October 8, 2016

Why They Must Go!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning
[22] Comments 

PS: An update on this afternoon’s Tucker Ward ‘Meet the Candidates’. Those present were: Magee, Lobo, Taylor, Searle, Brewster, Mackie, De’Arth.

ABSENT: Hyams, Okotel, Bonney, Elliott, Karlik, Cade and Andonopoulos – the last with apology due to family wedding.

We have reported on planning decisions made by these councillors over the past 4 years. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/for-the-record-2/). This post we concentrate on the area that has bedevilled this council for over a decade – governance and how community aspirations have been continually ignored and/or thwarted.

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES

Councils had until June 30th 2014 to introduce their individual versions of the new residential zones. Glen Eira was the first, with Guy’s announcement on August 5th 2013 followed by official gazetting on 23rd August 2013. Countless other councils held extensive community consultations. Glen Eira did not. Even those councils which applied for the ‘fast track’ ministerial intervention under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act, tabled their intentions and the relevant details of the proposed zonings at formal council meetings. This was then voted on by councillors in an open and transparent fashion at their respective council meetings. Thus their citizens could see what was to occur and had the opportunity to at least contact their representatives. Glen Eira did not, thus being the only council in the state which did not provide its residents with any information and any opportunity to voice an opinion.  There was no council resolution and no official ratification of anything. Another example of decision making behind closed doors!

Add to this various public questions dating from July 2013 asking when council would begin its community consultations and we find responses that were blatantly untrue and designed to mislead and deceive. There was never any intention to alert the public or consult with them. We know this because as far back as 2009 Akehurst had written an officer’s report that said there would be no community consultation if the zones, as they were proposed in 2008 were ever to come in. We also know that Guy, the department honchos, Hyams, Newton and Akehurst had been busy meeting since at least April 2013 and spending taxpayers’ money on getting legal advice as to how best to thwart any potential legal challenges and, we assume, whether or not a formal resolution had to be tabled at council meetings. The intent was always to avoid public consultation and accountability. We, the residents, were irrelevant to the devious and secret collusion going on between Matthew Guy, the department and council.

The following comes from the documents obtained under FOI and reveals the full treachery that all the present councillors allowed to occur and some positively encouraged –

image0059

NOTICE OF MOTION & PUBLIC QUESTIONS

Notice of motion is an essential element of good governance  and community representation since it allows a councillor (once seconded by another councillor) to have an item placed on the agenda for full and open debate and decision. Glen Eira is the only council in the state that has repeatedly refused to grant this right to councillors – and therefore residents who request a councillor to initiate some action on an issue. It has come up at least twice in the past 4 years and been defeated by the conservative faction led by Hyams, Esakoff, Okotel and Lipshutz.

Adding insult to injury, the recent changes to the public question format means that unless the questioner is present in chamber the response will not be recorded in the official minutes. The result? No public record that will provide interested residents with any idea of what council’s position is and what the issues that concern some residents are. With no public record there is no accountability and certainly no transparency.

Those councillors who vetoed these democratic rights are: LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, ESAKOFF, PILLING & HO

GUNS IN THE PARK

Readers will remember the furore created by this secret (and potentially illegal) in camera vote that permitted private security guards to carry guns in local parks. Those responsible for keeping this secret and deciding that this was in the best interests of the entire community were – PILLING, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, OKOTEL, MAGEE

FROGMORE

When Council had the opportunity to proceed to a Panel Hearing over the application to build a Jewish Care aged care home at Frogmore, the proposed heritage amendment was abandoned. This meant that the developer  moved in overnight and demolished the building and removed nearly 90 trees – 4 of which were categorised as ‘significant’. Over 1000 signatures on a petition had requested council to implement heritage protection and another 200+ submissions had gone in anticipating a formal panel hearing where residents would get the opportunity to have their say and to present their well researched evidence. Esakoff and Delahunty conveniently declared a ‘conflict of interest’ and Magee was absent. Pilling used his casting vote to ensure that Frogmore was no more. Those who voted against going to the panel were: PILLING, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ. Thus 3 councillors (a minority) thwarted the stated wishes of over a 1000 residents!

CONSERVATORY

Two expensive community consultations, plus several council resolutions, made it clear that the conservatory at Caulfield Park be maintained and restored. Not satisfied with the results, there was another go to get rid of the building. This time it worked. Those councillors who ignored community views, their own previous resolutions and succeeded in removing the structure were: HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, DELAHUNTY, PILLING

CONCLUSION

These examples are only some of the outrages that have occurred during this council’s term of office. If residents want more of the same, if they want to be continually ignored and told fairy tales, if they want more internal strife and division, then they should retain the incumbents. However, if residents feel that Glen Eira must change and improve their overall performance in so many areas, then these sitting councillors have to go.  Most of them have been there for 8 years. They have achieved very little except to alienate countless residents, each other, and cost ratepayers a fortune in legal fees  – which by the way is far from over given this statement from the 2015/16 Annual Report just published –

Contingent liabilities

(a) Arising from legal matters

Council is presently involved in several confidential legal matters, which are being conducted through Council’s solicitors.

As these matters are yet to be finalised and the financial outcomes are unable to be reliably estimated, no allowance for these contingencies has been made in the Financial Report. (page 214)

Open and transparent governance is dead in Glen Eira thanks to those councillors named above. Glen Eira desperately needs new councillors who put community, honesty and fiscal responsibility first!

 

October 7, 2016

Sounness & Hyams

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

Once councillor nominations closed across the state,  Save Our Suburbs sent out a survey to all candidates. 10 candidates from Glen Eira responded. The questions and the survey responses are available on the SOS website.

We wish to highlight the responses made by two incumbents  – Sounness and Hyams. Please make your judgements!

SOUNNESS

pages-from-responses_all_16102016-local-council-candidate-survey-responses-1-175_page_1pages-from-responses_all_16102016-local-council-candidate-survey-responses-1-175_page_2pages-from-responses_all_16102016-local-council-candidate-survey-responses-1-175_page_3pages-from-responses_all_16102016-local-council-candidate-survey-responses-1-175_page_4

HYAMS

hyams_page_1hyams_page_2hyams_page_3PS – AND HERE’S DON DUNSTAN’S VIEWS!

pages-from-responses_all_16102016-local-council-candidate-survey-responses-1-175_page_1pages-from-responses_all_16102016-local-council-candidate-survey-responses-1-175_page_2pages-from-responses_all_16102016-local-council-candidate-survey-responses-1-175_page_3

 

October 6, 2016

A Resident’s Questions To Candidates

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[9] Comments 

A comment has been received from a resident which we feel should be highlighted here as a separate post. The suggested questions are excellent and the recommendations sound and pragmatic.

We have commented numerous times on how many dwellings have already gone into Glen Eira in the past 5 years and how we are well ahead of projected population growth if this trend continues much longer. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/more-on-hyams/

We have also highlighted how the recent planning scheme review and its ‘workplan’ will take up to 20 years to complete if this council has its way. That is literally much too late to save the neighbourhood centres such as McKinnon, Bentleigh East, Ormond, Caulfield South, etc. We are already seeing 7 storeys in Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North.

Thus, instead of producing a meagre 2 structure plans in 4 years (and somehow Elsternwick has already been written off without any community consultation), action is required now. That means reorganising the budget, setting aside funding for outside consultants and beginning the work immediately. We also have to question why, when the Minister ordered council to move its butt way back in December 2015, the first structure plan isn’t already on the drawing boards and in the public domain for consultation.

We repeat again. These councillors have failed its residents and do not deserve to be re-elected.

Here is Mr. Ptok’s comment in full –

I was not able to attend, but am grateful for the information provided here, and the comments.

As someone involved in objecting to a number of developments in Carnegie (including appearing at VCAT at the recent 90-94 Mimosa Road application, which got approved today), I have penned a few questions I emailed the candidates in Rosstown Ward. Still waiting to hear back from some of them, but the following includes some key steps which, I believe, will help strengthen council’s position in VCAT hearings. Especially in light of today’s decision, I have concluded that the only hope of preserving anything of our neighbourhoods, is implementing the full Planning Scheme Review Work Plan in the coming term of council. This may require paying external consultants, but if it’s not done, looking at the speed of development in Carnegie, there won’t be much left of the old Carnegie come 2020.

Please feel free to circulate / ask your candidates, if you think any of the following can help strike a better balance between competing needs:

Dear [candidate],

I am a resident and voter in Carnegie.

I believe that whilst development is necessary, it needs to strike a balance between the needs of existing community, the developers, and future residents. Having been involved in a number of VCAT hearings, I believe there are things council can do to better manage the developments.

Could I ask which, if any, of the following actions you are willing to initiate and support, if elected to council:

1. Regular (at least quarterly) reporting on net dwelling approvals and dwelling type. This should include retrospective reporting, at least to 2013 when the new residential zones were adopted, ideally to 2003 when the municipality adopted policies to differentiate the municipality into housing diversity and minimal change areas.
This will allow comparison of dwelling approvals to population targets, and confident answering of the question: “is Glen Eira doing its fair share of meeting new housing required in Melbourne?”

2. Council’s VCAT watch report should include, where decisions went against council, a section on “actions council can take to avoid a similar outcome in future”.
This will give Councillors a clear idea of what would “strengthen” the Glen Eira planning scheme to ensure council decisions stand.

3. A review of the Planning Scheme Review Work Plan, including a presentation of council’s representative at VCAT. As the workplan currently spans more than a decade and relies heavily on internal resources to be completed, the concern from a resident point of view is that by the time the workplan is completed, the municipality will no longer be recognisable. As resident and ratepayer, I would be very happy if council used funds to pay external consultants so the work required can be completed in the next term of council.
A review of the work plan will give the newly elected Councillors an early opportunity to shape the management of development in Glen Eira.

4. Seek an amendment to the planning scheme to better manage change in neighbourhoods and where different planning zones meet. The amendment I am suggesting is that the maximum building height of any new development be the lower of:
– the height of the lowest adjoining property (including across the road) plus two stories, or
– the maximum height permitted under the zones.
This approach strikes a balance between the needs of neighbours (who would prefer a 1 storey increase) and developers (who would prefer going straight to the maximum), and allows for more managed change of neighbourhood character over time.

I am asking the same questions of all candidates in Rosstown Ward and look forward to your reply. If you require any further information on any of the points raise, I am of course happy to answer any questions.

Kind regards,

Greg Ptok

 

October 6, 2016

More Flyers!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, Election 2016, Miscellaneous
1 Comment 

rb

kh

nb

 

October 5, 2016

Guess Who Wimped It?

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

Tonight was the first GERA ‘Meet the Candidates’ forum for Rosstown Ward residents. It was a great turnout – standing room only! Seven candidates showed up – but only one current councillor, Cr. Ho. Noticeable by their absence was the non appearance by Pilling and Esakoff. We have learnt that GERA sent out invitations to all candidates, including incumbents who were seeking re-election. Pilling only replied late this afternoon when the invitation had gone out weeks and weeks earlier, claiming a ‘previous engagement’. Esakoff did not even bother to respond!

Present were: Ms Karslake; Mr Zois, Mr. Box; Mr Jayaweera; Mr Dunstan; Mr Athanasopoulos and Cr. Ho.

After a two minute introduction from each of the candidates, the session was thrown open to questions from the floor. The issues that were of major concern to residents were:

  • Planning and overdevelopment
  • Heritage
  • Tree Protection
  • Governance
  • Skyrail

It would be fair to say that all candidates expressed the view that council had simply not done enough on any of these issues and that major change was required – ie. changing the local law; introducing structure plans; setting up a significant tree register, improving transparency and accountability, etc.

All in all, the prevailing view was that the current council was definitely failing its residents on so many fronts and that new faces, new policies and immediate actions were required to address these concerns.

We endorse most of what was said and urge all residents and voters to consider who bothered to show up and who didn’t and whether they want another 4 years of the same incompetence and lack of vision that has characterised this council for far too long!

 

 

October 4, 2016

Joined At The Hip?

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

October 4, 2016

Letters To The Editor

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

leader

 

October 2, 2016

Meet The Candidates

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

A reminder that the Glen Eira Residents’ Association is staging 3 ‘meet the candidates forums’ – one for each ward.

The times and places are:

Rosstown Ward Forum

  • Wednesday, 5th October, 2016
  • 7.00 p.m. for 7.30 start
  • Koornang Uniting Church, 117 Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena

Tucker Ward Forum

  • Sunday, 9th October, 2016
  • 1.30 p.m. for 2.00 start
  • Bentleigh Club, 33 Yawla Street, Bentleigh

Camden Ward Forum

  • Thursday, 13th October, 2016
  • 7.00 p.m. for 7.30 start
  • St. John’s Uniting Church, 567 Glen Huntly Road, Elsternwick
 

October 1, 2016

Surprise, Surprise?

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

how-to-vote-cards

sounness-preferences

 

September 28, 2016

For The Record!

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

Election packs will soon be arriving in letter boxes and residents will be casting their votes. We therefore ask everyone to carefully consider the document we have uploaded HERE. It is a long document but a very important one since it records, in chronological order, how each of these remaining 8 incumbents voted on planning applications throughout their 4 years on council.

Residents have been assailed with comments  in the Candidate Statements as to how these councillors will ‘protect neighbourhood character’ (Esakoff); how they will ‘ensure development is fair’(Sounness); how they will oppose ‘inappropriate development’ (Ho, Hyams, Okotel,Lobo). Then there are the few for whom planning does not even rate a mention (Pilling, Magee) or we get the minimalist claims of Delahunty (‘I’ve extended the heritage overlay to protect Camden Ward’s oldest buildings).

When planning for the past decade has been in the forefront of community angst such statements deserve to be scrutinised and evaluated. Have these incumbents really practiced what they now preach? What consideration over the past 4 years have they really given to opposing inappropriate development? What evidence is there to support their claims that they give a damn about neighbourhood character? Because surely, if they did, then much could have been done since November 2012 to address the woeful planning scheme and ensure that developers do not have such an easy time of it. And if they really and truly cared about ‘overdevelopment’ then the zones and their schedules would have been much more ‘neighbourhood friendly’.

The document we’ve uploaded contains the following:

  • All councillor decisions on planning (except for a couple on child care applications)
  • Who voted for what and who moved and seconded motions
  • The officer recommendations and then councillors’ decision
  • Where VCAT has become involved we also cite some of the member’s comments (please note that there are some VCAT cases pending from the later decisions)
  • We also highlight again the fact that on EVERY SINGLE OCCASION that these councillors lopped off a storey or two, or reduced the number of apartments and the developer went to VCAT, the developer won! Not because VCAT is woeful, but because for 4 long years these councillors have refused to accept the fact that the fault lies largely with them and with the planning scheme. Please also remember that it has taken the Minister’s intervention to even get this council to review its incompetent and out of date planning scheme!
  • Thus for all the talk and crocodile tears shed by councillors in the past 4 years, their voting record belies their professed concern. Appraising the voting patterns, the most consistent councillor in voting against development is Lobo – and even he is inconsistent!
  • The only conclusion that can be drawn from this data is that Glen Eira’s councillors have failed residents completely and ALL MUST FALL ON THEIR RECORD! We urge residents to ensure that they can no longer have any say in what buildings go up in Glen Eira!

Here’s another link to the document

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »