July 21, 2016

Truth & Mistruth in Glen Eira!

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

PS: In order to clarify why this entire application has been so disastrously botched by Council we ask readers to contemplate the following and to have a close look at the zoning shown in the image. In the first place:

  • Council argued that this triple block site was ‘transitional’. The map shows it is smack bang in the middle of the RGZ
  • Council’s conditions included increased setbacks. Again ridiculous when the schedules don’t include this, plus there are already 4 storeys backing onto this site from Bent St and soon no doubt across the road.
  • The 3 block site is over 2000 square metres – positively encouraged by the planning scheme- even in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone
  • How many more times must councillors be hit over the head and realise that they haven’t got a hope in hell when they lop off a storey or two, or a handful of apartments and expect VCAT and the developer to accept this? The fault isn’t with VCAT. The fault lies with the planning scheme and lousy decision making that costs ratepayers a fortune to defend!
  • When some planner sits at a desk and draws circles on a map then insanity reigns supreme. That’s why one side of Godfrey Street will have 4 storeys opposite and other parts of Godfrey Street will have 2 storeys. As we’ve said, this isn’t planning, it is incompetence and indifference.

vickery

PPS: we are in error below. VCAT did order that council pay the developer’s appeal costs of $2,086.20

It is surely incumbent on every council officer to ensure that when a report is tabled, or a councillor says something that it is accurate, and not misleading. The number of times that Glen Eira City Council produces reports that are deceptive, lacking in complete information, and designed to portray only the ‘positives’ and these are then repeated by councillors is extraordinary. If a councillor does not know the facts, then it is his/her duty to find out. He should not as Lipshutz, Esakoff and some of the others invariably do, just regurgitate what has been put in front of them.

Our current case in point concerns Item 9.3 from Tuesday night – the so called VCAT WATCH. In the report on the decision for Vickery Street, Bentleigh, the Michael Henderson report states:

The Tribunal held that the interface between the building and the street was ‘urban’ rather than ‘suburban’, and that consequently hard surfaces, fences and limited landscaping along the front boundary are considered to be part of that ‘urban’ character.

Either this is a deliberate misrepresentation of the member’s judgement, or it reveals a total lack of understanding by our supposed ‘VCAT representative’. The full judgement can be accessed at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/920.html

Whilst it is true that the member does use the terms ‘urban’ and ‘suburban’, it is clear that his use of this terminology is based on the simple fact that COUNCIL ITSELF REFERS TO BENTLEIGH AS AN ‘URBAN VILLAGE’!!!!! He uses the term ‘suburban’ to differentiate this from the Minimal Change Areas or the current NRZ. It is NOT the member’s fault that Council’s planning scheme still contains the outdated terminology of ‘urban village’ when  the 2010 Planning Scheme Review reported that it should be removed! 6 years on, it is still there!

More to the point, the member does not simply proffer a personal opinion that says ‘urban’ areas can have ‘hard surfaces, fences and limited landscaping’ because that is part of the ‘urban character’ as opposed to a ‘suburban’ character as Henderson would like to portray. The quoted sentence appears only AFTER the member has gone through all of the policy and zoning statements on height, etc and focuses simply on fence heights . It is Council itself, which has determined via its zoning of RGZ, what is acceptable in these areas. The member is merely adhering to the schedules, or the lack of differentiation, that council in its wisdom imposed. He is thus following council policy and what the zones tell him and what the developer is permitted to exploit!

Here is some of what the member actually wrote.

In the past few years multiple planning approvals have been granted for four storey apartment buildings in and around the Bentleigh urban village. One such development is under construction on the land adjoining to the west. This and other similar proposals respond to the site’s proximity to the activity centre and the planning policy context.

Schedule 1 to the Zone applies to the review site. It limits the height of a new building on this site to 14.5 metres, as its slope exceeds 2.5 degrees over an 8 metre cross section. No clause 55 standards are varied by the schedule. In addition to the purposes of the zone, intensive development is clearly encouraged by planning policy.

The Glen Eira local planning policy framework directs the most intensive development to the Phoenix Precinct at Caulfield and urban villages such as Bentleigh. These areas are to experience the most change. Housing diversity areas adjacent to the urban villages are to accommodate incremental change….

There is strong policy support for the development of apartment style buildings in urban villages, in a manner that will result in significant levels of change. This is a deliberate and considered policy outcome sought by Council.

I am not persuaded that one storey should be removed from the proposed building. Firstly, while all of the Bentleigh urban village is identified for substantial change, opportunities for intensive development within the centre are constrained. Heritage Overlays, Special Building Overlays, small lot sizes along Centre Road, four storey building heights and fragmented ownership all constrain to varying degrees the opportunities for Bentleigh to play the role envisaged by policy. Consequently I consider that weight has to be given to using the unconstrained sites efficiently so the urban villages can contribute to broader housing diversity and compact city objectives. Opportunities should be realised, unless there are particular site constraints or unacceptable amenity impacts that arise from an intensive development. I have noted above this site has no constraints and is well located to the core of the centre

  • In the absence of specific directions in the Scheme regarding massing, site coverage or setbacks for this site (the applicable schedule does not vary an clause 55 standards), I consider any transition in height and massing is confined to the boundary of the zone where it interfaces with a zone where less intensive development is to occur.
  • Consequently I see no reason to regard the review site as being within a transition area. Rather, as I have noted I think sites that are consolidated and unconstrained should be developed efficiently, given the relatively limited opportunities in Glen Eira as a whole and in the Bentleigh urban village.

I agree with the parties the development does not comply with standard B6. I must therefore turn to the objective of clause 55.03-1, which is: To ensure the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site. I give limited weight to the prevailing character, and note that the scheme provides little specific guidance to a preferred character.

I also think the proposed setback can take its cues from the activity centre to the south rather than the suburban character to the north and because of the type of building that is proposed. The somewhat lesser setbacks to the street will be more consistent with the supermarket and shops within the centre that are built close to their boundaries. I consider that this built form that provides a context for the emerging character, rather than the suburban setting of detached dwellings further north along Vickery Street.

I think it is entirely reasonable that a development in an area of substantial change has a higher site coverage and less permeability than a two dwelling development in a local suburban street in a minimal change area. The responsible authority was unable to provide a basis in policy or context to justify these requirements.

Conclusions

  • Once again councillors’ grandstanding by lopping off a storey has been truly routed by VCAT because of council’s deficient planning scheme.
  • If council really wanted these properties to be ‘transition’ then why zone them RGZ? Remember that in Glen Eira there really is no ‘transition zone’ just a one house ‘interval’ between the growth zones!
  • Henderson’s report is entirely disingenuous. Almost none of the negatives noted above re council are reported and this is regurgitated ad nauseum by the likes of Lipshutz, Hyams and Magee. Either they have not read the actual judgements themselves, or they are willing to sacrifice ‘truth’ in order to maintain the myth of how wonderful Glen Eira’s planning is.
  • Council should finally thank its lucky stars that the member did not grant the developer’s wish that ratepayers fork out their costs because of council’s failure to determine this application in the requisite time!

Finally, with the current Planning Scheme Review to be produced at the next council meeting, we can only hope that for once there is a comprehensive and honest analysis of all VCAT decisions over the past 6 years. Anything less, is totally unacceptable.

 

July 20, 2016

The Circus Continues & More Rights Eroded

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

Item 9.9 – Local Law Public Question Changes

Lipshutz moved motion to accept ‘as printed’. Esakoff seconded.

LIPSHUTZ:  started off with the less ‘controversial’ aspects of changing the local law such as defining the meaning of ‘drones’ and ‘urgent business’. On public questions repeated the changes – ie questions have to be 150 words or less; submitted 24 hours earlier than currently; 2 questions per person and ‘if present at the meeting the questions will be read out’.  If not present then answers ‘will be forwarded to him’ but ‘not minuted’. Claimed that he received ‘numerous’ questions ‘every day of the week’ up to 3 or 4 a day. Those he can’t answer he ‘refers to an officer’. Said that ‘today’ with emails, phones, etc. it is ‘pretty easy to ask a question’ and to contact councillors. ‘So why do we need public questions’ even though it ‘is important to have some public questions’.  In his time on council there has been a ‘diminution’ of the aspect of public questions. Claimed that people ask public questions ‘not because’ the ‘answers they really want to know’ but because ‘they are simply out to embarrass councillors and council and that is inappropriate’.  Councillors job is to ‘make decisions’ for the benefit of the community and ‘all of us work very hard on that’ and what they get paid doesn’t compensate for the ‘many hours’ they put in. They don’t do it ‘for the money’ but for the community. People might think they do the wrong thing but the ‘way to handle that is at the election’. So they are trying to do ‘the right thing’ and ‘when you get questions that are seeking to embarrass the council’ then ‘that is inappropriate’. ‘If you want to have a question answered come to the council meeting’. ‘Many questions are being asked’ by residents who ‘have no interest in the council meeting at all’. They send a question in because ‘they want it in the minutes’. Went on with changes to Right of Reply where there now didn’t have to be a written statement provided to all other councillors beforehand but this was ‘subject ‘ to councillors being given notice ‘by 12 noon of the day’. Thanked submitters and said that these ‘had been considered’.

ESAKOFF: said that Lipshutz ‘had covered every single point’ so she didn’t have anything to add.

DELAHUNTY:  whilst she ‘agreed with some of the changes’ she was voting against the motion. Thought that  the proposed changes to public questions ‘ actually diminishes the participation’ of residents. Said that ‘the submissions we received endorsed my views on this’. Said she would like to see ‘public questions spoken here in the chamber’. Agreed that councillors get phone calls so ‘what happens here in the chamber should actually reflect real life and not seek to distance ourselves from it’. Said she’s got a ‘great respect’ for Local Government and its ‘proximity to people’ and the ‘participatory element’ and ‘would hate to see that diminished in any way’. Stated that ‘the more’ the chamber becomes ‘about us talking and not residents talking’ and if you’ve got questions then you ‘are seeking to embarrass people’ then ‘that’s a lack of respect’ and ‘the more we show that lack of respect’ the ‘more distant we become’ from residents. Gave an example of going out to consultation on raising rates for the budget and said ‘we don’t engage enough’ with residents and that this ‘chamber should be your chamber’ and people should be able to ‘walk in and ask questions’. Thought that all councils ‘should be the same across Victoria’ in terms of meeting procedures. Thought the motion was a ‘retrograde step’ in community participation. Found it all ‘quite insulting’.

MAGEE: said his email and phone is ‘advertised widely’ and he does get questions. Said that public questions have included getting ’16 to 20 questions from one person’ and ‘we do have the responsibility to conduct council business’. Said that ‘most of the questions’ are about ‘questions that were asked at the previous council meeting wanting clarification’ because either the questioner ‘didn’t understand or didn’t get the answer they were looking for and wanted clarification’.  ‘But to wait half an hour’ before times for questions are closed before submitting the question , and they’ve got 26 questions tonight so to ‘try to answer on our busiest day’ in the three week period between council meetings is unacceptable because ‘these questions could have been asked 2 weeks ago’. Said that ‘there’s never been a question asked of myself that hasn’t been answered’. To say ‘you didn’t answer my question’ properly at the council meeting and then to ‘discover that the question came in at 2 minutes to 12’ so he ‘understands’ why Lipshutz is ‘bringing this into the local law’.  Told people to ask their questions as ‘early as possible. You will get an answer’.

HO: said that he would ‘take’ questions from the public at his ‘consultation’ meetings at the café and they can also email him. His ‘consultation’ time would be 10am Tuesday.

SOUNNESS: also has ‘concerns’ with the motion. He feels ‘fairly strongly but not massively strongly’ about the public questions aspect. Acknowledged the submission from the Glen Eira Environment Group.  Wasn’t sure whether the 150 words per question should be ‘limited’. ‘Personally I do feel that we should have a record’ of every decision made by council as to who voted for what rather than waiting for a division. Also wanted ‘conversations’ with residents.

LOBO: agreed in part with Lipshutz that sometimes questions ‘can be a nuisance’ but ‘we need to think why would the person come back again?’ ‘Just because we don’t like letters after letters doesn’t mean that all letters are rubbish’. In a democratic society we ‘need to give the public the authority to work in the chambers’. Said state and federal governments have to explain why the public ‘isn’t given a chance to talk’. Stated that ‘it is important that we should not be seen in any way as gagging’. ‘That’s not our job’. Residents are paying councillors and ‘we need to look at the relationship as masters and servants’. Said he would be a ‘hypocrite if I can’t give my residents the chance to talk’.

DELAHUNTY: wanted to ask Magee and Ho on ‘their thoughts about mismatch’ between questions in chamber and questions via letter or email. Wanted ‘for example’ 15 minutes at the start of council meetings for residents to stand up and ask questions in the chamber and ‘would that be an acceptable change’?

MAGEE: said he would ‘encourage that’.

HYAMS: said that Delahunty’s view wasn’t what was advertised, so this would mean that if they were going to change things the proposed amendment would have to be readvertised. He also ‘disagrees’ with the ‘principle as well’. They have rules about questions being out of order ..

DELAHUNTY: raised a point of order. Said she asked for ‘clarification’ only and is ‘not seeking’ anything, just asking a question.

HYAMS: said that ‘leads’ onto the submissions where there are a few good ideas and ‘to adopt them now we would need to put them out to public consultation and start the whole process again’. As for having recordings of council, that ‘would require a change of the local law’. On public questions ‘you don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water but when something has been abused solidly for ten years’ then ‘you do perhaps want to limit it a little’.  People send in public questions and ‘you’ve got no idea who they are because they never show themselves’ and they ‘barrage’ you with questions or ‘ask a majority of questions’ with ‘allegations’.  And people ask public questions ‘if they want to get something on the agenda’ and ‘there is a place for that’ like with skyrail and people wanting that on the agenda to have council’s position made clear. But when ‘abuse’ happens ‘more often than not, then we need to act’. So if people want to ask public questions and ‘get it on the record, come and show yourself’. ‘Let us see who you are’. Thought that ‘this strikes the right balance’.

DELAHUNTY: said she wasn’t suggesting that we ‘now alter’ what was advertised. Asked Pilling that according to the current local law it was up to his ‘discretion whether or not you allow questions to come from the public’. Given this, she thought there was room to ‘move an amended motion that we strongly encourage you to use your discretion’ to allow public questions at the start. Didn’t think that this would ‘require any sort of re-advertising’.

PILLING: said he was aware of this clause but was ‘happy to take advice’. Delahunty then read out the section of the Local Law which covered this.

LIPSHUTZ: interrupted with a point of order saying that her question was ‘not pertinent to the motion at hand’.

Extended discussion between Pilling and the CEO.

PILLING: said he wasn’t ‘going to break long standing protocols’. ‘We haven’t done this in the past’ and they’ve considered this in a ‘measured way’ at assemblies and ‘I’m not prepared to make a judgement on the run here’.

DELAHUNTY: then moved an amendment that ‘the chair use the discretion afforded him’ to ‘open the meeting to public questions’. Sounness seconded.

HYAMS: point of order, asking whether it is ‘proper for council to direct’ the mayor to use his discretion.

DELAHUNTY: point of order saying she didn’t ‘direct’ she sought to ‘encourage’.

PILLING: again wanted advice from the CEO.

CEO: said it would not ‘be proper for council to direct the Mayor’ but as Delahunty says she is merely ‘requesting that the council encourage’ the mayor.

HYAMS: point of order saying that this isn’t an amendment ‘but a new motion’.

DELAHUNTY: said that this wasn’t grounds for a ‘point of order’ according to the Local Law

PILLING: ‘I will determine that’. Another long delay and discussion with the CEO. Finally said that he will ‘uphold the point of order’ quoting clause 236

DELAHUNTY: wanted ‘clarification’, saying that the proposed motion is about public questions and that her motion is about public questions, how can it be deemed as ‘irrelevant’.

PILLING: ‘that’s my ruling’

DELAHUNTY: said ‘she knows’ but ‘I am seeking clarification on how you come to that ruling’.

PILLING: said it was irrelevant because it didn’t ‘go to the spirit of the motion’ and ‘that’s my ruling’.

SOUNNESS: asked whether the chair would ‘consider’ another discussion at assembly and then ‘bringing it back to a future council meeting’.

PILLING: ‘no, my ruling still stands’. Claimed ‘we’ve discussed this many times in assemblies’.

LOBO: said that ‘we would like to know clearly from the residents if they really want to do this’.

PILLING: raised a point of order that Lobo hadn’t asked his question

LOBO: ‘we need to ask them, and how can we ask them that?’

PILLING: said it wasn’t a question.

DELAHUNTY: point of order – ‘that was quite clearly posed as a question’.

Hyams then wanted the motion put.

DELAHUNTY: said that ‘I raised a point of order and you were about to rule on that point of order’ and that ‘I am interested in the answer to it’.

PILLING: he didn’t think that Lobo’s question was ‘relevant to the motion at hand’.

LOBO: said he didn’t agree.

PILLING: that’s ‘your prerogative’.

LIPSHUTZ:  quoted Delahunty as wanting process to be like ‘real life’

DELAHUNTY: point of order that she didn’t say that, she said that process should ‘mirror real life’.

LIPSHUTZ: said that councillors are ‘available many hours a day’ and ‘many of us are out there’ consulting with residents. We ‘respect our residents’. ‘Public questions is not real life’. They don’t ‘distance themselves’ because people ‘ring up’ and they ‘talk to people’. ‘we are as close to the public as we can be and public questions have nothing to do with that’.

MOTION PUT. VOTING IN FAVOUR – LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, ESAKOFF, PILLING, MAGEE, HO

VOTING AGAINST: SOUNNESS, DELAHUNTY, LOBO

 

July 18, 2016

The Future Writ Large – Compliments Of Council!

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

Below is just some of what is happening in Glen Eira. Urban Melbourne lists over 70 major current projects. We’ve selected a mere 30! Please note that all of these have permits and many are under construction. As we’ve revealed in an earlier post there are at least another 774 apartments waiting in the wings for council approval. Also note that these mere 30 projects equal over 1300 apartments.

Our thanks to Urban Melbourne for these screen dumps.

CLICK TO ENLARGE

 

July 16, 2016

The Agenda & Parking!

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

Item 9.5 of the latest agenda features a four page officer report on what is purportedly on parking facilities and conditions in the General Residential Zone (GRZ) and the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ). The recommendations are farcical –

That Council:

  1. notes this report
  2. continues to review parking in Glen Eira’s Residential Growth Zones and General Residential Zones in conjunction with the actions associated with the Transport Strategy.

What makes these recommendations so unacceptable is:

  • We know of no report in the past ten years which has investigated parking (as opposed to traffic management) in these growth areas
  • Residents have bemoaned the lack of parking year after year and basically nothing has been done
  • We doubt that council even knows how many parking spots are currently available for shoppers, businesses and residents in the housing diversity areas
  • We also wonder how many parking spots have been ceded to developers because of crossovers and the waiving of onsite car parking spots. One resident several years ago, calculated that just in East Bentleigh over 300 places had been waived.

And all of this has been happening despite the promises made over ten years ago and included in the planning scheme. For example:

Investigating the need for a cash-in-lieu policy to fund new car parks in various commercial centres.

Parking precinct plans

The City of Glen Eira recognises the special and often conflicting parking needs of its numerous commercial centres. Further strategic work is necessary to develop Parking Precinct Plans

Preparing Parking Precinct Policies for the following neighbourhood centres:

􀂂 Alma Village, Caulfield Park, Caulfield South, Bentleigh East, Glen Huntly, Ormond.

􀂃 Investigating the need for a cash-in-lieu policy to fund new car parks in various commercial centres.

Implementing a program of Local Area Traffic Management Plans in order to minimise disruption and increase safety of residential areas.

In Glen Eira, despite these promises there is:

  • No cash in lieu. Residents should note that Banyule Council has just had an amendment gazetted which imposes a $17,500 levy on each car parking waiver for its commercial sites.
  • No parking precinct plans for any activity centre or neighbourhood centre as promised
  • No Local Area Traffic Management Plans exist

So exactly what has this council been doing for the past ten or so years? Apart from outsourcing its Traffic Management Department at great expense, it would appear to have done bugger all!

The current 4 page ‘report’ continues this trend of ‘let’s do nothing but wait’. Basically, the report is nothing more than a rose-coloured summary of the situation. Facts and statistics are non-existent. Instead we get such comments –

Council’s Statutory Planning unit has found that applicants generally provide adequate parking for the dwellings themselves. However, it is common for applicants to request a reduction in the visitor car parking guideline

Similarly, when planning decisions are challenged at VCAT, it is usual for VCAT to uphold the dwelling parking provision, and common for VCAT to reduce the requirement for visitor car parking.

Conveniently missing from the above paragraphs is the additional fact that council’s planning department itself often waives visitor car parking and loading bay requirements – as it has done in the very first application set down for this same council meeting (Item 9.1 – Neerim Road/Elliott Avenue). Even when VCAT is involved, decision after decision shows how little council’s transport department has done to counter the claim of the developer in regard to parking facilities. Here’s just one example –

Council put to me that they accept that the provision of 12 spaces is adequate for the site….The development generates a requirement for 13.2 car spaces in total…..First Angle v  Glen Eira  CC [2016] VCAT 1124 (6 July 2016)

In the end we’re left with nothing more than further promises of action. Not action NOW, but in 18+ months time as evidenced in this paragraph from the report –

Transport Strategy

The recently adopted Transport Strategy Action Plan calls for car parking surveys to be undertaken in the Urban Villages (Activity Centres) and key Neighbourhood Centres in the next eighteen months. These car parking studies will provide Council with more information to enable the impacts of car parking in the RGZ and GRZ1 to be assessed in more detail. Furthermore, the Strategy calls for a review of the feasibility of Car Share arrangements and the development of a Car Share Policy. The scope of the policy could cover both car share for public car spaces, and for private car spaces in a development.

With modern technology nothing should take 18 months for ‘detail’ to be forthcoming. If other councils can get off their backsides with amendments that exact an appropriate cost to developers and implement local traffic management plans, then Glen Eira’s reluctance to undertake the necessary work now is simply another indication of either sheer incompetence or the pro-development ethos that has given us the zones and all its ills!

 

July 14, 2016

Are Some More Equal Than Others?

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

park

If these residents are correct and this proposal is all about traffic management, then it is a pretty expensive way to resolve the issue. Of course, no one knows exactly how much this ‘park’ will cost! Nor are we privy to its size or how much of this area will be covered by concrete. No traffic analysis is provided (and we doubt it’s even been done!) in order to gauge the potential impact of closing off streets.

Other issues also need to be considered –

Pocket parks are, according to the research literature designed to alleviate the lack of open space in a HIGH DENSITY area. This proposal is smack in the middle of a Neighbourhood Residential Zone – ie LOW DENSITY. When other areas such as Carnegie are literally crying out for more and more open space and have less than North Caulfield, why doesn’t this area get priority?

According to the Open Space Strategy (OSS), Carnegie has 21.07 hectares of public open space. Of the ‘recommendations’ contained in the OSS for ‘additional open space’ all of the 5 recommendations carry the priority rating of ‘Very High’. In contrast, Caulfield North has 26.28 hectares of public open space; of the 6 recommendations made for ‘additional open space’ only one carries the ‘very high’ classification and this is for ‘gap area C1’. The proposal for Fosbery/St Aubins is not C1! Another 4 recommendations are rated as ‘high’ priority and one other as ‘medium’.

Thus, on every single criterion, Council’s proposal fails to meet the recommendations of its own OSS, plus residents are being asked to comment without being provided with the necessary full information. Residents in Carnegie have every right to ask if they are viewed as second class citizens when it comes to open space and the necessary funding.

 

July 12, 2016

Far From ‘Satisfied’ & Getting Worse!

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

csThe most significant aspect of this survey which the Leader article does not focus on, is the discrepancy between resident evaluation of the importance of a service and the perceived ‘results’. Differentials of well over 20 signal a new low point in Glen Eira. For example: residents believe that ‘consultation’ is vital, giving it a ‘rating’ of 75 for ‘importance’. Their judgement on performance is 51! What should also be highlighted is that the differential between importance and performance has been growing steadily over the past few years – yet council has failed to address this decline. No amount of spin can disguise this fact!

Here is one page from the survey –

Pages from Community-Satisfaction-Survey-2016

PS – BY WAY OF COMPARISON, HERE ARE THE RESULTS FROM THE 2014 SURVEY. PLEASE NOTE THE INCREASE IN THE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN IMPORTANCE AND PERFORMANCE

Pages from Community_Satisfaction_Survey_Report_2014

PPS – Not all councils have thus far published the results of their surveys. However, we’ve taken the opportunity to highlight some of these results as a further comparison with Glen Eira. For starters, Stonnington and Greater Dandenong DID NOT HAVE ANY SERVICES WITH A GREATER DIFFERENTIAL OF 10 POINTS.  The screen dumps (below) from Whitehorse and Boroondara reveal that their residents’ angst is nowhere near those from Glen Eira’s population and the number of services with a discrepancy of 10 or more points is also well below the number to be found in Glen Eira.

whitehorse

Untitled

 

July 8, 2016

Our Money At Work!

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

Glen Eira Council blows $17k to solve councillor infighting

Chad Van Estrop, Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader

July 8, 2016 11:15am

GLEN Eira Council has forked out $17,760 in its latest investigation into councillor infighting but the findings will be discussed behind closed doors.

Earlier this year barrister Frances O’Brien QC was appointed an as independent arbiter by mayor Neil Pilling following a tumultuous four-year council term, which came to a head at a citizenship ceremony in April.

Her findings, received by council early last week, will be kept secret until the July 19 council meeting and it is unclear if they will be released publicly.

“It will be considered as a confidential item (on July 19) as it pertains to privileged legal advice,” Glen Eira chief executive Rebecca McKenzie said.

“At the meeting the council will consider the report and determine what, if any, further action will be taken.”

Ms McKenzie said Glen Eira mayor Neil Pilling would make a public statement once the council passed a resolution on the matter.

In May, a council insider alleged Ms O’Brien was appointed to investigate a culture of bullying and intimidation among councillors.

Glen Eira’s latest expensive inquiry into councillor conduct follows a failed $27,000 bid in 2013 to reprimand Cr Oscar Lobo at a conduct panel.

Some of the incidents which could have come under investigation by Ms O’Brien include: Cr Jamie Hyams calling Cr Oscar Lobo a “f**kwit” at a citizenship ceremony in April attended by 200 people; Cr Lobo’s allegedly anti-Semitic slur at a December council meeting and a 2010 email councillor Michael Lipshutz sent to Cr Lobo asking him if he had worked for a bank linked to terrorists.

Ms O’Brien, a senior barrister with extensive experience in employment law and forensic examination of evidence, was one of three members of a commission established to examine workplace culture at Geelong Council earlier this year. The council was sacked in April.

chad.vanestrop@news.com.au

 

July 8, 2016

Open Space & Another Clayton’s ‘Consultation’?

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

No denying that more open space is desperately needed in Glen Eira. That has been the perennial call from residents since time immemorial. Council’s  ‘solution’ is to turn streets into so called ‘parks’.

Currently there is another ‘consultation’ ongoing in regards to closing off the corner of Fosbery and St Aubins Avenue in North Caulfield. Replete with pretty pictures, the consultation provides no information on:

  • The impact on traffic
  • The size of this new ‘park’
  • The cost of creating this ‘park’
  • The ‘value’ of such endeavours? – ie what assessment has been made of the Eskdale Road and Riddell Parade ventures? How well are they used? Does this represent ‘value for money’?

Nor have residents been provided with any justification for the selection of these streets – particularly when the Eskdale Road closure is a stone’s throw from Caulfield Park, and the proposed Fosbery Street one is within 400 metres of Greenmeadows park.  Why were these streets chosen and not ten others?

Confounding the choice even further, we highlight the following tender which was approved in August 2014 –

That Council appoints Fercon Pty Ltd, ACN 116 527 363 as the contractor under Tender number 2014.046 St Aubins Avenue and Fosbery Avenue Reconstruction for an amount of $908,176.00 exclusive of GST in accordance with the schedule of rates submitted

This clearly leads to a series of important questions:

  • Have ratepayers spent a million dollars on ‘reconstruction’ only to have this now ripped up with new ‘reconstruction’ for the ‘park’?
  • If so, where is corporate memory? Does the right hand ever know what the left hand is doing?

Conclusions?  If council is prepared to spend millions on landscape design, consultation, and the short sighted option of closing off streets instead of real investment in new, multi-purpose open space, then they need to be upfront with residents and provide solid reasons based on facts, evidence, rationale, and evaluation as to the efficacy of their decisions. Presenting residents with a series of cute little pictures and calling this ‘consultation’ is insulting. Decision making must always be based on the full facts. This is not happening.

 

July 6, 2016

New Monsters!

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

Presented below is a list of SOME of the new applications that have been submitted in the past 6 weeks. We have ignored many of the ‘smaller’ applications such as 2 double storeys, or 3 dwellings on one site. Council decisions are still to be made and many have as yet still to be advertised.

8 Egan Street, CARNEGIE – 16 storey mixed use (original application was for 155 dwellings – now 135)

60-64 Rosstown Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 8 storey, accommodation 49 rooms

285-287 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 6 storey, 59 dwellings

322-326 Neerim Road & 17 Elliot Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 38 dwellings

1110-1112 Dandenong Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storeys, 34 dwellings

90-94 Mimosa Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 49 dwellings

76 Truganini Road CARNEGIE – 5 new dwellings

3 Ames Avenue CARNEGIE – 7 new dwellings

26 Woorayl Street CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 10 dwellings

1 Beena Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 5 three storeys

23 Toolambool Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 5 dwellings

25-27 Horne Street ELSTERNWICK VIC – 7 storeys, 25 dwellings

411-415 Glen Huntly Road ELSTERNWICK VIC 3185 – 8 storey mixed use (no. of units not stated)

71 Patterson Road BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 4 storey, 5 dwellings

37 Nicholson Street BENTLEIGH – 4 storeys, (no. of units not stated)

45 Browns Road BENTLEIGH EAST VIC 3165 – 6 dwellings

  • South Avenue BENTLEIGH VIC 3204 – 9 three storeys

9 St Georges Avenue BENTLEIGH EAST VIC – 15 double storeys

3 Heather Street BENTLEIGH EAST – 6 dwellings

92 Kooyong Road CAULFIELD NORTH – 4 storey, 23 dwellings

1-9 Claire Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 44 dwellings

  • 9 Adelaide Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 34 dwellings

2 Adelaide Street MCKINNON VIC 3204 –  4 double storeys

12 Glen Orme Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 3 double storeys

9 Station Avenue MCKINNON VIC 3204 – 9 three storeys

229 McKinnon Road, MCKINNON – 8 three storeys

2 Adelaide Street, MCKINNON – 4 double storeys

23-25 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 23 dwellings

31 Rothschild Street GLEN HUNTLY – 5 double storeys

441-495 Inkerman Road ST KILDA EAST – 4 storey, 27 retired living units

43 Balaclava Road ST KILDA EAST VIC – 3 storey, 18 dwellings

3 Ardyne Street MURRUMBEENA – 3 storey, 13 dwellings

56 Hobart Road MURRUMBEENA – 6 new dwellings

126-128 Murrumbeena Road MURRUMBEENA – 3 storey, 32 dwellings

Flat 1-28 235 Balaclava Road CAULFIELD NORTH VIC 3161 – 26 dwellings

441-495 Inkerman Road ST KILDA EAST VIC 3183 – 4 storey, 27 retired living units

460-464 Glen Eira Road CAULFIELD – 6 dwellings (4 double storey, 2 single storey)

TOTAL 774 PLUS UNKNOWNS in the six weeks!

The Planning Scheme cites an average of 500-600 dwellings PER YEAR!

The facts:

  • Glen Eira has quadrupled its average new dwellings per year
  • How many of these new dwellings are single bedroom is undisclosed
  • How many of these new dwellings stand empty is anyone’s guess
  • How many ‘standards’ council overlooks in granting these permits is undisclosed
  • Why Council fails repeatedly at VCAT remains unreported (but we know why according to VCAT judgements – the fault lies almost exclusively with the current planning scheme)
  • Have any of these 2000+ new dwellings been granted an exemption in paying their open space levy and, for those that have paid, is the levy at the maximum of 5.7% in each and every case?

 

 

 

July 5, 2016

Neighbourhood Character

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

Item 9.8 – Neighbourhood Character Provisions

Crs Sounness/Delahunty

That Council notes this report and considers implementation of Neighbourhood Character Provisions as well as Design and Development Overlays to support existing and expected future residential character, assome of the preferred planning scheme tools to implement the findings of the City of Glen Eira Planning Scheme Review Process.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

SOUNNESS: said he had talked with planners and that ‘it is good to have a review and see how other councils are doing things’. The current process of ‘consulting with the community’ has resulted in a lot of issues being put forward. Council has to decide ‘what weight’ to give to these suggestions. The current officer’s report however will be useful to ‘resource us’ for what will be a useful ‘outcome’.  Said the report shows that ‘different tools achieve different outcomes’ but in ‘different ways’. Council needs to try and be in a ‘defendable position’ on policies. He supports the officer’s recommendations but would like these things as part of the consideration of the planning scheme review.

DELAHUNTY: said that councillors had had an ‘off the cuff discussion’ on Neighbourhood Character Overlays.  Said that in ‘applying’ these Neighbourhood Character Overlays there are objectors so it is ‘perhaps a little more of a vexed issue’. Said that she thinks more and more people are becoming in favour of them and sees this as ‘our obligation’ to ‘extend’ these through ‘housing areas’ that are ‘post war stock in Glen Eira’ and not just Victorian places. So ‘we are discussing Neighbourhood Character Overlays in the context of our planning scheme review’ but she thinks that we ‘ought to have more conversations about character overlays’ and ‘how to extend them’. Torres ‘tells us’ that these things do ‘carry some genuine weight’. This is ‘what people are asking for’ and will protect the ‘old parts of Glen Eira’.

Sounness declined the opportunity to sum up.

COMMENT

The officer’s report highlights the work done by neighbouring councils. Significantly, the officer report does not include a Glen Eira summary alongside so that a real comparison may be made. Nor does it spell out the various heights and other conditions these councils have implemented through their schedules to the zones – all of which stand in stark contrast to the Glen Eira (lazy) approach of ‘one size fits all’. In fact, no mention of the zones occurs at all in the councillor ‘discussion’.

More concerning is that ‘neighbourhood character’ appears to have morphed into Neighbourhood Character Overlays (NCO) only judging by the comments of these two councillors. Hardly satisfactory – especially since NCOs are tools designed for use in specific areas – generally a street or two – and certainly won’t cover large swathes of Glen Eira. What does cover large swathes of Glen Eira are the abysmal zones – which do not rate a mention from either Sounness or Delahunty and certainly did not feature in the Planning Scheme Review Discussion Paper nor did it receive the attention it required in the ‘feedback forum’ presenting the draft ‘workplan’.

Even the State Government’s Practice Note highlights the additional tools that councils may use, but which this motion appears to ignore – Different areas do have different characteristics and expectations and the VPP allows councils to set different residential development standards through either the schedule to the residential zones or the application of the NCO to achieve local neighbourhood character objectives. These can influence the nature and extent of development that can occur in order to achieve a desired neighbourhood character outcome for an area.

A further cause for concern is the stated intention of council to wait until release of the data from the August Census before anything in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is truly amended and/or updated. Again, this does not adhere to the published Practice Notes – The objectives for neighbourhood character and the strategies and implementation measures for achieving the neighbourhood character objectives should also be included in the MSS.

We can therefore only conclude that the intent of Council is to do precisely what they have been ordered to do by the Minister and nothing more! The zones remain sacrosanct – despite the outcry, petitions and media coverage from residents dismayed at what is happening to their streets. And, the longer these zones remain untouched our fear is that it will be too late to do anything to halt the destruction. Perhaps this is what it’s all about?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »