.
 
I am attaching Council’s letter of 22 November about changes of the road arrangements on Glenhuntly Rd cnr Manchester Gve. The letter invites comments by 7 December. I am a trader nearby and really do not have time for writing and commenting on such a complex in my view issue. The corner has Safeway with 20,000 visitors per week and a 4 storey building being built on the corner. Again there will be a huge influx of cars and people using Public Transport.
 
This is a Public Realm issue and should have a meeting of residents and users of the area. The traders should be invited to a presentation and verbal detailed explanation not just a drawing, which may or may not be understood. The issue of Parking is also briefly mentioned, but my impression is that it is a fait accompli.
 
This may be a disaster intersection, since future traffic flows are not being accounted for.
 
It’s clear that the Engagement process and communication to the Public is unsatisfactory. I just wonder if the changes were simply done on behest of the 2 stakeholders: Safeway and the Developer without any reference to the Public. I also wonder if Councillors themselves know anything about these changes.
 
Could you please alert your readers and the Public of this project.
 
Unhappy Trader

JamesGlenhuntlyCrossRoads.[1]

 

November 30, 2010

C60: Another ‘Swifty’ by Council?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication
[14] Comments 

Today’s Glen Eira Council advertisement in the Caulfield Leader. We quote:

Notice is given pursuant to Section 89(4) of the Local Government Act, 1989 that a meeting of Glen Eira City Council’s Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee will be held on Monday 13th December 2010 in the Council Chamber, corner of Hawthorn and Glen Eira Roads, Caulfield, commencing at 7pm.

The business to be transacted at this meeting will be

  • Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) Planning Scheme Amendment (C60) – to consider either approval (adoption) or abandonment of the amendment and
  • Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) – to consider a planning application for works in the centre of the reserve (the construction of a car parking area, amenities, playground equipment, and sport/fitness equipment).

We have major concerns with this announcement which we believe amounts to an attempt by this administration to ram through an unpopular option as quickly and quietly as possible. We demand answers to the following:

  1. Up until now the centre of the racecourse has been treated by Council as a ‘normal’ planning application. Suddenly it has become the domain of a Special Committee with delegated powers. Why is this application removed from an open council meeting?
  2. Were ALL councillors consulted/informed that this was to happen?
  3. The size of the advertisement is a further indictment on this Council and its genuine attempt to engage and inform the community. When half page ads can be taken out to promote ‘concerts’, then surely a half page ad –  at least –  can be taken out to inform residents of the most significant planning issue that has confronted the municipality!! We conclude that the intention remains – the less people know, the better!!

 

 

November 29, 2010

Good Governance and Magee

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
1 Comment 

Several posts ago we brought up the issue of the ‘exchange of land’ involving the Coatesville Tennis Club. We cited what Magee had said in council meeting – namely that the intention was merely to develop the area to accommodate disabled players PLUS: “to put in some new courts which council has already agreed to help them…and also by giving over the land adjacent to the tennis courts, council land,…increase the footprint of the tennis courts ..and in return council will pick up the two tennis courts now in Mackie reserve. …. the club has been informed this week that the state government will be looking very favourably on matching council’s contribution …so I recommend this as a first step to our colleagues…..”

We also questioned when, how, and by whom the decision for the above had taken place. Nothing has occurred in an open council meeting! Nothing has been voted on as far as we can tell in an open council meeting! Nothing has been itemised for ‘in camera’ discussions –  as far as we can tell.

What we do know however, is that on September 1st, 2009 the following Request for a Report was made –

Crs Magee/Hyams

That a report be prepared on the feasibility of relocating the two tennis courts on Mackie Reserve in East Bentleigh to 31 Orange Street in East Bentleigh. 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

NO SUCH REPORT HAS BEEN TABLED AT COUNCIL MEETING! It appears that once again decisions are far from transparent and public. That requests for a report are meaningless exercises since they are never tabled, and perhaps never see the light of day. We again offer our pages to Jim Magee and/or Jamie Hyams, in order to explain what appear to be extraordinary circumstances that leave us befuddled, bemused, and suspicious!!!!!

Because nothing is out in the open, we are left to merely conjecture, to try and piece one and two together. Our conclusions are depressingly always the same: decisions keep being made behind closed doors against the spirit of Section 3C of the Local Government Act which, we remind readers, was the favourite lament of the Muncipal Inspector!

 

November 29, 2010

C60 Special Council Meeting

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication
[11] Comments 

Council’s letter announcing the Special Meeting of the Racecourse Precinct Committee contained the following information:

  • Purpose was to consider the rezoning amendment
  • To ‘facilitate retail and residential development’
  • Agendas would be available at libraries, website, on the Friday preceding the Monday 13th meeting

One sentence in particular stood out: ‘You will not have the opportunity to address the council meeting’. The letter was signed by Susan Ross, Strategic Planner.

The results of Saturday’s election however, have cast an entirely different complexion on the issue. We cite a recently received comment from ‘Curious’ – “What an incredible result we got in Victoria. And the unnecessary spend and/or waste and/or lack of services clearly were the key factors in delivering the Government to Ted Bailliue Liberals. But the most surprising outcome is the result in Bentleigh, where Rob Hudson was rolled. I reckon that the unnecessary and therefore quite wasteful spend on GESAC, which attracted lots of money from Labour Governments has became a negative for Rob Hudson.

I think there is a lesson in that for the Glen Eira Council. Do not ignore community views! They were clearly not acceptable by many! The full impact of this huge GESAC project is yet to be revealed. And we are still to see how the issue of Caulfield Racecourse Recreation Public Ground and Public Park issue is going to be resolved by the Ted Baillieu Government? CONGRATULATIONS TO DAVID SOUTHWICK, ELIZABETH MILLER AND TED BAILLIEU FOR A STUNNING SUCCESS.”

What we now have is an entirely new ball game. Madden is gone, Southwick has declared his support for appropriate development of the Racecourse and surrounding precincts and Miller will follow suit. Even Huppert in her response to our questions laid the blame at Council’s doorstep! Now is the time for concerted opposition to Council’s inertia, and neglect of community opinion. Their latest effort in denying residents the opportunity to address the December 13th meeting must be challenged. Councillors must be made acutely aware that ‘a new age’ has dawned and their days of rubber stamping of administrative proposals is a thing of the past. We urge all residents to:

  • Email the mayor demanding your right to address Council
  • When your request is denied, inundate the wider media, parliamentarians, neighbours and friends with your disgust
  • Highlight again and again how the community is being effectively muzzled by the ‘gang of four’ and how undemocratic and anti-community this is
  • Demand the suspension of this meeting

Any other suggestions, thoughts, comments by readers are most welcome.

 

November 28, 2010

Inspector’s Report: Accuracy of Minutes

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

Item 9.15 of last week’s meeting contains council’s response to the Municipal Inspector’s recommendations. Many of the points made relate to ‘accuracy of minutes’. It is thus astounding that the minutes which were published on Friday contain two glaring errors –

  • There is no mention of Cr. Penhalluriack’s dissent. He unequivocally stated that he wished this to be recorded in the minutes
  • The failure to include part of a question to Cr. Lipshutz which asked him whether he was the author of the email

 The failure to include both of these events in the minutes is the result of either incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to keep the wider community ill informed of what happens at council meetings. Since these minutes thereby become the ‘public record’ held for posterity, it represents a complete rewriting of history and is nothing short of a major ‘cover up’ if allowed to stand.

If these omissions are the result of incompetence, then the individual responsible should be called to account. We find it difficult to accept this notion however, since we believe that prior to material being disseminated it would have been checked by fairly ‘high level’ individuals.

Once again, we can only conclude that the inspector’s report, and council’s response to these recommendations remain shallow words, rather than real commitment to openness and transparency. Finally, we also point out that council is spending further money to hire a so-called ‘independent note-taker’!!! We now have ratepayers funds being used for ‘note-taking’ and ‘retraining’. How much is this costing councillors?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »