October 23, 2015

Magee, Claire Street & VCAT!

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

Please click on the link to view last night’s Channel 7 story. The image is an artist’s impression of Claire St when 12 houses are replaced with 100 dog boxes!

https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/29882452/two-houses-holding-out-against-mckinnon-complex-plan/

Untitled

PS – following up from our previous post on responses to Minister Wynne’s request for council feedback, Kingston Council has also published its views in the current agenda. Again, the submission and its detailed analysis puts Glen Eira to shame – as does the simple fact that both Bayside and Kingston published their submission BEFORE sending off to the Minister and thereby having their work ratified by council decision. None of this happens in Glen Eira – it is all done behind closed doors and in secret.

Here is the Kingston officer’s report and the submission

 

October 22, 2015

Why Glen Eira Council Is A Joke!

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

In August of this year, Minister Wynne wrote to councils asking for their ‘feedback’ on the new zones. Thus far, both Glen Eira and Bayside have published his letter as well as their individual responses. The differences between the two are literally staggering. Whilst Glen Eira’s is more of the same bunkum, stating how wonderful they are, Bayside at least seeks to address some of the issues. There are specific recommendations and noticeably, no real self-promotion. Glen Eira’s effort represents another instance of sheer arrogance. That council can even contemplate writing such drivel to a minister says a lot about the planning department, Magee who signed the letter (presumably on behalf of other councillors), and of course, how little concerned council is with the impact of their handiwork on residents.

We have uploaded both submissions (see below) and urge readers to compare. In summary –

  • The first 4 pages of the Glen Eira version of reality are nothing more than regurgitating what a success they are, and how everything is the result of the building boom. Once on a good wicket, then stick to it, it seems. There is perhaps 1% of self promotion in Bayside’s version, but it is in context.
  • Once again, the truth is distorted and inaccurate. On page 5 of the Glen Eira submission there is this comment – In the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, there is limited ability to customise the zone through a Schedule to allow for more than 2 dwellings on large lots such as those greater than 2,OOOm2 in area. Subdivision of the large lot is possible but subdivision does not enable the community to comment on a detailed development. As if council really cares what the community thinks, especially when their secret ‘negotiations’ with Guy, stated that the problem could be overcome by subdividing first! More relevant is the fact that the schedules provided the opportunity for councils to designate minimum lot sizes. Many have. Bayside is even now, with its Amendment C140 attempting to introduce a minimum lot size subdivision of 800 square metres. Furthermore, this entire sentence begs the question of what happens when one developer decides to go to VCAT and because his land may be 1200 square metres use the planning scheme clause that larger lot sizes in the Neighbourhood Residential Zones are to be evaluated against the General Residential Zone schedules!
  • On ‘community response’ there is this wonderful statement – ‘Many have appreciated the certainty’. Evidence? Well a ‘group of residents’ in Elsternwick and the fact that land owners are ‘consolidating’ and selling their land together is supposed to be due to their desire to ‘increase property value’ and ‘development potential’. Not a word that people are getting out BECAUSE OF THE ZONES and what it is doing to their suburbs and local streets.
  • We also get the ‘sting in the tail’ statement on the following page – just to remind the minister that possibly the community wants more than the untrue figure of 78% zoned as neighbourhood residential zone! Which would represent a real headache for any government! Pity that the statistic is so untrue!– ie They would like to see the proportion of land zoned Neighbourhood Residential increased from the present 78%.
  • And just in case the minister wants to appease developers we also find – Developers continue to claim that the municipality has been ‘locked down’. They would like to see more areas zoned General Residential and Residential Growth

What is particularly galling for residents about this entire submission comes towards the end (page 7) where in the totally irrelevant points on Level Crossing Removals, we get a further inkling into Glen Eira’s pro-development, and more and more high rise philosophy –

This will make these centres more attractive as places to live and easier to move around.

They will be more attractive centres to develop.

The present residential zones framework (together with the Commercial Zone) is equipped to respond to this.

In summary, the submission is disgraceful, inadequate, self-promoting, irrelevant to what was asked, and totally dismissive of the problems which have already surfaced. We sincerely hope that Minister Wynne and his minders have a good laugh!

Here is the Bayside effort and HERE the Glen Eira one.

We urge readers to compare and contrast and remember!

 

October 21, 2015

News Flash: Newton Resigns!!!!!!!

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

211015_CEO_declares_the_innings_closed-1_Page_1211015_CEO_declares_the_innings_closed-1_Page_2

 

October 20, 2015

Elliott Avenue & How To Destroy A Neighbourhood

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

Elliott Avenue, Carnegie has featured prominently in the news and on this site. (See what it looked like a little while back – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/one-little-local-street/). It is now utterly destroyed because of the new zones. Not only Elliott Avenue, but all surrounding areas. People are leaving in droves – not because they are after a profit in selling to developers, but because their dream home, their lifestyle, and everything they valued about this area has disappeared. Yet council has not had the guts to do a single thing about its slipshod and woeful planning. No amendments of any note have occurred in the past two years for housing diversity. No promises made ten years ago have been implemented. No concern whatsoever for the chaos caused by these developments that can take a year, so that residents can’t even get out of their driveways because of trucks in the street – many no doubt without work permits! All councillors can do is complain about not having the ‘tools’ in the planning scheme, or that they really need to look carefully at Neerim Road (Okotel). But they have not lifted a finger to get the ball rolling on anything. And what of the urban heat effect that all these dwellings will create? What of infrastructure? What of subterranean car parks that impact on the water table? What of parking? What of open space? Not a thing done!

In order to give residents an idea of what is happening we’ve colour coded the following street map which shows development since the zones were introduced. Council can blame everyone else until the cows come home – but there is no denying that the zones are without doubt the impetus for all this overdevelopment. With good strategic planning and community consultation some of the damage could have been avoided – but that of course means less rates and treating residents with respect!

carnegie

3-9 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 51 dwellings

6 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 2 double storeys (permit)

8-12 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey – no number of dwellings stated

14-16 Elliott Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storeys, 21 dwellings (permit granted by council and vcat)

22-28 Jersey Parade CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 39 dwellings (permit)

33-35 Jersey Parade 4 storey, 28 dwellings (permit issued by council)

1 Tranmere – 4 storey, number of dwellings not named

5 Tranmere Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 4 dwellings

10 Tranmere Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 2 storey, 4 dwellings

16-18 Tranmere Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 26 dwellings (refused by council)

2 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 3 storey, 13 dwellings

15-17 Belsize Avenue CARNEGIE VIC 3163 & 316-320 Neerim Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – 4 storey, 55 dwellings (council and vcat permit)

 

PS: From today’s (21/10) Moorabbin Leader front page –

centre

 

October 20, 2015

Trees & Development & GE Council Doing Nothing!

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

letters

12

trees

 

October 19, 2015

How Can This Happen?

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

INDICATOR

 

October 18, 2015

Does This Say It All?

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

2014-15

PS: Just to clarify the above, here are the definitions of the various departments. All are taken directly from the Annual Report – ie council’s own version!

Untitled

 

October 16, 2015

More Fact Fiddling

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

Here’s an important question. How do you ‘prove’ that as an organisation you’re going from strength to strength? That you are giving value for money to your clientele? That you are efficient, responsible, and client oriented? Well, for local government we have what is known as the Best Value Reports. The aim of these, according to legislation, is to quantify and prove that you’re on the road to ‘continuous improvement’.

Glen Eira City Council has developed its Best Value reporting into a fine art. They manage to show ‘continuous improvement’ by literally changing the goal posts. For example: there are ‘targets’ set and then actual performance for the year is stated against those targets. Thus, if this year the target for home care building help is 4,500 hours and council achieves 4,788 hours, not only is the target exceeded, but council is an unmitigated success here. Wrong! Because back in 2009/10 the target for this identical service just happened to be 4956 hours and the stated performance was 4,852 hours! Thus 5 years ago council was offering more and doing better than it is today! And remember, we’re supposed to be a municipality with an ageing population and thousands of residents who are entitled to pensioner or disability assistance.

When the 2009/10 Best Value Reports are compared to the 2014/15 version, then we really see how many services have gone backwards and how many goal posts have been shifted in order to gild the lily and to make council appear as wonderful performers. Nothing could be further from the truth on many of the areas listed on this comparison. That should make residents ask the obvious –

  • When council promises in its budgets and council plans that it will maintain the level of service, then why have so many services been reduced?
  • Why, when rates keep going up 6.5% for the past 7 or 8 years, have services gone down? Where is this money going?
  • Why change the goal posts unless the attempt is to camouflage what is really happening?
  • Are we, as residents, really and truly getting value for money?

Here is a mere sample of some of comparisons between the 2009 and the 2015 versions of the Best Value Reports. We’ve upload both HERE (2009/10 and 2014/15) and urge readers to check these for themselves. Please also consider the waffle that constitutes the ‘continuous improvement’ sections and the often meaningless criteria attached to evaluating ‘success’ – such as publishing 4 editions of something.

Once again, it would appear that facts are malleable. If they don’t fit the image you are trying to project, then simply change those facts to accord with the success you need to fabricate. And whilst you’re at it – don’t tell your residents that this is what you are doing. We congratulate Council again on its superb sleight of hand!

bv

 

October 14, 2015

Sins Of Omission = Lies!

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

PS – MORE SPIN!!!! – MAGEE ON 3AW YESTERDAY

 

PPS: 4 houses left in Elliott Avenue, Carnegie. Thank you council!

IMG_3714

PLUS 7 STOREY APPLICATION FOR 317-319 NEERIM ROAD – BELOW!

IMG_3726

It is one thing for a council to disseminate its rose coloured glasses view of its performance. Spin comes with the political territory. It is another thing entirely for a council to use public funds to promulgate falsehoods with the intention of misleading and deceiving residents.

The latest outrage comes with council’s announcement on its website that it will print and distribute a letter/flyer to every single resident in the municipality. (UPLOADED HERE) The claim is that this will cost 11 cents per letter. Be that as it may, please remember that all monies collected by a council are meant to be spent for the benefit of the community and NOT to engage in damage control, or to evade responsibility for the woeful planning performances that we have witnessed in the past few years. Council can spend thousands of dollars blaming everyone else except itself, but it can’t spend this same amount of money in ‘consulting’ the community when it really matters – ie the introduction of the residential zones.

What is absolutely inexcusable is the fact that in its epistle council has committed the sin of omission – or to all intents and purposes – it has lied. Whoever wrote the letter should be hauled over the coals, and whoever authorised it, should be dismissed. In our view, the buck stops at Newton’s desk. Such behaviour and deviousness is literally beyond the pale. And this cannot be another of council’s famous ‘clerical errors’. It is without doubt deliberate, premeditated, and disgusting!

We are referring of course to the ‘conveniently’ edited table presented below – council version

Any resident reading this could be forgiven for thinking that Glen Eira’s total number of new apartments equals 1054. The sentence speaks of ‘apartment growth’ – full stop. What this table deliberately avoids mentioning is that the figures relate to the NUMBER OF APARTMENTS ERECTED IN BUILDINGS OF 4 OR MORE STOREYS. Nor is the table itself complete. Glen Eira is ranked THIRD in this list – which has again been conveniently cropped so that the full story is not told. Never mind the fact that many of those municipalities with greater dwelling numbers also happen to have commercial zones 2 and 3 times the size of Glen Eira’s and that is where most 4 storeys dwellings have gone. (ie Stonnington has over 6% of its area zoned as commercial. Glen Eira has 2.2%)

Yet what makes matters even worse, and which points to the fact that either we are dealing with total incompetents with no corporate memory, or that this is another example of council’s manipulation of the facts and the truth. Council minutes of June 30th, 2015 (a short 3 and a bit months ago) featured an officer’s report on the State Government’s ‘Better Apartments Discussion Paper’ – where in fact this bar chart was first published. On page 110 of these minutes we find the following –

june minutes

How convenient that residents:

  • Aren’t informed that the figures relate to dwellings in 4 or more storey buildings
  • How convenient that this vital information has been cropped and deleted, and
  • How convenient that now residents will be sold the myths that present council in the most positive light – ie. blame everyone else but not us!
  • How appalling that Glen Eira City Council can sink to this level of deception and just to rub salt into the wounds – use public monies for their own devious and unethical purposes! Surely it is time that the Code of Conduct for officers was published – as (needless to say) countless other councils see fit to do!
  • The biggest question is whether any councillor will insist that this farce be stopped in its tracks and a public apology listed in all media outlets. That should sort out the sheep from the goats!

We doubt that many residents bother to read council minutes. Thus they will be assailed with ‘information’ that is skewed, inaccurate, and intended, we believe, to deceive and mislead. Finally, when residents cannot trust the information that is disseminated by its council, then we are really in trouble.

 

October 14, 2015

The MRC Application

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

Item 9.1 – MRC application for 30+ radio towers

Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz all declared a conflict of interest and left the chamber. Magee moved to accept the motion to refuse, plus that council write to the Minister & Department, plus all relevant MPs seeking permission to create 6 sporting ovals in the centre of the racecourse. Seconded by Delahunty.

MAGEE: stated that the application ‘in itself’ was fairly ‘innocuous’ but ‘far reaching’ since it ‘encroaches further and further’ onto crown land. For years there has been this encroachment by the MRC – ie ‘training track after training track being developed’, ‘large screens being built’ and application to ‘increase the size of the Tabaret’. There are 3 purposes for the racecourse (park, racing, etc) and that racing is ‘well and truly catered for’. Said that this application is to set up a ‘permanent structure on usable crown land’. Went over the lack of open space, the number of kids unable to play sport because of lack of grounds, and that ‘teams are capped’ turning away stacks of kids. There is a master plan being done and all the sporting clubs are saying this is a ‘great opportunity’ to have this open space for sport in the centre. Now council has the ‘opportunity’ to apply for use of the land. The MRC writes to the ‘authority’ and council is now wanting to do the same. Claimed that it ‘would be very hard’ for the Minister and Department to ‘actually refuse us’ given that they have approved the screens, etc. ‘We have waited far too long’ and ‘this open space belongs to you’. Said with this motion council will see who opposes them so they will have ‘someone to talk to’.

DELAHUNTY: said that it’s a ‘hard act’ to follow Magee since he is so ‘passionate’ and speaks so ‘eloquently’. Racing is already ‘well catered for’ so ‘this doesn’t meet the objectives of’ the Crown Land Grant. Council takes the Open Space Strategy ‘very seriously’ and the application ‘flies in the face of those strategic objectives’ so it behoves council to refuse the application. The motion is moving forward towards achieving sporting fields and open space.

SOUNNESS: said he wasn’t speaking against the spirit of the refusal but thought that the bit about the ‘tipping point is weak’. If this went to VCAT it would ‘prove to be a less than successful’ outcome. Endorsed the other part of the motion and there should be the opportunity for the ‘public to enjoy’ the course. Repeated that he has got ‘reservations’ about the ‘tipping point’ since there have been ‘other applications’ that were equally the ‘tipping point’.

PILLING: endorsed part 2 of the motion but on the refusal said that while he understands Sounness’ points he doesn’t agree since there will be visual impact to Queen’s Avenue since the land is already raised and did think that council ‘can justify’ the motion.

OKOTEL: supported the motion because this would create a ‘visual impact’ and park users ‘aren’t being adequately catered for at the moment’. Said that ‘at the moment’ access is ‘restricted’ and ‘what’s pleasing’ is that ‘now action is taken’ in the attempt to ‘move forward’ and ‘discover who might be responsible for that blockage’ to permission. The motion ‘will weed out’ those responsible ‘for the blockage’.

LOBO: all applications are about ‘horse racing, horse racing’ and they ‘don’t regard’ the community. They have ‘denied the rights of the community’. There is a lack of sports grounds and council even had to hire ‘independent consultants’ to work out what sporting grounds are needed. The MRC has ‘done nothing but given grief to the community’. The lease ‘has expired’ and hasn’t been ‘renewed for years’; the Auditor General delivered his report and ‘caulfield racecourse does not seem to care’. Council ‘doesn’t get a cent from huge earnings of Caulfield racecourse’ in fact they pay reduced rates.

MAGEE: said that the 2008 report from the parliamentary committee was ‘scathing’ and so was the VEAC report and then the Auditor General’s report. A year down the track and none of his recommendations ‘are yet to be implemented’. Stated that ‘in his heart’ he thought there would be ‘changes’ and that the new Minister would do her best to make things change. Said that the motion means that council is ‘moving forward’ and they can see if there is anyone who is trying to ‘stop us’. The MRC do ‘look after the racecourse very well’ and is one of the best courses in the world and council wants racing to stay but they also want to ‘share the ground’.

MOTION PUT. ONLY COUNCILLOR TO VOTE AGAINST – SOUNNESS

COMMENTS

  • We commend Cr Sounness for being the only councillor to take the officer’s report to task – however mildly and for his attempt to refer to ‘planning law’ rather than grandstanding.
  • This is a planning application, yet the only comment made in relation to planning was the dubious claim about ‘visual amenity’. For a council that continually rams down residents’ throats the idea that ‘planning law’ must apply – this so called ‘debate’ illustrates how little ‘planning law’ has been dredged up to support the officer’s recommendation and the subsequent motion. In our view, councillors, for whatever reason are going through the motions, doing as they are told, and literally scraping the bottom of the barrel to find anything of substance to say.
  • Question – why has council waited for nearly a decade before moving the motion to seek permission for sporting fields? Surely this could have been done eons ago?
  • Musical chairs on Esakoff, Hyams, and Lipshutz’s ‘conflict of interest’ continues. When it suits, there is a conflict of interest. When it doesn’t suit, this goes out the window! Consistency is definitely not a strong point within council!
  • If the Open Space Strategy is so important, then where was council when it either granted permits, or caved in, over the removal of fences, access, leases, financial payments, etc – not to mention the C60, outdoor screen, cinema, etc. etc.
  • In typical contradictory manner, council now seeks permission and then a permit to create six sporting fields – without knowing the cost. Funnily enough other items on the agenda included the arguments that council can’t do something because they either haven’t got the money and don’t know the cost so the accepted recommendation was the usual – ‘let’s do nothing’ (ie pavilions, rose gardens, depot removal from Caulfield Park).
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »