March 22, 2016

Lipshutz: Conflict Of Interest?

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

At the first council meeting of the year, Lipshutz and Delahunty moved this motion – “Issues a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for Application No. GE/PP-28482/2015 allowing the construction of buildings and carrying out of works, use of the land at 2-4 Princes Street for a Place of Assembly associated with the Synagogue at 574 Inkerman Road and reduction of the car parking requirement in accordance with the following Conditions….”. The permit was granted, allowing events to occur weekdays until 11pm as well as increasing the number of ‘celebrations’ to 400 patrons in conjunction with normal prayer services. There were 16 objections.

Our concern is not with the application itself but whether Lipshutz should have declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from the chamber. It’s not the first time that the question of conflict of interest raises its ugly head in relation to Lipshutz. We have had numerous instances of his failure to declare what most reasonable people would perceive as either a ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ conflict of interest. Some examples to refresh people’s memory:

  • numerous items on the racecourse where both Esakoff and Hyams declared conflicts, yet Lipshutz stated that because he wasn’t a ‘member’ of the MRC he had no conflict of interest!
  • in discussions on a petition where he, Hyams and Esakoff were named, yet he and the other two voted not to accept the petition
  • the famous ‘how-to-vote-cards’ episode and the permit granted to Emmy Monash
  • of course the famous Whiteside dummy spit over a permit for a property in Inkerman Road associated with the Gutnicks and where public open space was ceded to the applicant. Lipshutz’s ‘response’ was to label Whiteside as ‘anti-semitic’. (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/why-bother-asks-former-glen-eira-mayor-20121022-281jw.html)

But in 2008 he saw fit to declare a conflict on an application for a mere two double storey townhouses in Daley St., Bentleigh  – “Cr Lipshutz declared an Interest in this item as he knows the applicant and works with him on matters of communal interest.” (Minutes of 26th February 2008)

Thus ‘communal interest’ and ‘knows the applicant’ was enough back in 2008 to declare a conflict. What about currently? The image below comes from Page 12 of a document that originates from the applicant for the permit referred to in the opening paragraph. We have also uploaded the full document.  (HERE).(Source for the following: http://www.caulfieldshule.com.au/about-us/admin/policies/item/95-child-protection-policy.html)Pages from Child_Protection_PolicyThe ombudsman has made it absolutely clear that the public’s ‘perception’ of a conflict is a legitimate concern for any public official as it reduces trust in both the official and the status of local government. Lipshutz did not state at any time that he was the ‘independent member’ for this particular congregation. No records of assembly minutes reported that he had declared any conflicts. No other councillor uttered a word. Perhaps they didn’t know. If that is the case, we believe that it was incumbent on Lipshutz to let them know! How many more times will this councillor ignore the advice of the ombudsman and the constraints of the Local Government Act? And how many more times will councillors allow him to get away with such actions?

 

March 20, 2016

Racecourse Latest

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[18] Comments 

Here is a summary of what we know in relation to the Caulfield Racecourse:

  • There are 4 (not 2) Land Management Plans for the racecourse. Two are by the Trustees – one is a plan that includes training and the other plan is designed without training facilities. The third Land Management Plan is from the MRC (with State Government funding). The fourth plan (yet to be completed we understand) comes from the Melbourne Planning Authority (MPA) whose brief is to come up with a ‘precinct plan’ for Caulfield.
  • The role of the MPA and its recommendations are crucial since both Plan Melbourne and Plan Melbourne Refresh designate ‘Caulfield’ (or what we presume to correlate with the Phoenix Precinct) as a major ‘employment hub’. Issues such as zoning, open space, transport and development are to feature prominently. Whether or not this plan will incorporate parts of Stonnington (as it should) we do not know at this point.
  • So we now appear to have the most farcical situation possible. The MPA as the overarching authority will bring down a ‘precinct plan’ that in all probability is not co-ordinated with the State Government’s review of the zones, or the Better Apartments review, or even the consolidation of Plan Melbourne Refresh.
  • Monash University is closing Berwick campus and seeking to rezone the land and then undoubtedly aims to sell it off for residential/mixed use development. That will provide them with the necessary funds to proceed full bore with their Fusion project for the Caulfield Campus. We remind readers that this involves (at this stage) the development of 800+ student accommodation facilities, plus the development of the entire Plaza area.
  • We also believe that Council were offered the opportunity to be ‘the committee of management’ for the centre of the racecourse but knocked this back. Whether all councillors were made aware of this ‘offer’ is a moot point.
  • The trustees will go, but what will replace them is still to be determined. Apparently the Minister does not have the power to sack them. Legislation has to be rescinded first, and then new legislation introduced.
  • Community groups will be presenting to a parliamentary committee in early April. What influence these presentations will have, and how genuine the intent to listen to community views, remains to be seen.
  • Yesterday (March 19th) there was another concert. Once again, the noise levels were unacceptable and could be heard from a kilometre away!

Some observations on the release of the minutes from 2014 –

  • Why these minutes should appear now (18 months later) is open to speculation. The fact that neither the agenda, nor the minutes from the last meeting were published does not fill us with confidence that things are changing on the Trust. It will be interesting to see whether any agenda and/or minutes will be published for the March 30 meeting.
  • Only one MRC member was highlighted in these minutes in relation to conflict of interest. Given that leases were discussed means, in our view, that ALL MRC members of the trust could be perceived to have a conflict of interest and not just one individual.
  • The alleged 2009 ‘governance’ document has never seen the light of day.
  • The fact that councillor representatives are ‘gagged’ is mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is the fact that these same councillors have accepted this situation!

CONCLUSION

  • An all mighty mess that has lasted for 150 years and looks like continuing for some time yet.

PS: the October 2014 minutes are uploaded here

 

March 18, 2016

Secrecy & Stuff Ups

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

Council’s Local Law (yes, the one we’ve been waiting to see ‘revised’ for the past 4 years) states: –Where a question is deemed inappropriate by the Chairperson, the Chief Executive Officer or designated officer shall read to the meeting only the name and suburb of the person and the ground under sub-clause 232(2)(j) on which the question was ruled inappropriate.

This means that the actual question will not be revealed! Unfortunately for council they did publish one question (see below) that was deemed ‘inappropriate’. The alleged ‘justification’ cites Section 232 (j)(iv), which reads –

refers to a matter which would, if answered, breach any provision of the Information Privacy Act 2000 or the confidentiality provisions of the Local Government Act 1989

Pages from 031516-minutes

 

March 17, 2016

Lies?!!!!!

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

ps review geSource: http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Planning-and-business/Strategic-Planning/Planning-scheme-policies-and-strategies#Review-of-the-Glen-Eira-Planning-Scheme-3

PS: the above page has now disappeared entirely from council’s website! Instead of removing the incriminating evidence, surely it would not have been that hard to state – “Apologies, we were wrong”!!!!!!!!!!

This is totally unbelievable. Either it is the most blatant lie ever perpetrated by this council, or it reveals how little credence is given to good governance and adhering to directions issued by the State Government.

If a planning scheme review was in fact undertaken, then Council is obliged according to Planning Practice Note No. 32 (uploaded here) to:

  • Consult with the community
  • Table a report to a full council
  • Forward their review to the Minister

Readers should note that no Record of Assembly minutes contained any reference to a Planning Scheme Review. No documents have been tabled in council. No councillor has uttered a single word about a review.

If, on the other hand, no such review has been undertaken then what is up on council’s website can only be seen as an attempt to deliberately mislead the public. It should also be remembered that in response to a public question dated 8th April 2015 which asked when Council would be undertaking a full planning scheme review, the response provided was –

“Council will undertake a review of its planning scheme once the State Government has completed its comprehensive review of both the State and local planning policy frameworks. The State Government review will help to guide Council’s future planning scheme review.

Other Councils are also awaiting the completion of the State Government review before undertaking their respective planning scheme reviews.

Council will undertake public consultation of the next planning scheme review in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.”

Thus we have two clear possibilities. Either the statement on council’s website is another example of deliberately hoodwinking the public, or a ‘review’ was carried out but without adhering to best practice and most importantly, letting residents know. Either way, this is totally unacceptable.

 

 

March 16, 2016

Rumours & The Racecourse – Okotel Resigns!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[14] Comments 

A very strong rumour is making the rounds that Okotel has resigned from Glen Eira Council to pursue her hoped for parliamentary career. We are confident that readers will have a view as to her contribution to this municipality in the three plus years she served as a councillor.

On another issue, last night saw the unanimous vote on the Sounness moved motion regarding ‘noise pollution’ emanating from the Caulfield Racecourse and their ‘music events’. Interestingly, Sounness’ motion was in part for council to ‘liaise with Stonnington’. Subsequent events reveal in glorious technicolor the difference between Glen Eira City Council and Stonnington City Council. The latter has no issue with alerting community groups as to the upcoming events. In Glen Eira, there is silence. Thus residents have to find out for themselves, or from their neighbouring contacts.

Below is the email sent from the MRC’s ‘consultants’ to Glen Eira officers. We have also uploaded their flyer for this event. Questions galore need answering – what will council do to ensure this event is within EPA noise guidelines? Will officers be attending? Will council ensure that traffic wardens are available at 10pm so that attendees can leave the grounds in an orderly fashion? Will they be pursuing this issue with the Minister, the police, the Trustees, or as per normal, keep passing the buck onto everyone else?

From: Dartmoor Consulting Group [mailto:a.young@tpg.com.au]

Sent: Wednesday, 16 March 2016 11:07 AM

To: John Bordignon; shane.cashman@police.vic.gov.au;

SEMRCommunityResilienceCommanders@mfb.vic.gov.au; Keith Franklyn; Ron Torres

Subject: RE: PUBLIC EVENT NOTIFICATION FOR THE CAULFIELD RACECOURSE – NOVEL CONCERT – SATURDAY 19 MARCH 2016

To Whom It May Concern,

Please find attached relevant details pertaining to the above forthcoming public event to be conducted at the Caulfield Racecourse on Saturday 19th March 2016.

Should you have any queries or require any additional information in relation to the scheduled event prior to or during please don?t hesitate to contact me directly at your convenience.

Best Regards

Andrew Young

DIRECTOR

DARTMOOR CONSULTING GROUP PTY LTD

Public Event Compliance/Management Consultants

Project Facilitators

Private Building Surveyors

Postal Address: P.O.BOX 165 : GLEN IRIS VICTORIA : 3146 AUSTRALIA.

Mobile Number: 0412 118 337

Email Address:

a.young@tpg.com.au

PUBLIC EVENT NOTIFICATION NOVEL CONCERT - SATURDAY 19 MARCH 2016 @ CAULFIELD RACECOURSE.-3_Page_1

 

March 15, 2016

The Racecourse

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

cr

 

March 13, 2016

More Incompetence!

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

Once again the ineptitude of this planning department and councillors is writ large in another VCAT judgement. Councillors grandstand by refusing applications when the number of objectors is large and then wash their hands of the matter. They can then continue to pretend that nothing is their fault but all blame needs to be sheeted home to VCAT – instead of doing what they are supposed to. That is, ensuring that the Planning Scheme is up to date, and all loopholes are closed off. In other words, reviewing the scheme and introducing appropriate amendments and incorporated documents where necessary.

Nor can the planning department escape public criticism. We’ve already had decision after decision where the VCAT member points out that a policy expired in 2007 and has never been renewed. Yet officers, or well paid ‘consultants’, front up to VCAT and argue on the basis of a non-existent clause! Ratepayers of course fork out tens of thousands in defending cases that have not a hope in hell of getting up due mainly to the outdated and woeful planning scheme.

So here is another example of this total indifference and incompetence from all concerned. It involves Heritage (low on council’s priority list!) where an application came in to demolish and rebuild over two sites. Note that we are not arguing for or against the development but merely pointing out what should have been done eons ago, but hasn’t. Here is some of what the member had to say –

It is noted that the application had planning officer support and heritage officer support, however with a large number of objections from adjoining property owners and others in the wider area, Council refused both applications on a range of identical grounds. These included that there would be unreasonable impact on the heritage precinct if the buildings were demolished and that the proposed dwellings were not in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings.

The two dwellings are in one building form and I note that neither dwelling was identified as being ‘contributory’ to the area in the Glen Eira Heritage Management Plan (1996) prepared by Andrew Ward – architectural historian. I do note however, the dwelling at number 3 Beatty Crescent was identified as ‘contributory’ in the July 2002 Ormond and Bentleigh Draft Heritage Guidelines. This document has not been incorporated into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, despite it being an upgrade of the earlier document and itself now over 10 years old, so I can give it little or no weight other than for general background information.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/365.html

Whilst it may legitimately be argued that the member should have taken into account the 2002 ‘guidelines’, the fact remains that 14 years later Council has not lifted a finger. Nor have they reacted to years and years of VCAT permits by analysing each decision and coming up with solutions that would give residents greater confidence that going to VCAT is not an absolute waste of time and money. Continually blaming VCAT, as is the want of Lipshutz, Hyams and Magee in particular, does not solve anything – especially when Council has not done a single thing to help its cause. Instead all council has done is seek extension after extension so that it does not have to review its planning scheme via a public submission process and with full community consultation.

The lamentable excuse used has been that the State Government is reviewing the zones. Well and good – but this certainly has not stopped other councils from undertaking a full planning scheme review post zones introduction. Here is the list of councils and the respective dates (which are still ongoing for many dated 2015) –

Ballarat (2015)

Bass Coast (2014)

Bayside (2015)

Boroondara (2015)

Campaspe (2014)

Colac (2015)

Darebin (2014)

Frankston (2014)

Grampians (2014)

Hobson’s Bay (2015)

Knox (2015)

Latrobe (2014)

Monash (2015)

Moira (2015)

Moonee valley (2014)

Moreland (2015 via Amendment C152)

Mornington Peninsula (2014)

Mount Alexander (2014)

Pyrenees (2015)

Queenscliff (2014)

Surf Coast (2014)

Swan Hill (2015)

Warnambool (2015)

Whitehorse (2014)

Whittlesea (2013)

Wodonga (2014)

Yarra (2014)

PS: it should be pointed out that the above Beatty Crescent application was refused unanimously by councillors – including that self-proclaimed ‘expert’ on Heritage – Lipshutz. There were also 39 objections to the application!

 

March 11, 2016

Winds Of Change?

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

One item in the current agenda is fascinating in what it might portend for Glen Eira – especially with a new CEO at the helm. We draw readers’ attention to the following –

  • Council will NOT BE PROCEEDING with its application for a 1.42% rise above the rate cap.

ITEM 9.14 – RATE CAPPING

Things to note regarding the decision not to proceed with the ‘variation’ to the rate cap:

  • A formal council resolution is sought. No formal resolution was sought under Newton to apply for a variation
  • Community consultation was sought in January/February 2016 by external consultants (although not ‘advertised’ and certainly not announced by any official council statement)
  • Result of this consultation is: It is clear that in the absence of better community information and understanding of Council’s finances, and a shared sense of priority around the use of funds generated through a variation, there is insufficient community support to apply for a variation to the rate cap at this time.
  • Figure of $24m shortfall over the ten years of the Strategic Resource Plan if rates capped, necessitating the development of a new Community Plan…..which will seek wide community input on priorities for the next ten years….. This is forecast to be started in 2016 and will be the subject of a further paper to Council.

Why this decision has been made is entirely open to conjecture and only time will tell. We posit the following as some possibilities underpinning this decision:

  • The influence of the new CEO?
  • Council realising that they may not be successful in their application?
  • Strong community opposition on top of all the other problems (ie planning)?
  • Laying the ground for service reductions and vastly increased charges?
  • The fact that councils had to provide evidence in any submission on how the views of ratepayers and the community have been taken into account in proposing the higher rate cap. In Glen Eira there had been no ‘consultation’ of course. Hence a legal obstacle perhaps?

The positives? If there is to be genuine consultation on a new Community Plan, then it is imperative that residents be provided with full information; that their views not only be listened to, but ultimately acted upon through integration and implementation into any subsequent Council Plan/Resource Strategic Plan.

Needless to say, time will tell whether this represents a real shift in culture or whether it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

 

March 10, 2016

More On Skyrail

Posted by gleneira under GE Transport, Miscellaneous
[17] Comments 

Sky rail’s ‘secret expansion’: four-track future looms for Melbourne’s south-east

Date: March 10, 2016 – 12:15AM

Adam Carey

Parts of the planned $1.6 billion sky rail between Caulfield and Dandenong could be demolished within 12 years of being built, and new linear parks and paths beneath the line built over, to allow a new structure with two extra rail tracks.

Two extra tracks for express trains, V/Line and freight, are part of longer-term plans for the Cranbourne-Pakenham rail corridor, and could see parts of the sky rail torn down under a secret deal between government authorities.

The third and fourth tracks have been omitted from the scope of the Andrews government’s sky rail project: the removal of nine of Melbourne’s most congested level crossings and the rebuilding of five railway stations by 2018, just in time for the next state election.

The project will boost capacity on the line by 42 per cent, the government says.

But some time beyond 2018, a future Victorian government will face a painful choice of either building a new rail viaduct down the middle of the two raised viaducts the government is to begin building this year, or potentially acquiring dozens of properties between Carnegie and Hughesdale.

The Level Crossing Removal Authority, which is in charge of the project, insists the sky rail design unveiled last month includes provision for the future construction of a third and fourth track.

But it has refused to reveal basic details of where those tracks will go.

“The third and fourth track is not part of the level crossing removal project,” authority chief executive Kevin Devlin said.

“The alignment of these tracks will be determined in the future, as part of a separate project.”

However, The Age has learned of planning details for the extra tracks.

Public Transport Victoria estimates the extra tracks will be needed from 2030, based on forecast passenger demand for Melbourne’s busiest and most overcrowded rail line.

About 37,000 passengers are expected to travel on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line in the two-hour morning peak by 2030, more than double current levels and thousands more than on any other line in Melbourne.

In planning for this huge growth, PTV and the Level Crossing Removal Authority struck a confidential agreement last year on what can be built now on land where the third and fourth tracks will eventually go.

Under this agreement, sky rail infrastructure that could be demolished or built over for the extra track pair includes shared walking and cycling paths, station platforms, station car parks, lifts, ramps, buildings and minor utility services.

The Level Crossing Removal Authority agreed to this, on the condition that it did not add to the $1.6 billion cost of the current project.

The rail corridor is just 20 metres wide at its narrowest point between Grange Road in Carnegie and Poath Road in Murrumbeena, making it difficult to build four tracks without acquiring residential property along the line.

Edward Meysztowicz​ and his family own a house in Murrumbeena that backs onto the northern side of the line.

In meetings with the Level Crossing Removal Authority, Mr Meysztowicz obtained the dimensions of the planned sky rail structure, and its proximity to his home.

The authority confirmed the viaduct will be 10.6 metres above ground level and 4.3 metres away from his back fence where it runs behind his property. He used those dimensions to commission an illustration of the sky rail from his own backyard.

Mr Meysztowicz runs a business in industrial Dandenong South and insists he supports new infrastructure, even on the rail line behind his home.

But he argues the government is thrusting a cheaper, inferior option on the public, and should spend what it takes to build all four tracks below ground level now.

“Do it once but do it properly,” he said.

Only when the third and fourth tracks are built will the true scale of sky rail be revealed, he argued – a rail viaduct that will dominate and transform the suburban environment far beyond what is depicted in the authority’s promotional material.

Mr Meysztowicz also commissioned speculative images of his neighbourhood with a third and fourth track.

“The sheer bulk of sky rail in the landscape demands cloaking with multi-storey development,” Mr Meysztowicz said.

“This is inter-generational infrastructure our children will be grappling with.”

Jeremy Reynolds, an urban planner who played important roles in Melbourne’s development from the 1970s until his retirement in 2014, agrees that the Andrews government has failed to be up-front with the community about the fact that sky rail is “just part one” of long-term plans for the Cranbourne-Pakenham rail line.

“Given the scale of patronage growth, surely the government should be openly planning for four tracks between Caulfield and Dandenong now,” Mr Reynolds said.

“The Level Crossing Removal Authority does say that the current two track proposal makes allowance for additional tracks to be added in the future and that the future project will be subject to a separate planning, design and consultation process.

“But this has not been made clear to local residents as they gawp at slick videos, paw over designs for linear parks and worry about noise and light consequences of just two elevated railway tracks.”
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sky-rail-is-just-part-one-fourtrack-future-looms-for-melbournes-southeast-20160309-gnetq5.html#ixzz42Rog6R4o

 

 

March 8, 2016

The Zones

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

File_Finger_pointing_jpg_-_Wikipedia__the_free_encyclopedia-2

  • Sick of seeing over-development everywhere?
  • Sick of a council that does nothing to ameliorate the damage?
  • Sick of never being genuinely ‘consulted’ on anything – especially the zones?
  • Sick of the system (and council) favouring developers?
  • Sick of feeling helpless?

Well here’s your chance to have your say. The State Government is calling for submissions on the residential zones. Submissions close on the 14th March.

For the purposes of ‘discussion’, the appointed committee has released:

  • An overarching report (ie for all of Victoria)
  • A regional report (Glen Eira is to be found in the ‘southern region’)
  • A ‘list of recommendations’ on the zones

We urge all Glen Eira residents to take this opportunity. The links to the various reports are:

The Overarching Report – http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/291569/Residential-Zones-Overarching-Report.pdf

The Southern Region Report – http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/291392/Residential-Zones-State-of-Play-Southern-Subregion-Report-.pdf

The ‘Recommendations’ – http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/291568/List-of-Suggested-Improvements-to-the-Residential-Zones.pdf

Submissions can be mailed or uploaded to – http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/panels-and-committees/current-panels-and-committees/managing-residential-development/managing-residential-development-submission-form

It’s worth pointing out that once more, unlike many other councils, (Moonee Valley, Stonnington, Monash, etc etc) Glen Eira has not tabled its submission, nor has it made it public up to this stage. Thus, no formal resolution by council, and no discussion in chamber, plus no opportunity for residents to ask questions or comment PRIOR to their submission going in. Well, what’s new?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »