July 11, 2017

How Transparent?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[5] Comments 

Council has published the Terms of Reference for its Community Advisory Group for the East Village project. Ostensibly, the creation of this advisory committee is a positive step, if somewhat belated in that the first draft of the resulting structure plan has already been set.

What concerns us even more than the question of timing,  is how  transparently this committee will operate, how it will report,  and how much notice will be taken of community rep views. The terms of reference (see below) do not fill us with confidence that this will be anything except another public relations exercise designed to provide the illusion of working with the community.

Please note the following:

  • No mention is made of councillors. Are they excluded entirely from any involvement in this committee – from selecting residents to actually partaking in the meetings?
  • Why is all responsibility granted to officers in terms of selection, etc?
  • Why is there no formal council resolution that endorses these terms of reference?
  • Why is there no mention of reporting requirements to the wider community?
  • Why is there the possibility that the Victorian Planning Authority and others may attend, when it was specifically stated by the Mayor that this is a committee expressly set up to work exclusively with council?
  • Given that the next iteration of the structure planning work is supposed to be in July (ie urban design/building guidelines) then how many times will this committee actually meet?

 

July 8, 2017

How Important Is Heritage?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

At the last council meeting, and following the wide media coverage, this resolution was passed –

Moved: Cr Delahunty Seconded: Cr Silver

That Council requests the Minister for Planning to prepare, adopt and approve a Planning Scheme Amendment in accordance with Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for an interim heritage control over the property at 450 Dandenong Road, Caulfield North.

All well and good, but there is no guarantee that the Minister will accede to this request. Nor do we know whether council has in fact conducted any heritage evaluation of the building in order to provide sound strategic justification. In short, is this simply another example of an ad hoc reactive measure to recent publicity?

The same old questions surface time and time again –

  • Why is it that other councils can be so proactive on heritage?
  • Why hasn’t council allocated funds to ensure more than an ‘update’ of a ‘Reference Document’ that has existed for 15 years but never been included as such in the planning scheme?
  • Why must residents wait for at least another 2 years before there is the chance to include other properties such as the Dandenong Road one onto the Heritage listing in the Planning Scheme? Why can’t residents start nominating sites now? Why can’t the work begin now?

In March 2017 Council applied to advertise its ‘updated’ policy and to include this document only as a ‘Reference Document’ in the Planning Scheme.  The officer report specifically noted the following –

What should also be noted by readers is that Reference Documents have very little influence in decision making as stated in the Government’s Practice Note 13 — –Reference documents have only a limited role in decision-making as they are not part of the planning scheme. They do not have the status of incorporated documents or carry the same weight. (Planning Practice Note 13: Incorporated & Reference Documents)

Stonnington by contrast has done its homework and has come up with an amendment that seeks to include 60 new sites at the same time into its Heritage Overlays. (Agenda item for July 2017) None of this one by one ad hoc approach that is favoured by Glen Eira and which according to Stonnington is far from cost effective.

Conclusion?

We see no reason why Glen Eira cannot proceed along similar lines to Stonnington – unless of course there is no money for heritage consultants. That comes back to priorities. When a budget is willing to spend $282,000 on concrete plinths, instead of using this money to preserve our past, then we claim that council priorities are way out of kilter with what most people would want. Of course, we have never been asked what our real priorities are and where we would like our money spent!

The tragedy is that by the time council gets around to investigating what other properties should be included in a heritage overlay it will be too late.

 

July 4, 2017

The ‘Excuses’ Keep Coming!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

We’re repeating the gist of one of our previous posts since the Glen Eira Leader (below) provides Council’s ‘response’ through the Mayor. As we’ve stated, year after year the same poor results in planning, traffic, etc. rear their ugly heads – yet, if the survey can be ‘criticised’ because it is ‘perception based’, then surely this also applies to council’s good results regarding rubbish and the service centre? Not a word on this of course.

Readers might also find it informative to go back 5 years and see what councillors had to say (especially Hyams and Esakoff who are still on council) on equally bad results in 2012 – even before the introduction of the zones? [See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/community-dissatisfaction-survey/ ]

 

June 30, 2017

Virginia Estate – Council Outdoes Gillon & Co!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[21] Comments 

Council has published its ‘draft’ Structure Plan for the development of Virginia Estate. It has also announced that in the next few weeks it will be calling for expressions of interest for residents to partake in a Community Reference Group. A tad too late we suggest since the ‘draft’ has already been formulated and given past experience very little is likely to change.

The only ‘improvement’ that is clear is the statement that a 1 hectare public open space will be included. Issues regarding schools and transport are still being ‘negotiated’ with the State Government.

The most disturbing aspect of this ‘draft’ Structure Plan is that council’s nominated height limits are in fact even higher than the proposals from the developers. We’ve uploaded the Gillon & Co draft plan as well as the Council nominated version below. Please compare carefully!

No information is forthcoming as to potential number of residential developments, the number(s) and area of retail, etc. More to follow in the days ahead on this item.

PS: Council claims that the above draft is in response to community feedback thus far. At the May forum we reported that residents stated the following:

  • Problem with language – people did not know what ‘innovation’ referred to – far too vague.
  • More clarity required about the term ‘affordable housing’ and this should be changed to ‘diversity of housing’
  • Questions about what ‘village’ means and is this a ‘village’
  • Traffic and car parking are major problems
  • Desire for low rise townhouses. Some tables nominated a maximum height limit of 3 storeys and others up to 6 storeys.
  • Diverse views on the need for another school and whether this should be part of McKinnon High or another new school entirely.
  • Open space that wasn’t covered over in concrete
  • A new supermarket required but also not a threat to other existing businesses in the area.
  • No waiving of car parking spots
  • Environmental sustainability across the entire centre including flood mitigation

Council has now decided to amend the ‘vision’ statement. It remains full of gobbledy gook, and DOES NOT address the responses listed above. Below is the original ‘vision’ and then the latest updated version.

East Village will be a thriving, mixed use precinct with a focus on employment, innovation, education and housing affordability. (Version 1)

‘East Village will be a sustainable mixed use precinct with a focus on innovative employment and education opportunities. Enhanced by green spaces and places for people, it will be supported by a diverse range of high quality housing and retail that caters for all.’  (Version 2)

 

June 29, 2017

Exploiting The Loopholes – Vickery Street?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

When a development application comes in, there are several processes that are legally required to be followed. The application can be rejected or approved under delegated authority or booted up to a full council decision which may also reject, amend, or grant the permit. The developer and/or objectors then have the option of going to VCAT.

At VCAT, there are another series of processes. There can be what is known as a Practice Day Hearing, which is basically to iron out some detail. There is a full hearing where VCAT publishes the decision and objectors are given notice. And there is what is called a compulsory hearing. This is where the problems lie since:

  • Such hearings are ‘confidential’ and no public record is available
  • Objectors are ‘ordered’ to appear if they have been part of the initial objection and wish to remain so
  • Written objections are ignored
  • The VCAT member is at liberty to issue ‘orders’ after hearing from both sides (and objectors)

In recent times it would appear that Council has managed to use this ‘loophole’ of ‘secrecy’ to avoid a full public hearing and therefore an open and easily accessible record of the outcome. More disconcerting, is that if no objector is party to these compulsory conferences, then any deals made between council and the developer is entirely up to them. History would suggest that council’s performance at these ‘compulsory conferences’ is nothing short of total cave-ins to developers – regardless as to whether or not there have been amended plans submitted.

We find it extraordinary that in the past 3 weeks (from 7/6/2017 to the schedule for the 29/6/2017) Council appears in 16 VCAT sessions. The breakdown of these 16 appearances is:

  • 7 Compulsory Conferences
  • 7 Practice Day Hearings, and only
  • 2 public hearings

A recent example should suffice in illustrating why heading off to a compulsory conference is far from satisfactory to residents. The case we use to illustrate is 24-26 Vickery St, Bentleigh. An application for a 4 storey, 36 apartment development came up for council decision on the 28th June 2016 after being submitted in May 2016. The officer recommendation was for a 4 storey and 33 apartments. There were 10 objections. Councillors, as is their want, decided that instead of a permit for 4 storeys they would reduce this to 3 storeys and 27 units. Remember, we have stated time and again that every single time such a decision has been made, the developer simply goes to VCAT and gets what he wants.

This application of course also ended up at VCAT – BUT first as a listed ‘compulsory conference’. No hearing followed. Unfortunately the objector was not able to attend. This meant that it was council and the developer who appeared. The outcome was that the VCAT member issued an order for a 4 storey development and the original number of dwellings applied for. Adding further insult to injury, was that some of the conditions stipulated by councillors in their decision were now also gone.

Thus a full open hearing was avoided. Since these compulsory conferences are ‘secret’, then no one really knows why the council representative decided to go against a full council resolution and cave-in to the developer.

What is concerning about this tactic is the following:

  • Countless applications are now being decided in compulsory conferences in favour of the developer
  • Many of these applications that end up at compulsory conferences have been first decided under Manager delegation. That means no advertising and no-one really gets to know that an application has even come into council. (The Caulfield Village Precinct 2 was a perfect example – rejected outright under ‘Manager’ delegation , a compulsory conference called, and made public only after it was highlighted via a public question that this had occurred. This did ultimately go to a full hearing where the MRC won hands down).
  • No reasons are published as to why the developer got his permit – hence transparency and accountability are non-existent
  • More concerning is that cases listed for hearings do not even proceed to this stage but are determined between council and the developer. Most end up with their permits which would indicate that council has agreed in the vast majority of cases.

A few other points are worth making –

  • When a resident wanted to check on the final permit granted for Vickery Street – to really see whether it was back to 4 storeys, since the member’s order was unclear – they were told by officers that they would have to pay a hefty $70 fee to retrieve the documents from the archives.
  • Once the resident cited the legislation to council, they did eventually agree to ‘waive’ the ‘fee’ ‘in this instance’. The Planning & Environment Act, 1987, Section 70 grants anybody the right to inspect any permit granted by council for free!!!!!
  • Council’s regular VCAT Watch, features the cases set down for VCAT. Many involve compulsory conferences that do not proceed to full hearings, yet permits are granted. Even those listed for ordinary hearings don’t always end up at the hearings. And again we find that permits have been granted. Residents should be privy to the reasons for every single decision. That is what transparency and accountability demands. When council does cave in (and we do not deny that in some instances a developer may have caved in to council’s wishes) then they must be accountable for such actions – especially when this goes against the wishes of the councillor group and a formal council resolution as in the case of Vickery Street.
  • So, we leave it to residents to decide whether council has conveniently discovered another loophole in the legislation and is using it to full advantage without ensuring full transparency and accountability to those who pay the bills – us!
 

June 27, 2017

Glen Eira & The Census

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

The above table proves beyond doubt what an unmitigated disaster planning has been in Glen Eira and continues to be. If our suspicions of council’s intent of facilitating more and more development bears fruit then the very fabric of Glen Eira will be destroyed even further.

Here’s why:

  • Nearly a 1% increase in vacant properties
  • Instead of a projected 148,000 population in 2016, there’s only 140,000
  • Cars per household increase – and no proper parking precinct guidelines
  • Increase in family households but significant decrease in number of 3 bedroom places and even a decline in number of 2 bedroom places
  • A population increase of 10,000 but over 8000 building permits handed out in the 5 years.
  • Well above Victorian average for apartments in the municipality. Glen Eira’s buildings are composed of 24.2% for ‘semi-detached, row or terrace house, townhouse’ whilst the state average is 14.2%. In terms of ‘Flat or apartment’ Glen Eira has 24.5% and the State average is 11.6%.

Conclusions

  • There is a vast oversupply of dwellings in Glen Eira
  • Glen Eira is well and truly meeting its population growth
  • Diversity of dwellings is declining fast

Source: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA22310?opendocument

 

June 27, 2017

Beware The Hidden Agenda!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

The most important page that has thus far been published by council is the following because it provides a clue as to what council is really planning and why residents across Glen Eira should be very, very concerned. Our take is that council intends to facilitate and expand development across Glen Eira – especially in those areas which happen to be close to railway stations and along major roads.

The Draft Activity Centre, Housing and Local Economy Strategy makes this absolutely clear. Here is the relevant screen dump  (page 10).  Please note the following:

  • At least 3 current Local Centres will be upgraded to Neighbourhood Centres – Patterson, Ripponlea, and Garden Vale. That means more apartments!
  • Moorabbin which is a current Neighbourhood Centre will now be a Major Activity Centre as will Glen Huntly (we acknowledge that the latter has always been seen by the Government as a Major Centre. Council has insisted on calling it a Neighbourhood Centre).
  • Caulfield and Virginia Estate are givens – just the amount of residential development is unclear. We estimate another 5000 dwellings at least on these two sites.

Council has refused to deny the possibility that properties currently zoned Neighbourhood Residential will suddenly find themselves zoned as General Residential or Residential Growth. Or those zoned as General Residential will be ‘upgraded’ to Residential Growth. Without a straight out denial, that convinces us even more that the probability of this occurring is already set in concrete. The question is how many homes will be affected? How many residents will wake up one morning to find that they can now have 11 and 13.5 metre dwellings (at best) right next door to them?

As an example of what currently exists we use Patterson as a model. Here is a map of this currently designated Local Centre. Please note that it consists of a handful of shops zoned Commercial 1, but surrounded entirely by sites zoned Neighbourhood Residential. Activity centres by definition include Neighbourhood Centres and every single activity centre contains sites zoned as either Commercial, Mixed Use, General Residential or Residential Growth Zone. They do NOT contain properties zoned Neighbourhood Residential – especially not in Glen Eira.

It is definitely time that council for once provided residents with a clear and truthful version of what is in store. A simple, unequivocal ‘no’ to our suggestion that countless properties will be rezoned to GRZ or RGZ would alleviate much angst.

 

June 24, 2017

The Continuing Downward Spiral

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

One of the stated strategic objectives of the latest Community Plan promises residents that Council will – Provide you with regular and transparent reports on key outcomes and on our performance.

If this is truly the objective, then why is the latest State Government Community Satisfaction Survey results buried deep on council’s website and no officer reports extolling the virtues of this council have made it onto the agenda for the past two years – in stark contrast to what was previous practice?

The answer of course is that Glen Eira is on a continuous downward spiral when it comes to residents’ perceptions of performance. The dissatisfaction with those old perennials of planning, traffic, consultation have never reached such a low ebb. Many of the results listed are below both the Metropolitan average as well as the State average for all councils.

The most important indicator in our view is the differential score between ‘importance’ and ‘performance’. In other words, how important residents regard a particular aspect of council’s work compared to the actual performance of that work. Glen Eira has never had a differential of over 30 points as this year’s survey reveals. Year after year these areas have been highlighted by responses as basically failing resident expectations. That this is still the case, and worsening, says much about how council is addressing residents’ concerns.

Below are some screen dumps of the ‘lowlights’ –

 

June 22, 2017

Glen Eira – The Development Leader!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments 

Here is a table from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) recording the number of building permits granted in each municipality for the 2015/16 financial year and up to the end of April, 2017.

These figures prove conclusively that Glen Eira is the most overdeveloped municipality in the South East. As we’ve mentioned several times, Port Phillip is a very special case – ie parts zoned as Capital City status, plus a huge Commercial area (9.5%) in comparison to Glen Eira (3.1%). These figures come from the State of Play reports for the committee which reviewed the residential zones – MRDAC (Ministerial Residential Development Advisory Committee).

The figures raise countless questions that we’ve previously reported on. For instance:

  • Why, when Glen Eira is basically doubling and tripling its projected required dwelling figures to meet population growth, is there a strong possibility that council will expand the borders of its activity centres and include more sites into its GRZ or even RGZ zoning?
  • Why isn’t council screaming loud and clear about Wynne’s VC110 amendment when countless other councils are? Remember that the mandatory 2 dwellings per lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone is now gone and we are already seeing applications coming in for multiple dwellings in this zone? Plus the fact that the General Residential Zone will now not be seen as the area for ‘incremental’ growth, but is the target for major development? That especially hurts neighbourhood centres like Ormond, McKinnon, Bentleigh East, etc where large swathes are zoned as General Residential.
  • Why isn’t council addressing the most basic of questions – what is ‘capacity’?
  • Why isn’t council uttering a single word about ‘density’? Our calculations indicate that at the estimated population for 2016 of 148,000 people, that the municipality’s density (ie number of people per square km for land zoned as ‘residential’) will climb from approximately 3,800 per sqk to over 4,400 per sqk. How sustainable is this? How much will it cost to upgrade basic amenities such as drainage, open space, etc. And who will pay for it – developers or residents?
 

June 21, 2017

Caulfield North

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments 

VCAT has granted a permit for a 7 storey building (43 units and shops) at 67-77 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North. The original application was for 8 storeys but an amended permit was put in. Here are the ‘lowlights’ of the decision.

We give little weight to the recently approved planning scheme amendments that limit the heights of development in parts of Bentleigh and Carnegie urban villages. They are not applicable to this site or activity centre. We understand these amendments impose height controls for a limited time until an urban design framework is completed that provides a coherent and reasoned basis for height and other development controls.

We are not persuaded that the building would be unduly tall in this centre because:

  • There is no specific guidance in the scheme in a schedule to the zone, a DDO or a policy regarding the preferred height.
  • There are buildings of six, five and four storeys in the centre, hence this building with its recessed top storey will not appear to be out of scale with the emerging built form.
  • There is good prospect that the adjoining sites to the north and south will also be developed for buildings of similar height, hence in time it would be one of a cluster of tall buildings rather than an anomaly.
  • Lot sizes in the centre, behind the shops that front Hawthorn Road are generally large and capable of accommodating taller buildings
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »