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!

 

July 27, 2016

GESAC: Trouble in Paradise?

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

Is it a mere coincidence that now with Paul Burke gone, and rumours that Linda Smith has also departed, that the GESAC basketball issue has again come to the fore? It would seem that Bob Mann has been ousted – much to his chagrin since he is threatening legal action. Be this as it may, residents have never received full disclosure on the following:

  • Have the Warriors been completely fulfilling the terms of their ‘lease’?
  • Have they occupied all the court hours they promised?
  • Have they been paying the entire weekly rent as promised?
  • Have they been subletting?
  • Was the new lease signed with new conditions?
  • Are residents subsidising this group in any shape or form?

We repeat what we have continually stated – until a comprehensive ledger account is provided of GESAC operations, including full:

  • staff costs
  • maintenance costs
  • income from contracts/leases/memberships
  • insurance costs
  • heating costs
  • water costs
  • interest repayments
  • car park expansions
  • lawyers’ costs, etc.etc.

residents have every right to continue to question the operation of this facility and whether in fact GESAC is paying its own way as continually claimed. Until there is complete transparency, doubts must remain.

 

July 26, 2016

And The Prize Goes To………

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

If council’s online planning register is to be believed, then the prize for the most outrageous, arrogant application for ages goes to the following:

Address: 1 Adelaide Street, McKinnon

Area: approx. 640 square metres

Zone: GRZ1

Application: Construction of 34 (that’s right, 34) THREE STOREY dwellings!

Once again we can only thank these councillors for opening the flood gates and welcoming developers with open arms via the zoning and planning scheme!

 

July 25, 2016

News Flash: Cramming Them In!

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

High-rises plans for suburban stations to help fund level crossing removals
Adam Carey

The state government plans to build a residential tower up to 13 storeys high above the Frankston railway line in Melbourne’s south-east to help pay for its level crossing removals, in a strategy it wants to replicate across Melbourne.

The apartment building with street-level retail would be built on North Road above Ormond station, and in a first for Melbourne’s mostly low-rise suburbs, will be built directly over the railway tracks. It would be significantly taller than other buildings in Ormond.

The deck on the which the building would stand has just been built during the 37-day shutdown of the Frankston line between Caulfield and Moorabbin to remove three level crossings.

The line is due to reopen in a much transformed state on Monday.
Labor flagged in Opposition that it would develop land as part of some level crossing removals to help pay for other transport upgrades, including extra station car parking and yet more level crossing removals. Ormond marks the first example by the Andrews government of this “value capture” approach.

At up to 13 storeys high, the development would be much taller than any other building in that part of Melbourne, which is low-rise in character.

The building, which the government said would also include ground level shops and restaurants, would have to pass the usual planning hurdles before being approved.

Just south of Ormond, Bentleigh and McKinnon stations are also being rebuilt as their level crossings are removed, and land has also been set aside there for future development.

The government said developments at those two stations would be smaller in scale, in keeping with the village atmosphere.

Luke Donnellan, the acting public transport minister, said the Ormond station site on North Road was well suited to larger-scale residential development, given North Road was a busy six-lane arterial.

“This location is ideally suited to new homes and businesses – in the heart of a vibrant community, directly connected to transport, shops and opportunities,” Mr Donnellan said.

The government estimates the development will create 250 construction jobs and 300 ongoing local jobs at businesses that would occupy the new building.

The government has plans to remove 50 level crossings by 2022, and these three in Ormond, McKinnon and Bentleigh are among the first.

There are also plans to build a new tower at Gardiner station in Glen Iris, where the Burke Road level crossing was recently removed, the government said.

Other potential development sites have also been earmarked as part of the sky rail project, the removal of nine crossings on the Dandenong rail corridor.

Daniel Bowen, spokesman for the Public Transport Users Association, said there were good arguments for developing around railway stations, but predicted many locals would be shocked by the proposed height of the building Ormond station.

“Perhaps it will be a landmark but it would want to be very beautifully designed to have that status,” Mr Bowen said.

David Davis, the Opposition’s planning spokesman, said the proposed height of the development was excessive for Ormond.

“This is another treacherous step by [premier] Daniel Andrews,” he said. “The community will be shocked to see 13-storey towers built when they expected a more human scale.”

VicTrack, the government corporation that owns the state’s railway land, also has a number of development projects under way, including one over the railway tracks at Windsor station on the Sandringham line.

Apartment and retail developments at Hampton and Jewell stations are also under way.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/highrises-to-soar-over-suburban-stations-to-help-fund-level-crossing-removals-20160725-gqd3gi.html

 

July 23, 2016

Parking: Glen Eira Versus Moonee Valley!

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

A petition was tabled with 63 signatures on ‘parking in Caulfield’. The petitioners stated that they didn’t ‘want 2 hour parking on one side of the street’ only and that council ‘reverse’ this decision because it ‘was done without hearing first’ what residents wanted. They asked council to introduce 2 hour parking on both sides of the street. They listed quite a few streets where this should happen.

Delahunty moved motion to ‘note and accept petition’ plus that officers ‘provide an update on preliminary and final findings’.  Lipshutz seconded.

DELAHUNTY:  acknowledged that there’s been an increase in parking issues and ‘that no area is safe’ from this. Thought it right that council is petitioned, but that it comes in the middle of a process ‘that we’re undertaking to gather some more thoughts’ and that the public will be ‘updated’ when the process is ‘done’.

LIPSHUTZ: claimed that because of the parking policy at Caulfield Hospital that what is happening is that ‘the nurses who are employed by the hospital are now parking in these streets’. But if there was 2 hour parking on both sides of the street ‘all that would happen is that the parking would shift’ to other local streets. Thus what ‘has to happen is a concerted approach and a total review of parking in the area’. That’s happening through ‘the review’.

TORRES: said that council is ‘reviewing broad areas’ and that ‘car parking can’t be looked at on a street by street basis’ and that restrictions in one street ‘has the potential to displace parking’ in another street’ so the issue has to be seen in a ‘broader area’.  Also said that ‘we are going to consult with the residents in this area after one month’ in order to ‘obtain preliminary feedback and findings on the effect of the changes’.  After the ‘prelimary findings’ council would ‘continue to receive feedback and engagement’ with residents and then they will have a ‘far more comprehensive review to report’ at the end of February.

LIPSHUTZ: he supports council in reviewing ‘overall parking’. ‘There is a problem, there’s no doubt there is a problem’ for people living on the south side of Glen Eira Road and people are now parking on the north side as well. Thus ‘there needs to be a concerted approach’ and that is ‘the right way to go’.

LOBO: said this is the second petition within 4 weeks – another one from Bentleigh. Agreed that cars might shift from street to street but residents pay their rates and council needs to start thinking about building ‘3 or 4 parking storeys’. Claimed that this ‘is a result of the developments taking place’ and that ‘infrastructure will not be enough if we are going at the rate we are going’. Wanted council to ‘get our wheels in motion’ to have ‘3 or 4 storey’ parking facilities in Bentleigh and Caulfield and ‘particularly 2 or 3 in Carnegie’.

DELAHUNTY: said that in the area of the petition there is the impact of ‘local employment’ and this is something they ‘want to encourage’. But ‘how do you do that in a hospital setting’ when you’ve also got shift workers. Claimed the ‘solution’ was to ‘listen to the residents’ and that the petition ‘forms part of the consultation’. Acknowledged that it is an ‘incredibly difficult’ issue.

MOTION PUT AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMENTS

There is much here that is unacceptable in our view –

  1. Why weren’t residents consulted first before any action was implemented?
  2. On what statistical basis were these changes made? Why hasn’t the evidence been provided?
  3. Torres’ claim that council can’t look at parking ‘street by street’ is surely open to challenge. Moonee Valley Council seems quite capable of investigating its municipality street by street. Why can’t Glen Eira?

FYI – we urge all readers to consider the Moonee Valley approach in terms of direct community input, comprehensive community consultation, and real street by street evaluation. It is also worth taking a look at the links to the documents provided in this URL – http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/for-residents/parking-and-transport/current-transport-projects-and-studies/local-area-traffic-management-plans/buckley-park.aspx

For Residents

Buckley Park Local Area Traffic Management Study

We have been undertaking Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) studies in selected precincts within the municipality in order to manage vehicle movements, review parking restrictions and improve the residential environment.

In 2015/16, we are undertaking a LATM study of the Buckley Park precinct as part of this ongoing LATM program. The study area (pdf, 222KB) is bounded by Keilor Road, Lincoln Road, Buckley Street and Hoffmans Road in Essendon.

The study includes an extensive community consultation process to involve the local community in identifying traffic and parking issues and provide opportunities for community feedback on the developed traffic and parking proposals.

Working group

We have formed a working group comprising 10 community volunteers, Ward Councillors, Council officers and traffic engineering consultants.

The role of community volunteers is to provide local information, act as a contact for the local community and to provide feedback in the development of traffic and parking management plans for the area.

View the Terms of Reference for the working group.

Initial community questionnaire – traffic and parking issues

A questionnaire on traffic and parking issues in your local area was posted to properties in the study area in August 2015.

The closing date for questionnaire responses was Monday, 14 September 2015. Thank you to everyone who responded. The information you provided has helped to identify problem areas and assist us to develop draft traffic and parking management plans for the area.

Draft traffic management plan

A draft Traffic Management Plan (pdf, 1.1MB) setting out recommended solutions to traffic issues has been developed and circulated with a questionnaire to all properties and property owners in the study area for community comment.

The draft plan aims to address the key issues identified by the community in the initial questionnaire on traffic issues distributed to local properties in August 2015, as well as feedback from the Working Group.
The proposal has been considered on an area wide basis to minimise any adverse impacts on adjacent streets.

The objectives of the draft plan are to:

  • Reduce the incidence and potential for vehicle and pedestrian crashes in the local area.
  • Improve the safety of local streets by reducing traffic speeds.
  • Discourage through traffic from using the local area.
  • Develop proposals that address traffic concerns raised by the community, while maintaining adequate levels of accessibility for local residents, local businesses and emergency services.
  • Maximise the safety benefits with the available funding (with priority given to reported crash locations and those streets with the greatest level of community concern).

The closing date for questionnaire responses was Friday, 1 April 2016. Thanks to everyone who responded.

The community response to the draft plan is being reviewed by the Working Group, prior to presenting a recommended Traffic Management Plan in a report to Council.

Draft parking management plan

As part of the LATM study, the existing parking conditions within the local area have been reviewed. A draft Parking Management Plan (pdf, 340KB) setting out proposed changes to the parking arrangements in the Dean Precinct local area has now been developed.

This component of the project has involved the collection of an extensive set of parking occupancy data in addition to community and Working Group feedback. 

Using the parking occupancy data, the streets where parking changes are warranted have been determined based on our Parking Demand Management Framework.

Our Kerbside Road Space User Hierarchy was then used to determine appropriate parking restrictions in each street.

Below are streets which have proposed changes to existing parking arrangements along with the general location of the changes:

Street    Location
 Collins Street  Queen Street to Market Street
 Cooper Street  Spencer Street to Buckley Street
 Gilbertson Street  Keilor Road and Market Street
 King Street  Collins Street and Lincoln Road
 Lincoln Road  Queen Street and Market Street
 Queen Street  Lincoln Road to end
 Spencer Street  Collins Street to Lincoln Road
 William Street  Collins Street to Lincoln Road
 Keilor Road  McCracken and Collins Street

Residents and property owners in the streets that are directly affected by the proposed parking arrangements have been sent a questionnaire survey to seek their views on the proposals. Alternatively, community members can also provide their views on the proposals via an online questionnaire (external link).

The closing date for responses was Friday, 1 April 2016.

The community response to the draft plan is being reviewed by the Working Group, prior to presenting a recommended Parking Management Plan in a report to Council.

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

We make no comment on the outcome for Moonee Valley – ie how ‘good, bad, poor, inadequate’, etc. their plans are. What we wish to highlight is the PROCESS. How one council can, if there is the will, to involve its community before decision making, rather than after the fact which is what Glen Eira consistently does. That means that ‘consultation’ is nothing more than a token exercise when the decision has already been made. Nor are those councillors who consistently endorse such a top-down approach doing anything to engender real confidence that resident views will be listened to and acted upon. Ultimately, drastic and dramatic change is required!

 

 

July 22, 2016

Lipshutz Versus Hyams!

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

Below are some incredible statements that were made on Tuesday night by Lipshutz and then Hyams on the Council Watch item. Please note carefully:

  • The Lipshutz sudden change of heart with his admission that council policy is ‘deficient’.
  • The Hyams counter that it is still VCAT’s fault!

LIPSHUZ: On the McKinnon application he said that ‘VCAT held again’ on the grounds of ‘policy direction’ in a housing diversity,  decided that in ‘the absence of any neighbourhood character guidelines, there was no requirement to respect this neighbourhood character’. Said that they would be looking at ‘the issue of having guidelines so that VCAT can’t necessarily refuse us’. Said that council is looking at ‘mandatory issues rather than discretionary’ but VCAT in a ‘discretionary situation can look at our policy’ and ignore it. Said ‘we haven’t got mandatory requirements detailing height limits, neighbourhood character, those sorts of things, VCAT will ignore those issues’.

Called the results a ‘mixed bag’ and the reason why vcat decided against council was ‘deficiencies in policy’. Said that council was aware of this and ‘improved’ their situation with the zones but ‘we need to do more than that’ and ‘hopefully that will be addressed in the planning review’. Said that when it comes through ‘everyone will have a chance to speak’ and council will then ‘go to the minister and seek changes’. Claimed that ‘as a council we will be listening to our residents’ and ‘will make sure there are stricter policy guidelines in place’.

HYAMS: said when an application is refused at manager level that means it is ‘so unreasonable’ and therefore more disappointing that it is approved by VCAT which does ‘happen from time to time’. Lipshutz said ‘it’s our policies that are deficient’ but he takes ‘a slightly different view’. Said that VCAT appears ‘to have changed the goal posts’ in that ‘unless you’ve got prescribed neighbourhood character for an area, all of a sudden neighbourhood character doesn’t apply’. Wished that if the ‘goalposts’ were changed that VCAT ‘gave us a couple of years notice to rewrite our policies so we could do what they say’. So ‘neighbourhood character seemingly doesn’t apply’

COMMENT

For Lipshutz to admit that council’s policies are ‘deficient’ is indeed a remarkable first. Sadly, it has only taken him 11 years to come to this realisation! As for his ‘promises’ that council will ‘listen’ to residents, that remains to be seen.

What is even more telling is Hyams refusal to side with his colleague. The same line of defense is used – it is VCAT’s fault and never, ever, his and council’s. However, what irks us most is the continued spouting of untruths by Hyams. He would have residents believe that VCAT has ‘changed the goal posts’ and that council should have been given a ‘couple of years notice’. Utter bullshit as he probably well knows. VCAT has NOT changed the goal posts and council has had at least a decade of VCAT decisions which highlighted the deficiencies of their planning scheme. Council has had plenty of time to address all of these loopholes – especially in relation to housing diversity prior to 2013 and now the new zones. They have steadfastly refused to do a single thing until ordered to by the minister.

As proof of the falsity of Hyams’ statements we cite some extracts from VCAT decisions going back years where ‘neighbourhood character’ and the shortcomings of the planning scheme were referred to time and time again – most clearly for applications involving housing diversity. We could have cited scores and scores of judgements but feel that these examples suffice. The only conclusion possible is that council has known for years that its policies are ‘deficient’ but has simply turned a blind eye to this reality.

No particular neighbourhood character study applies. No relevant overlays or R1Z schedule applies. The surrounding neighbourhood has a relatively wide variety of dwelling types. Haycox v Glen Eira CC [2011] VCAT 1384 (19 July 2011)

+++++++++

Ms Hanson submitted the proposed building did not adequately respond to local policy to facilitate high quality urban design that enhanced neighbourhood character and promoted good streetscape design. …. In this regard she submitted a four storey form would be uncharacteristic of the area which was predominately single storey to the east and two to three storey elsewhere nearby. …..·  All parties acknowledged that local policy 22.07 was not clear in its direction to assess proposals in a Mixed Use Zone. MIG Pty Ltd & Ors v Glen Eira CC [2010] VCAT 1954 (8 December 2010)

+++++++++++

The thrust of the Housing and Residential Development policy is that sites in Urban Villages can expect a higher order and density of development. Sites in a Housing Diversity area can expect some change, but less than in the Urban Villages whilst sites in Minimal Change areas can expect a smaller amount of development, such as dual occupancy development to protect the neighbourhood character. The policy does not really deal with differences in extent of development at the interface …..I acknowledge the concern about the building mass impacting on properties in the Minimal Change Area behind the site in Yendon Road but there is little guidance in the planning scheme or the local policy to categorically define the level of acceptability. Perkins Architects v Glen Eira CC [2009] VCAT 437 (19 March 2009)

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »