August 10, 2016

Vote The Bastards Out – #2: Magee

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

Here’s what Magee said Tuesday night –

MAGEE: said he wanted to ‘show great respect’ to all those residents who put in submissions and showed up to the meetings. Claimed he was ‘very enthusiastic’ at the start about the review being a ‘great opportunity’ but ‘the more I read the report the more disappointed I became’. Although ‘I’ve never been a fan’ of structure planning he does ‘understand’ that this is a ’significant piece of work that planning departments do’. The time for it to be developed and its vision for 10 or 20 years is too long because he sees his Tucker ward area being ‘destroyed’ each day. So he is ‘so concerned and worried’ that ‘by the time we’ve done the structure plan it will be too late’. Claimed that ‘we know right now’ what is needed.

He had hoped to see the ‘neighbourhood character’ retained as with the 2013 Neighbourhood Character Overlays where ‘a whole host of properties’ were added to the list. Felt that ‘we should be concentrating more on Neighbourhood Character Overlays’ and Design and Development Overlays (DDO) rather than structure planning and controls which would ‘make VCAT actually apply those controls’ instead of merely ‘considering them’. Stated that ‘the minister has asked us to do this’ but our letter to him of last year asking of him ‘one single little thing’ – to change the law regarding VCAT ‘which would give us our protection’. Council wanted legislation so that ‘VCAT had to apply our planning scheme’. If this was done then 500 apartments ‘approved by VCAT’ wouldn’t have got through. So ‘that could have been one interim protection that could have been put in last year’.

With growing population of 1600 every year in Glen Eira and by 2031 a population of 170,000. ‘We can only put them up’ since we can’t spread out. The issue is then density and the pressure this is putting on commercial zones. ‘If we can’t have mandatory height limits as soon as possible’ then this issue ‘will drag’ on for the next 10 years. Council hasn’t ‘even addressed what’s going to happen to Virginia Park’ and the ‘railway corridors’. ‘We haven’t really addressed the transition’ zone issue especially in Bentleigh because this is ‘one of the only ones’ where commercial directly abuts Neighbourhood Residential. This means going from ‘no height limit at all to a two storey height limit’. Said that the planning scheme ‘talks about transition’ from 5, to 4, to 3, to 2 and ‘we haven’t got that’.

He was very ‘excited’ when he got the report and understands that structure plans can be ‘important’ because they allow ‘controls’ and with controls you can ‘have some meat’ that ‘VCAT then has to apply’. However, what VCAT applies is ResCode and ‘VCAT doesn’t apply the Glen Eira planning scheme’.  Didn’t think that people really understand the planning scheme which is ‘something that was put together over many, many years with the involvement of the Glen Eira community’. ‘The Glen Eira community said what the planning scheme should be’ and this was approved by the minister ‘yet VCAT have the right to totally ignore that’. VCAT apply precedent (ie existence of a 6 storey building already there) but it was VCAT who gave the permit and not council. He was ‘hoping to see these DDO’s and Neighbourhood Character Overlays’ to ‘give us the protection we desperately need’. Structure plans will in ‘four years time tell us what we know today’.

 ‘A great disappointment is that we are not reviewing those zones’. Claimed he had ‘thought about this for a long time’ even though he was  ‘one of those who didn’t want the zones reviewed’ because ‘the risk’ of doing this is ‘that they could be bigger’ (ie the growth zones) and ‘neighbourhood residential could shrink’. Now however he thinks that ‘it’s worth a crack’. Thinks that the minister is ‘only doing this because of the pressure that’s on the minister’ to be doing this. He’s not picking on Glen Eira, but it’s part of his ‘normal structure’ calling on Glen Eira to ‘review’. ‘To not review the zones is a missed opportunity’. ‘We need interim protection right now’. ‘When you can’t drive in or out of your driveway, that is bad planning’. ‘When you walk into your back yard and you see 11 or 12 balconies, that’s bad planning’. ‘Five years of having our planning scheme ignored by VCAT’ means that there will probably be 2000 minimum approved by VCAT and this doesn’t include Virginia Park. Finished off by saying that he is ‘incredibly disappointed that we haven’t seized the opportunity’.

COMMENT

Upcoming elections obviously do very funny things to councillors. They not only play to the gallery, but all logic, consistency, and we might add, integrity in presenting the truth, flies out the window. Magee’s comments presented above illustrate this fully. Here’s why!

  • Over the years we have presented countless VCAT decisions that keep telling council to get their act together. VCAT has also made it clear time and time again how little ‘guidance’ on heights, on urban design, on anything, is present in the planning scheme.This has got nothing to do with VCAT and everything to do with Council and its negligence over a 13 year period. It is surely time that council stops using VCAT as a scapegoat for all the ills of planning in Glen Eira.
  • Magee should also get his facts right prior to opening his mouth and grandstanding for public consumption. His comments reveal either a total ignorance or the deliberate attempt to deceive and mislead. His statement that – VCAT applies … ResCode and ‘VCAT doesn’t apply the Glen Eira planning scheme’ is literally unbelievable. Firstly, ResCode is the most minimalist set of figures available. They are nothing more than Clayton’s ‘standards’ – often ignored by VCAT and council itself. But the most damning aspect of this statement is that the Glen Eira Planning Scheme itself uses ResCode when it could have had far more stringent requirements via its schedules to the zones. It was council who decided that GRZ1 AND RGZ should not attempt to provide greater protection via the schedules as other councils have achieved. Thus, VCAT can only apply what is in the planning scheme. If there is nothing there, or only the minimalist ResCode standards, then the developer is provided with all the advantages. That, in our view, has been the council agenda for ages!
  • ‘The Glen Eira community said what the planning scheme should be’. What absolute bunkum given that the zones were introduced in secret and without any public consultation and he was in favour of no consultation.
  • At least there is the admission that council hasn’t got ‘transition zones’ or parking policies and that this is ‘bad planning’. Of course it is abdominal planning, especially since these issues were known way back in 2003 (ie the community plan) and have been brought up time and time again by residents. Magee has been on council since 2008. What has he done about this ‘bad planning’? What pressure has he exerted to ensure that these problems are dealt with? What else has he done except to play the populist card several months out from an election? And if he is so concerned about the destruction of neighbourhood character in Tucker Ward and especially in Bentleigh, then why has he voted to grant a permit for all of the following applications in Bentleigh.
  • 15-19 Vickery Street, Bentleigh – 4 storey, 47 units
  • 11 – 13 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 34 units
  • 37-39 NICHOLSON STREET BENTLEIGH – part 3 and 4 storey, 10 units
  • 670-672 CENTRE ROAD & 51 BROWNS ROAD BENTLEIGH EAST – 3 & 5 storey, 67 units
  • 23 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 34 units
  • 817-819 Centre Road BENTLEIGH EAST – 3 storey, 26 units
  • 27 and 29 Jasper Road BENTLEIGH – 3 storey, 25 units
  • 64-66 Bent Street MCKINNON – part 3 and part 4 storey, 31 units
  • 14-18 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 55 units
  • 29-33 Loranne Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 42 units
  • 22-26 Bent Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, 41 units
  • 24-26 Mavho Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storey, 28 units
  • The best is the sudden epiphany that the zones should have been reviewed. Perhaps Magee has not read the Planning Scheme Report since it states on page 108 – Glen Eira has completed its review of the new residential zones. Really? When? Why isn’t this ‘review’ public? What were the conclusions?  We also wonder what Magee means when he states that he has thought about this for a ‘long time’. Does this mean a week, a month, a year? If so, then residents need to be reminded of his comments which follow. The dates are from our postings. Incredible that as recently as February Magee could say that ‘we have a very, very good planning scheme’. Clearly a man who is consistent in his inconsistency!

‘I think the outcome for Glen Eira is superb’ (13/8/2013)

Said that 97% of the municipality has got height limits and 3% commercial with no height limits. Putting height limits on commercial areas has to be done through an overlay, and then community consultation, ‘permission from the minister’, and ‘through a long and detailed process’. ‘If council decides at some point in the future’ to do this, then he would ‘welcome that’ but to do ‘that we would need legal opinion, planning opinion’ and the Minister’s approval. There are some other things that might be done with the commercial zones but he is ‘very, very happy that’ the zones ‘cover 97% of our municipality’. This ‘in conjunction with our planning scheme’ is what ‘makes it work’. (25/11/2015)

‘We can sit up here and refuse it because we don’t like it’ but that would be ‘stupid’ since they know that it ‘already complies’ with ResCode and the planning scheme which was ‘put together with great community consultation with our residents’ who together with ‘council decided what can be built in what streets’ (30/6/2016)

‘I believe we have a very, very good planning scheme’. Last year ‘VCAT approved 582 apartments’ that had been refused by council and that was because ‘it wasn’t consistent with our planning scheme’. ‘Our planning scheme is what our residents said they wanted’. Council ‘went to the community’ and asked ‘Do you approve?’ and residents said ‘yes’. The minister then approved but VCAT ‘only have to consider it’. So when council consider buildings of 9 or 2 storeys ‘we look at residential building codes’, and the planning scheme. Councillors ‘sometimes’ give a permit to ‘buildings we don’t like’ mainly because ‘there are no grounds for refusal’. ‘It is wrong to say we want this and then to vote for something different’. Council and community has ‘asked’ for this planning scheme and that is ‘what is so disappointing about VCAT’ (4/2/2016)

Claimed that if council wanted VCAT to do anything then ‘it would have to be in the form of an overlay’. Overlays need a panel assessment and they could end up saying that ‘Carnegie is quite suitable for 13 storeys’ and Bentleigh ‘quite suitable for 6’. Council would then ‘have to argue against that’, then the Minister would ‘have information’ saying the opposite. S0 ‘there is a risk in asking for something’ that ‘you don’t get what you want’.(25/11/2015)

MAGEE: only the Minister ‘can do anything’ about the zones. When in opposition, Labor was ‘very clear’ that they were going ‘to review zones’ but haven’t done ‘anything about it so far’. He ‘believes’ that ‘we’ve got a very good system’ . In 2009/10 there was a ‘public review’ of the planning scheme and three things emerged that residents wanted – height limits, buffer zones, and ‘less discretion at VCAT’. ‘That’s exactly what the zones are doing’. Regardless of council ‘advocating for this change or that change’ or whether ‘we want a review the minister at any time can review’. Said that MPs are asking the minister to review zones in their electorates. Said that council was’ criticised at one point for not consulting’ but he thought ‘we very much did’ and now to ‘do a review of our consulting’ they would be ‘accused of doing the very same thing’. Glen Eira’s ‘system puts development’ where he thinks ‘it should be’ – in activity centres and along transport routes. Said that there are 3 Residential Growth Zones and the rest of the residential zones are in ‘shopping strips’. Thought that Glen Eira ‘is very, very lucky to have what it has’. If the minister ‘wants to tinker with that and reduce that’ then no council would have room for residential growth zones. If councils all got what they wanted it would all be neighbourhood residential zones. This would be ‘totally inappropriate and disrespectful’ to the 1000 people a year who come to live in Glen Eira. They have to be ‘accommodated somehow’ and currently council has got a ‘system that I certainly won’t be voting to change’ until the minister tells them ‘what that change will look like’. Was worried that if council ‘opened this up’ that the growth zones would increase and ‘neighbourhood zones would decrease’. (30/4/2015)

Apart from commercial zones, there is now a ‘sense of security’ for developers because they know what they can do and get a loan easier. Developers can therefore plan better. Said that the 4 storey buildings around tram lines is only 2.2% ‘of our city’ and ‘you might actually struggle to find a block big enough’ to build 4 storeys because of ‘setbacks’ on top floor. So a lot of these could ‘end up being 3 storeys’. Said it was a ‘really good outcome for the residents of Glen Eira’…..Congratulated officers on ‘getting this through’ and didn’t think it ‘was a surprise because that’s the sort of work we do here’…’we are very good at what we do’. In the future council can say ‘no, it’s wrong’ and ‘go away’ to developers because they haven’t got it right. Also have to thank the state government in ‘being proactive and helping us get this in place’. ‘I think the outcome for Glen Eira is superb’30/12/2014)

CONCLUSION

Not much needs to be said. We will merely ask this simple question – can anything that comes out of these councillors’ mouths be believed? Think of this when you vote!

 

August 9, 2016

Vote The Bastards Out!

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

We will provide a full report on the ‘debate’ surrounding the Planning Scheme Review in the next day or so. In the meantime residents should take note of the resolution which was passed by all councillors except Magee (and his mental gymnastics are astounding!)

Pilling moved to accept the Planning Scheme Review Report as recommended but with the addition that council ask the Minister to introduce ‘interim height controls’ for the Activity Centres of Bentleigh and Carnegie. This was seconded by  Lipshutz.

COMMENT – residents should note: (1) Elsternwick is omitted, and (2) this is NOT A REQUEST FOR INTERIM MANDATORY HEIGHT LIMITS, BUT FOR PREFERRED HEIGHT LIMITS! Quite astonishing given that the Minister has power to impose a mandatory interim control. Further, residents are again not privy to what council will be requesting from the Minister since this will be done under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act, meaning that there will be NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION WHATSOEVER! We believe that this is a neat ploy to once again sidestep the community and to have the Minister as a ready scapegoat! If council was really concerned about heights in its activity centres then it would have requested that all activity centres be included and that the height limits be mandatory. Once again, smoke and mirrors is the modus operandi of Glen Eira City Council and its councillors!

 

August 8, 2016

The Ultimate Betrayal!

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

Residents need to take careful note of what happens tomorrow night, especially what councillors say and how they vote on the so called Planning Scheme Review. If this is passed as it stands, then it is a clear message that councillors are not the community’s real representatives. They have to be gone in October!

The euphemistically entitled Planning Scheme Review, is anything but a professional and comprehensive review. It continues the tradition of pro-development, anti-community, and the ‘ let’s do nothing’ mentality that has so bedevilled this council since its inception.

Here are our reasons why this document is not worth the paper it is written on:

  • Does not meet the legal requirements associated with planning scheme reviews (ie the relevant Practice Notes and the ‘continuous improvement kit’.
  • Does not present full and comprehensive figures (ie very selective editing)
  • A work plan that is literally ludicrous and designed to only delay and then delay some more
  • The absence of any data in this review which assesses the actual performance of the planning scheme.

Questions that should be answered of councillors:

  1. Why is it that practically everything is lumped together under the umbrella of a ‘structure plan’? Plenty of actions can be taken without the need for a structure plan! Parking overlays can achieve the same result. Council had no trouble with Amendment C99 that introduced another student parking overlay to assist the Caulfield Village! No structure plan was needed here!
  2. Why is it that the issue of basement car parking is lumped under the ridiculous category of Water Sensitive Urban Design? Again, a simple amendment to increase basement car park site coverage can be done immediately via a change to the schedules – ie. Stonnington for both its Residential Growth Zones and General Residential Zones has this – Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.
  3. Why is it that the zones themselves do not rate a mention when this has been the constant cry from residents? Why is nearly half of Ormond zoned as GRZ1 – telling developers they can put in 3 storeys to their hearts’ content? Why aren’t the zones themselves a priority for ‘review’ – especially since Glen Eira has quadrupled its population and housing targets? This of course is not mentioned anywhere!
  4. Why does the section on Local Policy simply state ‘develop new policies where gaps are identified’ and the time span is given as 2 to 3 years? Any decent ‘review’ should already have identified all the gaps!
  5. Why is there no mention of Mixed Use Zoning, or Local Centres, where there are no height limits? Will council only look at Activity Centres and nothing else? Why isn’t this spelt out fully?

There is plenty more that could be said about this effort. We will desist and simply urge all concerned residents to write to the Minister and local politicians and demand that this Planning Scheme review be consigned to the rubbish bin and that Minister Wynne intervene directly and bring in interim measures. If council is incapable or unwilling to do its job properly, then the State Government needs to know and to act now. Glen Eira simply cannot afford another 3 to 4 years of doing nothing!

 

August 7, 2016

Planning Scheme Review: Spin & More Spin!

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

All Planning Scheme Reviews are basically an audit of how well councils are performing in land management and how efficient their various departments are. The objective is ‘continuous improvement’ backed up by statistical analysis of progress. The Glen Eira review does not meet these requirements. Not only does this review lack real data, but like everything else council produces it is full of misleading and untrue statements.

The best way of illustrating this is to compare the December 2015 Bayside Planning Scheme Review with what is before us from Glen Eira. Councils are required to report on ‘progress’ made from their last review – such as: how many of the proposed actions have been carried out? Bayside reveals the following:

Pages from 23_June_2015_Draft_Bayside_Planning_Scheme_Review_Report_Item_10.8In contrast, here is the Glen Eira version of ‘reality’ –

Pages from Agenda-Tuesday-9-August-2016Pages from Agenda-Tuesday-9-August-2016-2

COMMENT

The difference between the two councils is staggering. In Glen Eira there is no overall data presented and the statements are false. Two examples should suffice:

  1. When council writes that “There were also a number of large strategic projects that were undertaken by Council between 2010 and 2016 that were not noted on the Work plan. These projects are detailed below”. Council then list the Neighbourhood Character Review as part of this ‘non-workplan’. Yet the minutes of 10th August 2010 contain the resolution that Council “ Complete review of Significant Character Areas as prelude to the introduction of a Neighbourhood Character Overlay”.
  1. Council continues with another furphy on the Municipal Strategic Statement claiming that – “Council commenced a review of the MSS but paused it in anticipation of the release of the State Government review into the Planning Policy Framework. Council’s review was commenced in 2013. Since no outcomes or further direction has been provided by the State Government on its Planning Policy Framework project, it is now imperative that Council completes a full review of the MSS. The latest ABS statistics on population and housing will contribute to this review, together with the latest Glen Eira Community Plan.” An extraordinary excuse for doing nothing, especially when the State Government recommends ‘annual reviews’ of the MSS and the minutes of 2010 (that is 3 years before council decided to get started on any review) contained the resolution that  council Prepare a new streamlined MSS for Council consideration and commence the amendment process.
  1. To repeat what we’ve previously stated – countless other objectives from 2010 have failed to materialise (ie parking precinct plans; tree/vegetation protection; review of Activity Centres, etc. etc.) Why aren’t these listed? Why can’t council provide an honest and comprehensive account instead of its continual spin, obfuscation, and to be blunt – lies via the crime of ‘sins of omission’!
 

August 5, 2016

Planning Scheme Review – #1

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

As expected, the long awaited Planning Scheme Review, will NOT BE REVIEWING THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES as demanded by so many residents! Nor does the proposed work plan fill us with confidence that the municipality overall will greatly benefit from what is mooted – especially when suggested time frames go out to 4 years down the track. In this first of our posts we simply summarise sections of the suggested work plan and the  stated time for completion.

Structure Plans – Complete first 3 within 4 years. Ongoing, continue with structure plans each taking 1-2 years to complete. (Comment – given that there are 10 Neighbourhood centres – that is a time frame of between 10-20 years!)

Neighbourhood Character Policy – 2 to 3 years.

Heritage Internal Review – 3 to 12 months

Heritage Major Review – 2 to 3 years

Municipal Strategic Statement – 1 to 2 years

Local Planning Policy Review – 2 to 3 years

Development contributions levy – 2 years

Parking Provisions – 3 to 4 years

Open Space – 2 to 3 years

Sustainability Policy – 2 to 3 years

Water Sensitive Urban Design – 2 to 3 years

Transition between zones – 2 to 3 years

Special Building Overlay – 2 to 3 years

Tree Protection Policy – 2-3 years

COMMENT

We acknowledge that due to council’s failure to act on planning issues for the past decade, there is now a huge backlog of work that is required.  Having said that, residents should not be prepared to sit back and wait for another 2 to 3 years for changes to eventuate. The Minister’s directive to start work came in December 2015. Exactly what has council done in the past 8 months? How much money has been set aside in the budget to hire consultants to undertake the necessary work? How much of the upcoming work will remain ‘internal’ and secret – such as this statement from page 106 – Glen Eira has completed its review of the new residential zones. Though some community feedback is calling for Council to review the residential zone boundaries, particularly at ‘transition areas’ where two different residential zones meet, it is prudent to wait for the State Government to release its findings before any decision is made about reviewing our own locations.

And if council is so overwhelmed with the task ahead, then there is always the alternative of pinching what other councils have already successfully introduced into their planning schemes. Tree protection is the perfect example. Why this should take 2 to 3 years is laughable and says much about the underlying intentions of this council and its inept planners and councillors.

 

August 4, 2016

The Minutes!

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

The minutes of the July 19th council meeting deserve close attention. We have focused on the Public Questions fiasco as well as Requests for a Report

Public Questions

“In light of ratepayers’ concerns regarding Skyrail and lack of transparency to date ,and Council’s unanimous motion seeking information from the State Government,how can Council justify charging exhorbitant fees in relation to FOI’d information?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) provides the public with a right to access documents in the possession of agencies such as Council, subject to the exemptions in Part IV of the Act and subject to the payment of charges which are required to be paid by the applicant before access is granted in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Access Charges) Regulations 2014 (‘Regulations’). When processing requests under the Act, Council is bound by the requirements set out in the Act. Regulation 6 provides that an applicant who has made a request in accordance with section 17 of the Act is liable to pay charges set out in or calculated in accordance with the Schedule to the Regulations.

The Schedule to the Regulations sets out ten items together with the respective charges which agencies are required to charge applicants for particular services as part of processing their requests. These include the reasonable costs incurred by the agency in providing copies of documents. This is calculated by multiplying the relevant officer’s hourly salary by the hours spent in producing the relevant documents.

Council receives many requests under the Act every year and has limited resources available to process these requests. Requests made under the Act can be broad and require many hours of officers’ time to process. This can put a substantial burden on Council’s resources and cost ratepayers thousands of dollars. It also impacts on the provision of other services which Council provides to the community. It is therefore Council’s responsibility to accurately calculate and impose the charges payable under the Regulations for requests made under the Act to ensure that ratepayers are not disadvantaged by the processing of such requests, some of which can be significant in terms of officers’ time.

In most cases, charges calculated by Council under the Regulations are lower than the true cost incurred by Council in processing requests under the Act.”

COMMENT

There is much to quibble with in the above. We have uploaded the ‘regulations’ (here) so that readers may see for themselves what they state and the charges they include. For starters:

We do love the following questions and the ‘responses’ –

“Given council have spent in excess of $40k isn’t it time for the likes of councillor Hyams and Magee to stop with this childish behaviour towards Councillor Lobo and get on with the job of running the council not on public attacks within the council. I also believe we the rate payers are entitled to see what the QC thought in her report to council- this is public property not confidential; we paid (the rate payers) so we are entitled to be part of the evaluation process. A closed door mentality smacks of a boys club which is far from good corporate governance. The state government needs to watch this council closely.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“The Transport Planning department undertook observations of the parking demands prior to the restrictions being introduced in Phillip Street, Bentleigh. At that time, high,long term parking demands where being experienced along both sides of the street from Patterson Road to approximately No. 16 Philip Street. After the restrictions were introduced, the long term parking demands on the western side (i.e. the restricted side) of the street reduced considerably. The Metro Train Network Map (available on the PTV website) confirms that Patterson Station is located within Zone 2, as previously stated. However, since January 2015 commuters travelling across Zone 1 and 2 are only charged a Zone 1 fare (rather than both a Zone 1 fare and Zone 2 fare).

It is suggested by Mr Searle that the 2-hour parking at the off-street car park be converted to all day parking. It is considered that there currently exists an appropriate balance between the various car parking demands in the area. Converting short term, shopping centre customer parking to long term, commuter parking within the off-street car park could have a negative impact on the ability for shopping centre customers to find convenient car parking.

Council Policy Exclusion of Specific Developments from the Residential Parking Permit Scheme was adopted on 26 May 2013. After this date, new developments in local shopping centres have been excluded from the residential parking permit scheme. The list of properties excluded from obtaining residential parking permits within the municipality is available on Council’s website.

Council has received 17 enquires from residents of the Caulfield streets where parking changes were recently made. Residents of these streets have been advised that the new conditions will be reviewed in February 2017. However, ongoing feedback from residents will be sought to inform the review. Council has also this evening received a petition signed by 63 Caulfield residents. Finally, under Item 9.5 this evening Council resolved to review our Parking Restrictions Policy and review parking in Growth Zones, General Residential Zones and Neighbourhood Residential Zones.

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

“Now the QC’s investigation is over and the report is in on councillors behaviour when will this be made available to the public and if not why not?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Council will consider the report under Item 12.1 Confidential Business this evening. At that time Council will resolve what, if any, further action will be taken, and whether the report will be released publicly.”

+++++++++++

“Council will consider the report under Item 12.1 Confidential Business this evening. At that time Council will resolve what, if any, further action will be taken, and whether the report will be released publicly.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“The only transcript of the meeting is the official minute which you will be able to access at the following link : http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/Meetings-and-agendas/Council-meetingminutes?dlv_OC%20CL%20Public%20Meetings=(pageindex=2) “

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

The best ‘response’ however is –

“Given council have spent in excess of $40k isn’t it time for the likes of councillor Hyams and Magee to stop with this childish behaviour towards Councillor Lobo and get on with the job of running the council not on public attacks within the council. I also believe we the rate payers are entitled to see what the QC thought in her report to council- this is public property not confidential; we paid (the rate payers) so we are entitled to be part of the evaluation process. A closed door mentality smacks of a boys club which is far from good corporate governance. The state government needs to watch this council closely.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Council welcomes your comments, however as they are not a Question, they do not satisfy the provisions under point 232 (Public Questions) of the Glen Eira City Council Local Law. If you would like to rephrase your comments as a Question and resubmit them we would be happy to consider them at a future meeting of the Council and respond accordingly.”

Request(s) for a Report

Crs Hyams/Magee

That Officers prepare a report into the potential for Council to collaborate with schools in Glen Eira to utilise their open space and grounds for use by sporting clubs and the wider community.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

This request for a report sounds very similar to another request dating back to 2008. The eventual Newton report, tabled months later, recommended the ‘revolutionary’ tactic of writing a letter to all schools and the Education Department. Of course, nothing positive eventuated from this rather lame attempt. Newton’s report was more of the same – schools are not our responsibility but the Government’s, etc. Thus, instead of offering schools real incentives (such as payment), the idea lapsed. And so typical of this council – no corporate memory, no real follow up, and no results over 8 years. Politically though, it sounds mighty fine to regurgitate something that was first mooted 8 years ago and then sank into oblivion.

Here is what the record states from 2008 –

Crs Esakoff/Whiteside

That a report be prepared into any opportunities that may exist for Council in the provision of additional/improved areas of open space that could be used for both passive and active recreation within Glen Eira’s existing school network.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously. (minutes of 26th February 2008)

Report by Newton tabled 20th May 2008. Council resolution read –Crs Esakoff/Spaulding

That Council write to all primary and secondary schools in Glen Eira along the lines of Attachment A and send a copy to the Victoria Department of Education

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously

Of far more significance is the following request –

Crs Delahunty/Magee

That a report be prepared showing the expenses and expected revenue of the Wellness Centre at GESAC and that the report also show options for a social venture element and potential community or business partnerships that can be explored to deliver a social outcome

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

Readers will remember that this issue was part of the budget ‘debate’ and was ultimately carried in the face of strong opposition from Delahunty, Sounness and Lobo. We make no comment on the Wellness Centre per se. What concerns us is the politics involved and the apparent lack of due diligence when councillors vote for something and the abysmal lack of information that is presented to both councillors and the public.

When tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars are earmarked for what some may see as ‘dubious’ ventures, then surely the rationale (including facts, figures, projections) should be automatically provided and disseminated. The reasoning behind the expenditure of public money should never be an ‘afterthought’ seeking political vindication or a cheap point scoring exercise.

 

August 3, 2016

Another ‘Mistake’!

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

PS: The sheer and utter incompetence of Glen Eira Council knows no bounds. Finally, after nearly 2 weeks the minutes have been published. They are a dog’s breakfast of endless repetition, questions with different ‘answers’ assigned and the PUBLICATION IN FULL OF QUESTIONERS’ NAMES, ADDRESSES AND EMAIL CONTACTS. This is unforgivable and breaches the Privacy Act. It is even more unforgivable given that this is the second occasion in a row that this has occurred. Only after a complaint was made were the details of individuals redacted from the previously published agenda. We can only conclude that this is the result of either total ineptitude or a deliberate attempt to somehow intimidate and perhaps ‘silence’ those residents who have the cheek to speak up and ask uncomfortable questions. Needless to say the responses to these public questions are again totally uninformative and fail to either respond to the question directly or provide statements that are deliberately misleading. We will highlight all these in our next post.

The list of ‘mistakes’ by the planning department is growing and growing.  No one is perfect and yes, errors occur. This is no excuse however for the failure to correct such mistakes straight away instead of heading off to VCAT for another expensive hearing and ratepayers’ hard earned cash going down the drain.

The latest episode involves the application for an advertising sign in North Road. A relatively minor issue and should have been resolved a lot earlier. Council decided that together with the permit for this sign they would impose a 5 year time limit – despite the fact that their own planning scheme states at Clause 52.05 that “the date must not be less than 10 years or more than 25 years from the date the permit is issued.” The poor consultant fronts up and has to say “Council acknowledges its error in setting an expiry date of 5 years from the date of issue.”

The applicant wanted 25 years. The result? A permit for 15 years.

Questions abound:

  • Why did this have to end up at VCAT? Why couldn’t this be resolved earlier?
  • How well do our planning decision makers know their own planning scheme?
  • How much did this farce cost ratepayers?
 

August 1, 2016

Secrecy & The Ombudsman & Glen Eira!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

Ombudsman  discusses ‘transparency’ with Mornington Council

Allison Harding, Mornington Peninsula Leader

July 30, 2016 12:00am

THE SHIRE’s chief executive, mayor and governance manager have been questioned over transparency issues and council decisions made behind closed doors.

The revelation that the Victorian Ombudsman’s Office recently interviewed CEO Carl Cowie, mayor Graham Pittock, and governance manager Joe Spiteri came at last week’s council meeting after a member of the public gallery, Suzanne Kepert, asked what was discussed at the recent visit.

“Were questions raised about matters not being properly discussed in open council meetings, and councillors’ use of, or overspending of, allowances, or are matters raised in the Ombudsman’s visit another secret to be kept from ratepayers?” Ms Kepert asked.

Mr Cowie replied that the visit was “around transparency in local government and the decisions made ‘in camera’ versus those in the open public meetings”.

“Mornington Peninsula Shire is around 10 to 15 per cent in camera compared to some other large municipalities which are up to over 35 per cent in camera, so we can draw some comfort we are as transparent as possible and aim to do better than that in the future,” Mr Cowie said.

Governance manager Joe Spiteri said the discussion was not specific to the shire.

“The Ombudsman was simply looking at best practice in processes rather than anything to do with councillor expenditure.”

The Victorian Ombudsman takes complaints about actions, decisions or conduct of staff at government authorities, including local councils.

The Ombudsman, Deborah Glass, is able to investigate actions by councils such as planning permits, advertising and zoning, contracts, building, enforcement of parking, building or planning regulations, rate and service charges, and road building.

In March, the Ombudsman — who said that secrecy in government could fuel suspicions and mistrust — began investigating the transparency of local government decisions after a pattern of complaints.

Shire spokesman Mark Kestigian said the Ombudsman’s report would seek to find out more about issues including how often council and special meetings were closed, processes regarding confidential matters, the handling of delegations, and the quality and availability of record keeping.

Mr Kestigian said the shire was one of many councils interviewed.

The Ombudsman declined to comment on the visit.

Source – http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/ombusdaman-discusses-transparency-with-mornington-council/news-story/562ffdfd32d6719d3dbf75efd6f95ef0

COMMENT

The Ombudsman is currently investigating ‘transparency’ in decision making by local councils. Glen Eira should and must be one of those investigated given recent events and the lack of accountable governance that has gone on for years in this municipality. The ratio of agenda items discussed in open chamber and those hidden away under ‘confidential’ is unacceptable. Worse still, is that a quarter of decisions made behind closed doors are never revealed! This is an abysmal record.

Here is the data which we have collated on council decision making from 2014 onwards.

in camera

 

 

July 29, 2016

What Are They Hiding?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[14] Comments 

Pages from GECC-Report-on-councillor-conduct

 

July 27, 2016

Lobo Versus Hyams et.al: Silence Is Not Golden!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[22] Comments 

Glen Eira ratepayers continue to pay for councillors’ poor behaviour

Chad Van Estrop, Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader

July 27, 2016 2:19pm

GLEN Eira ratepayers have been slugged $18,000 for a report into councillor infighting but its findings will not be released publicly.

Council has now spent at least $44,000 to solve rumblings between councillors during the current four-year term.

Glen Eira mayor Neil Pilling said the report was discussed between councillors last night but he has refused to release it publicly.In line with the report’s recommendations a three-councillor panel will be set up to manage councillor conflict and infighting.

“Council has resolved to set up a reference group of three councillors to manage issues between councillors to prevent escalation of and to deal with unacceptable behaviour,” Cr Pilling said.

“A small number of incidents have clearly not adhered to the standards of conduct to be expected of public officials.”

In May, Frances O’Brien QC was called in to investigate the increasingly unworkable relationship between councillors Jamie Hyams and Oscar Lobo.

Ms O’Brien was called in after those councillors nearly came to blows at a citizenship ceremony in April at the Glen Eira Town Hall.

Cr Hyams has admitted calling Cr Lobo a “f**kwit” at the ceremony saying he was provoked. Cr Lobo denies that version of events.

Other incidents which have also come under investigation include:

— Cr Lobo’s allegedly anti-Semitic slur at a December 2015 council meeting.

— A 2010 email councillor Michael Lipshutz sent to Cr Lobo asking him if he had worked for a bank linked to terrorists.

“As these behaviours were not conducive to the proper functioning and good governance of the

council, advice was sought from Ms O’Brien on how best to achieve the standards of conduct expected from all councillors,” Cr Pilling said.

chad.vanestrop@news.com.au

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/glen-eira-ratepayers-continue-to-pay-for-councillors-poor-behaviour/news-story/19f8995790ec43572575a7b610219134

COMMENT

The failure to release the report is unacceptable. When public monies are used to sort out the antics of councillors, then the public has a right to know the findings. Not for the first time has this council been embroiled in expensive legal suits. There has also been 3 formal Municipal Inspectorate investigations, Ombudsman’s investigations, plus heaven knows how many ‘unofficial’ investigations.

We can only speculate that since this latest report will not become public that can only mean that the findings were not ‘complimentary’ to the ruling faction – ie Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, et.al. We venture the opinion, that if O’Brien did find Lobo ‘guilty’ of ‘racism’ or other misdemeanors, then the report would be published quick smart. If these speculations are entirely wrong, then they can be corrected via the publication of the report!

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »