November 12, 2016

Open Space Decision Making!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments 

 

The purchase of this property for $2.1 million we believe raises many questions. The questions multiply when we find that council’s intention is to lease this property until community ‘consultation’ is undertaken! Here are some queries for your consideration –

  • What happens if the ‘consultation’ results in the majority of residents opposed to the idea as the recent Fosbery/St Aubins proposal showed? Are we therefore in a situation where we are again facing a Clayton’s ‘consultation’ because the decision has already been made – especially since so much money has been spent?
  • Why was this property purchased in the first place given its proximity to Princes Park? Carnegie has many more ‘high priority’ listings than South Caulfield according to the Open Space strategy!
  • Why has Carnegie and other suburbs been ignored and all open space developments have basically occurred in Camden? Given that the Open Space Strategy itself states that this area will only see a marginal increase in population due to its zoning as largely Neighbourhood Residential Zone, why has council spent millions in this ward alone?
  • If council has spent $2.1 million on a very nice looking house, and we would expect at least another half million or more to be incurred in the creation of a ‘park’, then that brings us close to $3 million. Is this really ‘value for money’ for a site that is just over 600 square metres?
  • What will be the length of the proposed lease – 6 months, one year, 2 years?
  • Since the site is on a corner, are we again facing the prospect of streets being closed off and traffic diverted?
  • Why has the purchase of the Magnolia Street house at $1.49 million not been included in the open space reserve budget, but included under the ‘capital works’ budget?

We repeat what we have previously stated. We are totally in favour of more open space throughout the municipality. However, we also desire sound financial decision making that is transparent and accountable and equitable for all residents. The rate of development in our GRZ and RGZ areas are a major concern as council admits. This is where the greatest number of new residents will live and it is in these areas that open space is most desperately required – not in quiet residential streets that are within a stone’s throw of already existing large areas of open space and which the Open Space Strategy admits to seeing only a ‘negligible’ rise in population.

 

November 10, 2016

North Road Skyrail

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

Ormond ‘sky tower’: call to cut car parking from project to boost train use

Adam Carey

A 13-storey tower proposed to be built on top of Ormond railway station could have minimal car parking to encourage its expected 600 residents to use public transport.

The car park would also be designed so that it could one day be converted to other potential uses, such as housing or office space, planning documents for the “vibrant transport hub” in Melbourne’s south-east show.

Level crossing removal fast tracked

The removal of level crossings is fast tracked just one day after the Victorian government received a huge cash boost.

The Andrews government wants to build the first high-rise building in low-rise Ormond, on railway land freed up by the recent removal of the North Road level crossing, to recover some of the costs of its $6 billion grade separation project.

The proposed high-density apartment, office and retail development is the first of several such projects likely to spring up along Melbourne’s rail lines in the next few years, as an add-on to the government’s program of 50 level crossing removals by 2022.

New details about the Ormond development have been published ahead of a planning panel hearing scheduled for February.

The hearing will give the public and the project’s proponent, the Level Crossing Removal Authority, the chance to debate the final form the project should take before approval is granted.  A deadline of December 9 has been set for submissions.

The proposal has not been universally embraced by Ormond residents, some of whom have set up a lobby group against it.

No Ormond Sky Tower spokeswoman Vivian Shannon said the government had alienated residents by failing to be up front about its plans for the site.

“If they had been transparent and said at the start, this is what we’re proposing, I don’t think they would have the backlash that they are going to get now,” Ms Shannon said.

The government did not announce its plan to build above Ormond station until after it had removed the North Road level crossing, leaving it to eagle-eyed observers to notice a large concrete deck being constructed over the tracks.

“We understand it makes sense that along the rail corridor that is where you’re going to have most development, but 13 storeys and access only from the two side streets is completely inappropriate,” Ms Shannon said.

The LXRA has contracted property developers DealCorp to produce a proposal for Ormond station.

The building is slated to have about 220 apartments that will house about 600 people, plus a supermarket and a handful of smaller businesses. An adult book shop has been ruled out in the proposal.

Construction of the building is due to start in 2018 and finish in 2021, the documents state.

It would generate between 660 and 800 extra car journeys a day, according to traffic modelling, and traffic speeds along North Road would be expected to slow by about 4 km/h as a result.

The traffic analysis, by GTA Consultants, also recommends that the development should break with statutory car parking requirements and have a “lower than standard” number of spaces, given it will sit above a station on the busy Frankston line.

Instead, 650 car parks would be included across four levels, with 120 of those reserved for commuters using Ormond station.

The building would be tallest at its southern end, facing North Road, and would taper down to five to six storeys at the northern end of the site, which would face onto quieter streets with detached houses.

The development will also generate 285 new jobs and about $67 million in retail sales in 2021-22, the first full year it is expected to be open, according to analysis for the project.

Traffic queues as a train crosses North Road in 2015, before the level crossing was removed. Photo: Simon O’Dwyer

But one expert on railway stations criticised the Ormond proposal for being “underwhelming” in its intention to encourage its residents to use public transport, given it would still have hundreds of parking spaces.

Chris Hale, a sustainable transport consultant, said that given billions were being spent removing level crossings, communities and local governments “are rightly expecting meaningful outcomes in the realms of local transformation and urban renewal”.

“Passengers want better station facilities and more convenient access to rail, beyond parking,” Dr Hale said.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ormond-sky-tower-call-to-cut-car-parking-from-project-to-boost-train-use-20161110-gsm7e9.html

 

November 8, 2016

Delahunty Elected Mayor

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

Congratulations to Mary Delahunty on being elected unopposed as the new Glen Eira mayor this evening. Jim Magee was elected deputy mayor for a period of two years.

Delahunty’s acceptance speech set a new tone for this council, and again we congratulate her on this.

The highlights of her acceptance speech were:

  • that the 5 new councillors were being given a unique opportunity to work for the community. The job comes with opportunity but also challenges.
  • dedicated to leading a ‘cohesive council and achieving the goals of our community’
  • wanted council to be ‘strategic’ and ‘showing the rest of the state what local government can be’ in terms of being a good employer, and having services that ‘are meaningful to the community’m ‘environmentally’ responsible and a council that ‘deals with fiscal responsibilities’ but with a ‘social benefit’. Plus, ‘we can be an absolute force when it comes to community advocacy’.
  • Had ‘faith’ that the ‘diversity around this table will lead to good community outcomes’ and that councillors will ‘respect each other’, the process, ‘this chamber’ and ‘the people who put us here’.
  • There’s the need to make sure that all people ‘feel welcomed and have a voice on council’.
  • There will be opportunities and challenges such as the level crossing removal and making sure that ‘in a constructive way we are putting the best interests of the community forward’. Noted the 2016 Community Satisifaction Survey where there were a ‘few areas’ where ‘people were happy’ but other areas where they weren’t. Of ‘great concern to our community is the intensity of development’ and ‘we have to be more forceful’ and ‘proactive’. Council has to now concentrate on the necessary strategic work and on consulting and protecting heritage and trees. ‘We have to bring the voices of the people into the process’.
  • ‘Good financial management’ whilst important is not an ‘end goal’. They are ‘enablers’ for ‘progress’
  • The racecourse is still an issue and thanked Magee for his work on this. But ‘we will finally put this right’.
  • The ‘community has voted for some change and I’m sure we can deliver that’. ‘We need to be the community representatives but with a strategic mandate’ and ‘we need to make as many opportunities as possible to hear from the residents’ and to ‘adopt a learning posture at all times’. The Local Law doesn’t allow this but does allow the mayor to have ‘discretion’ in deciding what can be asked. ‘I intend to exercise this discretion for 15 minutes’ from the next public meeting (applause).
  • On councillor allowances she will be ‘directing’ that a ‘portion’ of the mayoral allowance be used to fund family violence strategies. Said that as the level of government closest to ‘the people’ that Council needs to ‘play a leading role’ in the safety of the community.

Ended up by thanking family and friends.

 

November 3, 2016

Letters To The Editor

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

boothhyams

 

November 1, 2016

Leopards Don’t Change Their Spots!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[17] Comments 

We’ve pinched part of a dialogue from the Facebook page of the Glen Eira Residents’ Action Group, featuring Newton Gatoff and Jamie Hyams.

HYAMS: It’s (election results) not unbelievable when you look at the latest community satisfaction survey, which is run by the State Government and therefore independent of Council. 56% said Council’s performance was very good or good and 11% said it was poor or very poor (32% said it was average and 1% didn’t know). The survey represents all age groups and suburbs.

GATOFF: I’m not sure the “community satisfaction survey” is borne out by the election result, but when a community elects a majority of new Councillors, it tends to reflect a call for change – In Kingston where the Council had structure plans, collaborative community decision-making and transparent Council meetings, the electorate re-elected every incumbent who stood. Yes, there are many good things being done by good Officers in Glen Eira who get well paid to perform. The Councillors can save their chest-beating for when we have a planning scheme which is fair and a level of governance which responds to the vocal minority. This is not a private club membership; it is an honourable non-executive role which should be performed with sincerity and humility but above all in reflection of the community’s wishes. So congratulations Jamie, you were re-elected again, and I for one will be calling on all three of my ward Councillors to give as much airtime to residents who need your help as you do to celebrating statistics. My commiserations to you Neil, it is not a generous process and I realise how hard it can be 1st time around, but I would invite you to remain a voice of sense and reason in whichever municipality you find yourself in.

HYAMS: Responding specifically to Newton, yes there were only four incumbents returned, but Michael Lipshutz resigned, Kelvin Ho had only been a councillor for a few months, Oscar generally didn’t identify with Council’s successes and while Thomas was a valued and constructive councillor, as an endorsed Greens councillor, his fortunes were more closely tied to the regard voters had for his party. That leaves only five of us whose re-election reflected the community regard for the Council, and four of us were re-elected. It was a great shame that Neil Pilling, who was a fair and diligent councillor who had the respect of his colleagues, was not returned.

Newton, having read your recent and earlier posts, and also listened to your performance on J-Air radio, there seems to be a theme that the wider community doesn’t really know what’s good for them, so Council should listen to the “vocal minority”. I find this to be quite elitist and undemocratic. I’m on council to represent the whole community, not just those who make the most noise. You also attack us for having implemented height limits in all residential zones, and for not having structure plans, the main feature of which would be height limits, in commercial zones. I would think that you can complain either about us having height limits or not having them, but when you complain about both, you just appear to be criticising us for the sake of it.

You say we brought in the zones without consultation and should therefore apologise, but the zones were the direct result of consultation in the form of the 2010/11 Planning Scheme Review, and apart from one block in Caulfield North, it was a direct translation from the Minimal Change and Housing Diversity Areas and Urban Villages to the corresponding Zones. I refer you to my earlier more detailed post on this issue, posted on 10 October. Councils tend not to consult when implementing to the letter the result of a previous consultation, and certainly don’t apologise for it.

I agree that we do need structure plans in commercial zones, and implementing these is one of the priorities of our planning scheme review. However, up till recently, our policies generally provided the necessary protection from overdevelopment in these areas, and this only changed when various VCAT members took it upon themselves to disregard these policies.

 

October 29, 2016

5 New Councillors

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016
[49] Comments 

CAMDEN – Delahunty, Silver, Sztrajt

camden

ROSSTOWN – Esakoff, Davey, Anthanasopoulos

rosstown

TUCKER – Hyams, Magee, Taylor

tucker

 

COMMENT

Firstly, a hearty congratulations to all newly elected councillors. Residents have ‘spoken’ and their votes indicate a strong desire for change in Glen Eira. There’s also been a non too gentle reminder to the returning incumbents – Esakoff’s primary vote went from 34% down to 23%; Hyams from 23% down to 16% and Magee’s also declined by 0.5%. Only Delahunty’s percentage vote increased from 24.51% to 25.48%.

 

October 27, 2016

11 Storeys For Elsternwick!

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

22-26 Riddell Parade Elsternwick, has been granted a permit for 11 storeys – no thanks to Council!

Readers should revisit our initial post on the Rocky Camera report (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/another-12-storeys/) where we queried some of the assertions made at the time. Please remember:

  • Council sold part of its car park to ‘facilitate’ this development!
  • Much was made of whether or not the entrance to the proposed car park was ‘legal’ and/or ‘safe’. Doesn’t or didn’t Council know who owned what? What does this tell us about their record-keeping, their corporate memory, or the accuracy and fallibility of officer reports?
  • Elsternwick was omitted from the proposed Amendments C147/8 that covered Bentleigh & Carnegie – though admittedly too late for this application. It is clear that Elsternwick is fair game for developers and we can only wonder what plans Council has for further development – ie ABC studios?

We also wonder why, if so much of the Camera report and the councillors’ refusal was based on demanding safe entry to the basement car park, why these arguments are totally missing in the hearing? Instead, traffic engineering is said to be ‘in agreement’. What happened to all the supposed opposition that council was going to put up on this point? Here are some extracts –

  • At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Pitt tabled a registered Plan of Subdivision (PS7285588C) for Stage 1 that provides for areas of Common Property No. 1 shared by Stage 2 to provide for legal access.
  • Council did not raise any concerns about the proposed access arrangements at the hearing, however the respondents submitted that the reliance on the existing Stanley Street access point would create congestion. Mr Barnard submitted that alternative access for bicycles and pedestrians could be taken from the northern laneway to reduce the pressure on the Stanley Street access point. He produced a plan illustrating how this might occur. The plan showed relocation of the bike storage to car parks and the reorganisation of the waste storage to provide an opportunity for direct access to the laneway.
  • The evidence of Mr Fairlie was that the existing access to Stanley Street was acceptable and that the crossover and surrounding street network could accommodate the additional traffic generated by this development. Council’s traffic engineers agreed, also recommending additional site lines in the laneway and some minor changes to the internal layout.

Source:  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/1692.html

We point out another couple of VCAT decisions where council’s refusals amounted to a big fat zero given its planning scheme and the zones.

  • 137-139 Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena – VCAT granted a permit for 3 storeys and 27 units
  • 12 Anarth St., Bentleigh East – 2 double storeys side by side
  • 90-94 Mimosa Road – 4 storeys, 47 units.
 

October 25, 2016

Election News: Joshua Bonney

Posted by gleneira under Election 2016
[11] Comments 

In a remarkable turn of events, it would appear that Joshua Bonney has officially withdrawn his nomination for the current council election. Since this was post nomination date, his votes will still count. Bonney preferenced Magee second, Okotel third and Karlik fourth.

 

October 23, 2016

How It Works – Vote Counting

Posted by gleneira under Election 2016
[7] Comments 
 

October 21, 2016

Summing Up!

Posted by gleneira under Election 2016
[10] Comments 

Today is the last day for residents to get their votes in – although many have undoubtedly made up their minds and already cast their votes. It’s now time for reflection as to the entire process and its potential outcomes.

The Age ran a story a few days ago on council elections and the associated ‘problems’. We will go a step further and state that much needs reforming, especially the legislation governing council elections. It is not enough that candidates have the choice as to whether or not they tick a box on some useless questions. Nor is it satisfactory that candidates are asked whether or not they are ‘endorsed’ by a political party. The Greens are the only party which officially endorses individuals. Labor and Liberal do not. But this doesn’t mean that these major political parties don’t influence the candidates or get involved in what happens in council chambers – Skyrail being the perfect example. Even asking whether or not a candidate is a member of any political party is not enough. The example of Esakoff’s campaign and her claim to be ‘independent’ shows how inadequate this is!  What this election has shown above all is the (deliberate?) impotence of the legislation.

Remember the de-facto How-To-Vote cards? When Liberal candidates can nominate Vote #1, Vote #2 and Vote #3 on their candidate statements, and the VEC can rule that this is okay, then there is something drastically wrong with our system. And since the Bayside Libs did exactly the same thing, we can only conclude that the ‘orders’ came from on high from headquarters! And what influence did the Labor party have on awarding preferences to their members?

In Glen Eira dirty tricks have been abundant –

  • Posters torn down
  • Stooges and trolls operating to their heart’s content on social media
  • Flyers distributed which allege collusion between Labor candidates and sporting clubs
  • Candidates’ billboards advertising real estate agents

It has been a dirty campaign where the gulf between the incumbents’ statements on their flyers and their actions are miles apart. If Magee can state that he supports 3 and 4 storeys in activity centres, yet in chamber supports 7 storeys for Carnegie, then truth has no value. Nor do Hyams’ claims to be working for the ‘community’ hold up to scrutiny when his voting patterns on so many issues clearly show how one sector of the community can so regularly outweigh the wishes of the majority of the community. Pilling of course is the classic case of someone elected on Green credentials, only to become a ‘turncoat’ and basically align himself with the conservatives time and time again. Yet this hasn’t stopped him from producing flyers and posters which are still green in colour – but without naming the Greens.

Here are some suggested reforms that we hope will improve both the quality of candidates and the electoral process. We welcome your thoughts!

  • Prospective candidates to nominate 6 months out from the election date
  • Prospective candidates to undertake a comprehensive ‘induction/education’ process at this time and not once they are elected
  • This ‘course’ to be standard across all councils and conducted by ‘independent’ bodies including – Law Reform Commission; Accountants Association etc. In other words covering all the major areas that councils operate within. If candidates ‘fail’ these courses they become ineligible to stand.
  • Standards to be set on all election material
  • Compulsory ‘town hall’ meetings for all candidates 2 weeks out from the election
  • Councils to provide the facilities for these meetings

Much, much more can and should be done. This of course depends on the will of legislators and whether their primary concern is true democratic process and an equal playing field!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »