Archive: Council & Councillor Issues and Performances
Last Updated 29/3/10
Macedon Ranges' Council And Community Wins VCAT Decision On The Romsey Hotel Proposal: NO POKIES FOR ROMSEY!
(19/11/09 - P) First the Supreme Court, and now VCAT, say social impacts and community well-being really, really do count. Link
(2/4/09 - C) Disappointment continues as Council decides free green waste disposal is too expensive
An opportunity to show leadership and empathy with community values went begging at the March 25 Council meeting when Macedon Ranges Council resolved to only allow residents to dispose of green waste free of charge for 3 months of the year. And what months they are: November, December, and May. It seems the worst fire months when people try to keep their properties free of litter - January, February and March - aren't on Council's radar.
The decision to only support residents for 3 months of the year was made after a motion by Cr. Henry McLaughlin to make green waste disposal permanently free of charge was defeated, apparently receiving support from only 3 councillors: McLaughlin, Benson and Manning.
MRRA Says:
As we understand it, Council would lose some $30,000 in fees currently paid by residents by making the service free. On the other hand, Council apparently recoups more than that through sales of mulch made from the green waste provided by residents. Wouldn't making it a fee-free service simply make it cost-neutral for Council? There would be plenty of other benefits in doing it as well: free disposal would encourage residents to keep their properties tidy and reduce bushfire fuel, reduce smoke from burn-offs, and the more green waste Council receives, the more mulch it could sell.
One explanation put forward for choosing May is that's when residents burn off (deciduous) leaves on Mt. Macedon, causing air pollution. That's fair enough, but what about the air pollution caused by bushfire, and burning off litter accumulated over summer once the fire ban period is lifted? If there is genuine concern for air pollution, we say embrace all elements of the problem, not just the easy ones.
Odd, isn't it... Here's a Council that appears to not be prepared to subsidise a service to the value of $30,000 to reduce impacts from bushfire and to reduce the Shire's environmental impacts from burn-offs - and make money from it too, but does seem prepared to subsidise from rates $250,000 - $500,000 annual loses racked up by indoor swimming pools. Or is the reason Council is baulking at green waste because with the Kyneton pool, it just wouldn't be able to afford anything else?
(12/3/09 - C) Rejected by voters, but Fritz Boegel makes it onto Council committee via a vote held behind closed doors, and then Council unanimously approves a contested application to expand the Clock and Beaver restaurant.
Details are sketchy but advice from Council, in response to a question put by MRRA, is that Fritz Boegel, secretary of Macedon Ranges Residents Secretariat Ltd, has been appointed to be a community representative on Council's Audit Advisory Committee.
Draft Council Minutes for the February 25 Council meeting include Item CS.5, Appointment of Community Representatives on Audit Advisory Committee. At this item, according to the Minutes say that the Officer Recommendation was to consider the matter "at the conclusion of that part of this meeting open to the public." ..."as this report concerns matters which Council considers would prejudice the Council or an (sic) person..." The motion to move behind closed doors was moved Joe Morabito, seconded Rob Guthrie and carried. There is no record in the Minutes of any resolution resulting from the sojourn in camera, and as far as MRRA is aware, neither has any public announcement been made of the appointment/s.
The next item on the agenda was CS.6, the appointment of Councillor Delegates on the Audit Advisory Committee. That is, which Councillors would be on the committee. The Mayor is automatically appointed. According to the minutes, it was moved Cr. Guthrie, seconded Cr. Relph and carried that Cr. Joe Morabito be appointed as the Councillor delegate on the committee.
MRRA Says:
Rumours that Audit Committee appointees may be of interest started filtering in, so we followed it up with Council.
Three things really stand out here.
First, in 2008 when the company, MRRS Ltd, began splashing itself over local papers claiming to be a community group, MRRA wrote to Council requesting confirmation or otherwise of any Council involvement with MRRS Ltd. The answer we received was 'none'. An election later, it seems Council now has a very definite involvement with MRRS Ltd!
Second, the secrecy surrounding Mr. Boegel's appointment. Why did Council seal itself off behind closed doors to make a decision? What was so private it couldn't be considered in public, or the outcome announced in public? Is it a case of Councillors being brave enough to 'do the deed' but not having the guts to tell anyone? Hmm? Because we wouldn't be surprised if that's what some people are going to say it looks like.
Third, Council's decision on who was appointed to the committee is not recorded in the Minutes. All that is recorded is the motion to make the decision behind doors. Yet Section 93 of the Local Government Act at subsection (6) says that "the minutes of a meeting of the Council or a special committee must - (a) contain details of the proceedings and resolutions made...". So how does what is in the Minutes (or not in the Minutes, in this case) sit with the requirements of the legislation?
We don't know which Councillors voted for the appointment (seems that's a secret too), but at a minimum a majority of 5 Councillors did. Maybe they all did! Being anonymous could be helpful - when we asked a couple of people if they had heard anything, they expressed horror at the thought of MRRS Ltd having anything to do with Council.
The appointments are, we understand, for a year. The makeup of the committee appears to be Cr.Morabito, Mr. Boegel, Mr. Barry Sutton (who may have an affiliation with the Macedon Ranges Landowners Group), Mayor Letchford, and another community representative who, as told to us, has a background in financial matters.
When we look at this, and the Kyneton pool debacle, Council definitely isn't off to a good start, is it... And we've got 4 more years of it to look forward to.
Click here to see the MRRS Ltd. file, including the current item on the application before Council for a rather large expansion of the Clock and Beaver restaurant in Macedon, in which Mr. Boegel has an interest.
NOTE: Council last night voted unanimously to approve the Clock and Beaver application to expand the venue from 20 seats to 100, and partially waive car parking requirements. We understand 9 objections were received.
Lucky Mr. Boegel, he certainly seems to have a Midas touch when it comes to Council these days!
Decision On Gisborne ODP Deferred - Unanimously!
(6/10/08 - P) High level of difficulty in major backflip to 9-0 vote on Gisborne ODP rescission motion from 5-4 the previous week
At a Special Council meeting in Kyneton last Wednesday, those in the gallery could have been forgiven for doing a double take. Far from the split 5 to 4 vote the week before at Romsey to move Amendment C59 (Gisborne ODP) forward to a panel, this time around Councillors voted unanimously for a rescission motion reversing the 5 to 4 decision taken the previous week. C59 will now NOT move forward at this time.
Councillors who changed their minds were Noel Harvey, Geoff Neil, Helen Relph, John Connor, and Sandra McGregor.
Those who originally voted against moving the amendment forward at Romsey, and again on Wednesday night, were Henry Bleeck, Rob Guthrie, Tom Gyorffy and John Letchford.
The rescission motion was lodged by a quick-thinking Cr. John Letchford at the 24 September meeting at Romsey, on the grounds of allowing Councillors more time to read the large number of submissions on the amendment.
A second part to the rescission motion was also passed on Wednesday night, although the motion carried differed substantially from that originally proposed by Cr. John Letchford.
The original part two motion related to Council calling for the Minister for Planning to provide strategies for the Calder corridor and towns in Macedon Ranges, to re-instate the principles and strategic direction of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 in the Gisborne ODP, provide state protection for Macedon Ranges through special state level exemptions, and that the 2005 version of the Gisborne ODP be adopted as interim policy for Gisborne pending completion of these other actions.
However, this version of the second part was left "in abeyance", and a new second part substituted: "That Council having regard to the diverse range of submissions received resolve to review the proposed planning controls relating to Amendment C59 by mid December 2008 and the Submitters be advised accordingly and the Minister for Planning be kept informed of Council's actions." The vote on this was almost unanimous, but not quite. Cr. Geoff Neil voted against, giving an 8 - 1 result.
Industrial Relations Commission's Decision: Council Performances Condemn Ratepayers To More Expense
(29/9/08 - C) $40,875 awarded to unfairly dismissed Shire employee, and it may not stop there
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission's decision ([2008] AIRC 1191, 12 September 2008), through Commissioner Lewin, has criticized Macedon Ranges Council and highly criticized a current Shire employee for events and their roles leading to the unfair dismissal of David Brown. The Commission's decision follows an earlier direction that both parties consider reinstatement of Mr. Brown. It is clear in this decision that not only didn't Council wish to reinstate Mr. Brown, but the Commission found reinstatement would likely be detrimental to Mr. Brown's interests.
The Commission found that through Council's actions, Mr. Brown lost $683,436.11 in remuneration. The amount awarded against Council ($40,875) is the statutory maximum amount of compensation the AIRC can award. The Commission further notes that this amount relates to lost income, but not to "any issues of shock, distress, humiliation or other analogous hurt suffered by Mr. Brown as a result of the termination of his employment".
You can access the decision by clicking on http://www.airc.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2008airc1191.htm
MRRA Says:
Dear oh dear. At least another $40,000 to be found from a budget that has no slack, thanks to the Kyneton pool, and those Councillors who favour it over prudent financial management. Where will the money come from?
To refresh your memory, Crs. Noel Harvey, Helen Relph, John Connor, Henry Bleeck, and Geoff Neil voted for the pool.
Live Game Hunting Proposals Refused By Council
(11/9/08 - P) Details are sketchy, but it seems at least 2 Councillors voted against refusing these ghastly applications
At last night's Planning Committee meeting in Gisborne, an officer's report recommended refusal of two applications for live game hunting facilities in the Cobaw area. The applications have already been taken to VCAT based on Council's failure to make a decision within the prescribed time, so the 'refusal' was a catchup position where Council indicates to VCAT that if it had made a decision, it would have refused the applications.
The Council vote saw the officer's recommendation to refuse get up, despite Councillors Henry Bleeck and Sandra McGregor voting against the refusal. (Note: Cr. Noel Harvey was absent).
MRRA Says:
This jogs our memory of the 2005 Council election, where both Councillors Bleeck and McGregor were supported by the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (of which Association we understand the applicant for these proposals is also a member). If so, it would make us wonder if there might not have been a conflict of interest situation (although no interests were declared). Click here to see the SSAA's letter to its members in 2005 urging a vote for these two Councillors.
Is It A First? A Controversial Council Budget Scraping Through On The Casting Vote Of The Mayor?
(16/7/08 - P) Can we now say it really is Noel Harvey's pool?
Togetherness is a wonderful thing.
Take the togetherness Macedon Ranges Councillors exhibit over the Kyneton pool, for example. There's always a 5 to 4 divide. The five who vote for it, and the four who vote against it.
But at the meeting where Council made a decision about whether to adopt next year's budget, that togetherness slipped, and what emerged was... ownership.
Cr. John Connor (who until now had voted consistently to move the Kyneton pool forward) was absent on the night Macedon Ranges Shire Council voted on its 2008/2009 budget. That meant only 8 Councillors would be present. That meant that if voting went along 'traditional' lines, the vote on the budget would be tied 4 to 4. It would take a Mayoral casting vote to decide. And that's exactly how it happened.
Crs. Noel Harvey, Geoff Neil, Helen Relph and Henry Bleeck voted for adopting the budget which contains a $3 million loan, part payment for the Kyneton pool.
Crs. Rob Guthrie, Sandra McGregor, John Letchford and Tom Gyorffy voted against adopting the budget with a $3 million loan, part payment for the Kyneton pool.
So Mayor Noel Harvey cast the deciding vote - in favour of putting the Shire into deep debt to deliver the Kyneton pool. What's more, we believe he said he was immensely proud of this budget - yep, the same one that starts the downhill financial slide for all residents of the Shire...
MRRA Says:
Actions can speak louder than words, don't you think?
Even blind Freddy could pick what we are going to say next.
Please don't reward this disgraceful performance by voting for any of the Councillors who voted for this budget. Make sure you put them right down the bottom, because that seems to be where they put you.
Macedon Ranges Council Brings The Roof Down - Literally!
(12/7/07 - C) Was it the usual table thumping, clangers, hot air or overdose of testosterone? Is it a portent of things to come? Whatever, the roof literally fell on Council at last night's Council Planning Committee meeting.
Details are sketchy at this stage, but it seems even the Town Hall may have had enough of the garbage and posturing that usually goes down in chamber! MRRA hears that a chunk of the ceiling fell into the Council chamber, behind Ms Veronica Schilling, Council's Director of Sustainable Development. And then another... We also hear that, thankfully, no-one was hurt but it may mean ratepayers' will have to dig a bit deeper. We sense a repair job of sizeable proportions coming up here.
Macedon Ranges Council: MRRA Asks Residents Is It Time For The State Government To Step In?
(22/8/06 - C) We live in a darkening democracy but the government won't act unless you say 'Enough'!
As community concerns and demands for 'something to be done' about Macedon Ranges Shire Council build, MRRA this week issued a press release calling on Macedon Ranges' residents to speak up, to say if they think the time has come to get outside help. That is, to call on the State government to intervene and take action to pull Council into line and put an end to the unacceptable behaviours that are angering the community. Those actions could include suspending, investigating or sacking the Council, and calling a new election.
MRRA Says:
From community feedback MRRA has had to date, it seems unlikely 'doing nothing' will be an option available to the State government. MRRA is coming under increasing pressure to act, and to call public meetings; some residents are already saying they will march in the streets. This is becoming a serious situation; it must be resolved in the best interests of the broader community, of open and transparent government, and of democracy.
What's happening in Macedon Ranges isn't new. The behaviours of ‘behind closed doors’ decisions, a Council trying to write its own rules; damaging development approvals, and not genuinely consulting or listening to the community are characteristics of a culture that has infected our Councils over time. That doesn't mean every Councillor or officer has had the disease, or that in recent years the culture didn't recede. However, with this latest Council, that culture has surfaced as a re-energized, destructive force, that some see as a festering sore upon our democracy. Minister for Local Government, Ms. Candy Broad, recently said in a Ministerial Statement delivered to the Legislative Council: "We [the Bracks government] said we would make local government stronger, more democratic and more transparent.... I am proud to say we have delivered." and "We have enabled local government to be more accountable and responsive to local communities." and "The Bracks government...amended the Local Government Act to establish clear accountability principles to better inform the local community and encourage community consultation. We are working with the peak bodies to promote a culture of responsibility, accountability and sound governance..." MRRA says, that's not how it is working in Macedon Ranges. Although called upon to act in 2000 and 2002, the Bracks government has historically declined to intervene in planning and governance issues in Macedon Ranges, viewing intervention as "usurping a democratically elected government". Most would agree that under 'good' or even 'normal' circumstances, to "usurp" would be wrong, and the government's position to be the correct one. Yet, these aren't those circumstances. How democratic is a Council that denies residents their democratic and legislated rights, and does not consistently act responsibly, with due diligence, with propriety, with transparency and accountability? Where a code of conduct is seen by some as 'voluntary'? If you think it is time for the State government to step in, tell your State politicians. Click here for contact details. MRRA also needs your feedback, so send us your comments by email on:
mrra.sec999@gmail.com or by post: PO Box 359, Woodend, 3442; or by phone 5427 1481, 0411 580 363.
Roll Up, Roll Up - Get Your Subdivision Now. Macedon Ranges Council Is Giving Away Free Lots!!!
(28/4/07 - P) Mmm... this one had almost everything - muddled meeting process (again), changing votes, outlandish statements, a couple of bombshells, and of course the usual "blame someone else" and "throw the planning scheme out the window" events - and an old-fashioned land deal
What a tangled web they are weaving... Here's some background on this subdivision application in Melton Road, Gisborne.
This was originally an application for 9 lots - lots which met the size requirements in the Gisborne Outline Development (ODP) adopted by Council. After later finding that some 7000 square metres would need to be set aside as a reserve to protect significant native vegetation on the land, back came a revised application to Council's 11th April meeting - this time for 12 lots (including the reserve). At that meeting, however, the application was found to be missing a vital ingredient - a development plan (which must be approved before Council can even consider issuing permits), so the whole shebang was deferred off to the next meeting on 18th April, 2007.
With now 11 lots and a reserve proposed, the residential lots, of course, are much smaller - as Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) later pointed out, the ODP cites 4000 square metres as the desirable lot size in this area, with a minimum lot size of 3,000 square metres, but the revised application had only one of 11 residential lots bigger than the ODP's minimum 3,000 square metres size.
Here's where it starts to get interesting. At the 18th April meeting, Council's Director of Sustainable Development set the ball rolling by saying the latest (12 lot) application wasn't compliant with the Gisborne ODP. Whereas the original plan had lots just under 4000 sq m, the revised plan has lots less than the minimum lot size contemplated by the ODP.
Are you ready for the first bombshell? The officer's written report to Council said that didn't matter. More than that, the officer's report retained its earlier assessment of the original (9 lot) plan against the planning scheme's Development Plan Overlay (DPO) requirements, even though the application was now for 12 lots. Huh? But the topper was the officer's comment that Council didn't need to be too fussy about the application complying with the planning scheme's Development Plan Overlay requirements as long as --- the application complied with the Gisborne ODP. Huh??
Cr. John Letchford (South), rather than defending his hometown's ODP quickly shafted it by asking Ms. Schilling its status, and she replied the ODP doesn't pass the test of being a seriously entertained document. In essence that meant it didn't have to be taken seriously.
First off, Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) reiterated his request from the previous week that a condition be added requiring the subdivision to be sewered before it can proceed. It was agreed such a condition could and would be added.
Cr. Noel Harvey (West) moved the officer's recommendation to approve a permit (as amended above) but also wanted some changes of his own. Those having been agreed to, Gisborne's Cr. John Letchford (South) seconded the motion. Getting to his feet, Cr. Harvey quickly said the issue is balance. He was surprised at Ms Schilling's comments about the ODP but said they strengthened his argument for approval. He said that if Council could give a bit in other areas he believed Council had an obligation to do so. The native vegetation area set aside in the subdivision will become an important part of vegetation links in the township.
The next bombshell came from Cr. Geoff Neil (East) who said he had no dispute with Cr. Harvey's comments, but... The native vegetation reserve had come about through referral of the application to the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), who said it wanted more land than in the originally proposed reserve. Cr. Neil said this latest plan had that, and another 11 lots. Cr. Neil then waxed lyrical about how this was an extraordinary subdivision - a prime piece of real estate which will yield maximum dollars for the proponent. However, he had an issue with protecting native vegetation, saying the best people to do that would be DSE. If Council took it on it would be regarded as an open space contribution. He said he felt Council should be able to have its cake, and eat it too, and pointed out that Council doesn't have a development contributions plan. He said he believed that since the reserve contained native vegetation, Council should give it to the people with the expertise (i.e. DSE) and so remove the onus from Council. Council should also be saying to the developer that he is a lucky ducky, getting 3 extra lots, and so he should give Council 5% of the value of the land in cash (as well as handing over the native vegetation reserve to DSE). He flagged an amendment to the permit conditions to include his ideas, which Cr. Sandra McGregor (East) alone supported.
The Mayor Cr. Helen Relph (South) at this stage advised Council it was dealing with both Cr. Neil's amendment and the original motion. However as Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) began to speak against the proposal, Cr. Noel Harvey (West) called a point of order, saying Council couldn't follow such a process. The Mayor then said Council could only consider Cr. Neil's amendment at this stage to which Cr. Harvey responded with the statement that Cr. Neil's proposal was nonsense. He went on to say that the State government couldn't look after the land it already has, and it was an insult to ask the applicant to provide another 5%. Cr. Henry Bleeck (East) didn't support the amendment either, also giving the State government a serve by saying State government land is a disaster, the State has a history of not looking after reserves and was incapable of looking after the new reserve.
Cr. Geoff Neil (East) summed up saying it was interesting how much Council was saying about how hopeless the State Government is at looking after land. As it stood, Council would have to look after the land for something that wasn't its responsibility (i.e. native vegetation) all because DSE said the reserve had to be created. Council was forced into it by a referral response, and shouldn't forego the extra 5%. The motion was lost when only Cr. Geoff Neil (East) and Cr. Sandra McGregor (East) voted in favour, the other 7 Councillors voted against.
Debate then returned to the original motion (as amended earlier by agreement). Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) resumed speaking, saying the application was fatally flawed, as was the process. He expressed strong concerns that Council was again attempting to approve a "development plan" (which extinguishes residents' rights to be notified of and object to future development) without consulting the community. He said if Council was about open, transparent government, it needs to say to Gisborne - hey, if we approve this it takes away your rights, have a say now. Sounding exasperated, he pointed out that Development Plan Overlays (DPOs) have now been applied in most towns, and the process Council undertakes in dealing with them has implications across the Shire. He referred to recent unfavourable experiences for Council at VCAT for failing to get DPO processes right, quoting VCAT's Helen Gibson "It does not appear that the council has a practice of separately endorsing plans as approved development plans under the Development Plan Overlay as recommended in the Planning Practice Note, Applying the Incorporated Plan Overlay and Development Plan Overlay". He also pointed out that if Council supported the officer's recommendation, it would (on paper at least) be adopting a development plan for all of DPO Cell 4b, when it only had a development plan for this particular property, which is only a small part of Cell 4b, in front of it. He asked, where is the development plan for the whole cell? He reminded Council of the recent $4,500 costs awarded against it for issuing a permit without having an appropriate, approved development plan to hand. He said Council couldn't move the application forward because it didn't have a development plan for all of DPO Cell 4b.
Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) opposed the application on the basis that it didn't meet the requirements of the draft Gisborne/New Gisborne Outline Development Plan [for which Council is preparing a planning scheme amendment]. The land is located at the gateway to Gisborne. Cr. Gyorffy referred to Cr. Neil's impassioned plea last week to not allow two units at the gateway to Romsey, and said this land was just as important and this subdivision was as out of character as the Romsey application had been. Cr. John Letchford (South) on the other hand said the Outline Development Plan was dead. It had been around for 10 years and had never been finalised. The application was the best outcome for the land and was in the best interests of the community. It was a prime piece of land.
Cr. Noel Harvey (West) closed the debate saying the ODP wasn't a seriously entertained document - Councillors could shake their hands as much as they liked but it shouldn't be considered. The proposal accorded with the planning scheme. This is a good outcome, don't be distracted by the ODP.
At this point Cr. Geoff Neil (East) leapt to his feet, saying he was distressed and wanted an adjournment to discuss a matter with officers before Council made its decision. The Mayor denied his request and proceeded to call for the vote. A division was called which showed Crs. Noel Harvey (West), Henry Bleeck (East), Sandra McGregor (East), Helen Relph (South), John Letchford (South) and John Connor (West) supported approval, Crs. Geoff Neil (East), Tom Gyorffy (West) and Rob Guthrie (South) opposed.
MRRA Says:
We'll obviously have to come up with an alternative to 'dog's breakfast', because we can't keep using it all the time! Nevertheless it goes some way to describing what has happened with this application, although we feel something stronger is called for.
Now let's see. This is what it looked like happened.
DSE said save the trees, which it has the power to do. That meant that roughly 17% of the land was given over to a Protected Vegetation reserve, responsibility for which would be Council's. The thinking then seems to have been that carving the rest of the land up as per the ODP's 'large lot' requirements wouldn't yield enough financial return. So, essentially, be blowed to the ODP, be blowed to good planning outcomes, be greedy instead. And all but two of our Councillors (Guthrie and Gyorffy) fell for it, with two (Harvey and Neil) publicly promoting it, hence Cr. Harvey's comments about 'believing Council had an obligation to give a bit in other areas' [apparently in return for saving the trees], and Cr. Neil's comment about the developer being "a lucky ducky, getting 3 extra lots" and so should give Council money as well as land. In other words, some of our Councillors knowingly and publicly acknowledged a deal was being done, contrary to planning requirements, that helped the developer.
A couple of other items caught our attention as well:
For starters, the Gisborne Outline Development Plan HAS NOT been around for 10 years as Cr. Letchford claimed, consultation processes for it began in 2005. It has $25,000 of State government money in it and is starting to look like a stop-start-stop disaster - well, at least in the hands of Macedon Ranges Councillors and the Department's office at Bendigo. MRRA would like to know why a document which Council voted to move forward to an amendment to the planning scheme (C59) only 2 months ago, is now NOT a seriously entertained document. We've asked it before, and we'll ask again, what's going on with the Gisborne ODP? Who doesn't want it?
We got the distinct impression from Cr. Harvey's closing comments that he may not be entirely clear on the difference between an ODP and a DPO.
What's an ODP? It's a strategic framework, a plan, that sets out a vision and future directions for an area or town.
What's a DPO? It's a statutory provision in planning schemes, an overlay that must be complied with, which is (usually) applied to undeveloped land and triggers a requirement for a development plan to be prepared and approved (showing in detail how the land will be developed) before any permits can be approved to develop the land.
Not knowing the difference just cost Council $4,500 at VCAT. So when Cr. Neil said he was distressed, and wanted to talk to officers, how much do you want to bet that the penny had finally dropped that Council was doing it again? Still, there aren't any objectors to this proposal as far as we know, so Council is likely to get away scot-free on this one.
Cr. Neil's comments that native vegetation wasn't Council's responsibility were extraordinary, to say the least! Where has he been while the world changed? And far from defending Gisborne's gateway as he had the week before Romsey's gateway, alas Cr. Neil did not bring forth an alternative motion to refuse this application. Seems, as we suspected, refusals only apply in Geoff's home town of Romsey.
And lastly, did Cr. McGregor change her vote? It seemed she voted against the proposal but when a division was called, voted for it.
Not happy with how your Councillors are performing? Then start thinking about who will replace them in 2008.
First Planning, And Now Democracy, Crash In Macedon Ranges
(9/4/07 - C) The way this Council is going, are there any takers on how long it will be before 'Finances' joins Planning and Democracy in the 'not working' bin?
It is pretty well established by now that most of our current Councillors don't seem to know about planning or care about getting good development outcomes (look at how they overturned Panel recommendations on C47, approved Macedon Lodge, etc). And we know they don't seem to have quite caught hold of the concept of accountability (look at the Code of Conduct adopted late last year). So, how are they on consulting the community? No, there's not much joy there either because now most of our Councillors have officially decided that listening to the community is just getting too much like hard work.
At last Wednesday's Council committee meeting most of our Councillors took another step away from 'commitment to the community' when they voted 7 to 1 to set up a 3 Councillor committee to hear community submissions on Council issues (under Section 223 of the Local Government Act). Up until now, those community submissions (e.g. on the budget, land sales etc) had been heard by full Council. Now, what the community has to say will be filtered back to the other Councillors via the Mayor of the day, and one Councillor from each other ward (and don't we all wonder who they might be?). MRRA's information is that only Cr. Rob Guthrie (South Ward) opposed going down this path. NB Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West Ward) left the meeting early and was absent for this vote.
Terrible Report Card For Macedon Ranges Council As VCAT Awards $4,500 Costs Against It
(9/4/07 - P) A reasonable Council wouldn't have done it, says VCAT. Council comes a cropper and cops a caning - fundamental errors become yet another cost to this community.
Sloppy, stupid, stubborn - those are the messages between the lines of the VCAT decisions (P2263/06 & P2434/06) that ultimately saw Council have costs awarded against it earlier this year. It happened this way... Someone at Council made the extraordinary decision to say the Gisborne Outline Development Plan, a piece of purely strategic planning work, satisfied the STATUTORY requirements of the Development Plan Overlay (which stipulates that there must be an approved development plan before permits can be approved for land affected by the DPO). Council was warned it was making a monumental mistake but pushed on regardless, saying the ODP was good enough for it to issue a permit for a 12 lot subdivision at 147 - 159 Aitken Street Gisborne. VCAT said, not on your nelly, and took the permit away. It's rare for VCAT to award costs, but VCAT member Philip Martin's exasperation with Council is unambiguous (and the language unusually blunt) in these extracts from the 20th February 2007 VCAT order for costs. No doubt many Macedon Ranges' resident will mutter 'been there, done that' as they empathise with the member's frustration...
"19 In these circumstances, I consider that "clear warning bells" should have been ringing with Council, and I would have expected a reasonable Council to have obtained legal advice from its specialist lawyers on this whole issue.
22 In summary, I consider that Council took a reckless and cavalier approach in failing to come to terms with the clear and repeated warnings from Mr and Mrs Woolley that there was a major due process problem with Council’s support for the subdivision process vis-a-viz the procedural requirements of the DPO. I also consider that it does not make the Tribunal’s task any easier when Council fails to meet a very sensible request by the Woolleys that the relevant Council minutes be tabled at the hearing before me. In my view, if Council had properly investigated the situation in the period after the lodging of the Application for Review (and had properly responded to the abovementioned correspondence from the Woolleys), the correct status of the Gisborne Outline Development Plan would have been clarified at an earlier stage and the 23 November hearing could have been avoided.
23 Relying on my findings above that the Council acted in a reckless and cavalier manner, and that the 23 November 2006 hearing might otherwise have been avoided, these findings weigh very heavily against Council in relation to:
the “relative strengths of the claims made by each of the parties” under Section 109(3)(c) of the VCAT Act 1998; and
the factor under Clause 109(3)(b) of whether a party has been responsible for prolonging the proceeding unreasonably and I am satisfied that this conduct by Council accordingly justifies some form of costs order being made against Council.
24 This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that when Maddocks solicitors on behalf of Council did provide me with its 8 December 2006 opinion on the status of the document endorsed by Council on 13 September 2006, Maddocks (quite properly) did not even attempt to justify this situation as meeting the requirements of the ODP [sic]. Could the correct position have been any clearer?"
Cr. Geoff Neil Pleads For Vote To Stop Medium Density In Romsey
(17/4/07 - P) In the flip of a lip, the man who said the planning scheme's rural policies were "cobblers" begs for support for non-existent policy to save Romsey
You could have been excused for wishing you'd brought the box of Kleenex to last Wednesday's (11th) Planning Committee meeting where an excruciatingly 'nice' Cr. Geoff Neil almost got down on his knees trying to convince other Councillors to refuse an application for two units in Reynolds Grove, Romsey. So intent on convincing them was he, the man who seems to usually not want a bar of anything in the planning scheme (except where it says 'not prohibited') actually hung his argument on POLICY. Well, sort of. More like he hung his hat on policy that isn't yet policy but might be, one day. The sight of Cr. 'Cobblers' Neil holding up the still-in-its-infancy Romsey Outline Development Plan map that showed the subject land outside the boundary of where units will be considered - well, it really did take the biscuit. The things we do...
MRRA Says:
My, how the worm turns. The side-splitter in all of this is that it is Cr. Neil himself who slams others for 'selectively' picking out just the bits that support their arguments! Seems one day policy doesn't count, the next day it does (but only in Romsey it seems). Thanks for such a shining example of what you are talking about, Geoff. The application deserved to be knocked off because it was plain old bad planning, not because of Cr. Neil's almost Academy-award winning performance.
It will be interesting to see if Cr. Geoff goes in as hard on and applies the same policy principles to an application coming up on Wednesday 18th, where a 12 lot subdivision proposal in Melton Road Gisborne, which conflicts with the much-further-along Gisborne Outline Development Plan, will come before Council. Our money says that, because the proposal is in Gisborne (i.e. not Romsey), Cr. Geoff won't be moving a motion to refuse, won't be pleading with other Councillors to say 'no', but will be back playing his more regular role of the character who pooh-poohs policy and merrily promotes if not drives approval of applications - as long as it's not in Romsey! What do you reckon?
Cr. Geoff Neil Says Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme Is 'A Load Of Cobblers'
(28/3/07 - P) East Ward Councillor demands to know what it will take for some Councillors to approve houses on rural land
It's a little while ago now but at Council's 14 February Planning Committee meeting there were some noteworthy comments made by some Councillors in debates over applications for permits for yet more houses on small lots in rural zones. There were three applications before Council (two in drinking water catchments), all with officer recommendations to refuse.
Cr. John Connor put forward an alternative motion to approve the first application, in a Farming zone in Fagan's Lane, Goldie, but Council deferred making a decision pending negotiations between the applicant, Council and objectors (Crs. Tom Gyorffy, Rob Guthrie and Noel Harvey opposed). Crs. Noel Harvey and John Connor put forward an alternative motion to approve the second application, in a Farming zone east of Malmsbury, which saw the application approved against the officer's recommendation (Crs. Tom Gyorffy, Rob Guthrie and John Letchford opposed). The third, in a Rural Conservation zone at Hickey Road Woodend (next to Campaspe Reservoir) was again the subject of an alternative motion to approve put forward by Cr. John Connor. However the application was deferred off for some further negotiation between Council and the applicant. The motion carried by Council was moved Cr. John Connor and seconded by Cr. John Letchford that "the matter be deferred to the next Ordinary Council meeting and Officers be requested to bring forward conditions to enable Council to consider approval of the permit". (Note: this third application was subsequently refused by Council at its 28th February meeting).
The noteworthy part comes from the fact that both Crs. Noel Harvey and John Connor admitted in debate that they knew approval of the applications wasn't supported by the planning scheme, with Cr. Connor adding, re the third application, that planning should be about people, especially people who have done the right thing. Cr. Geoff Neil's frustration with planning controls was visible when he said after the first application was deferred that he had "heard all the words about how the proposal is contrary to the scheme" - he then pointed to the notice paper in front of him and said "these statements [from the scheme] are a load of cobblers". His frustration become blatant when he stood after the second application was approved and said he would like to know what it would take for those who oppose to support houses on rural land.
MRRA Says:
It perhaps hasn't occurred to Cr. Geoff, Cr. Noel, Cr. John C. and others that there are people out there wondering what it's going to take to get some of our Councillors to start treating the planning scheme as the legally binding document it actually is. What is it going to take for some Councillors to not approve every application for a house on a rural lot, particularly in drinking water catchments where every new house is another nail in the coffin as far as having catchments that produce lots of clean water go.
What some Councillors don't seem to understand is that the three applications before them for refusal constituted only a small proportion of the total applications made, the rest of which were presumably approved.
It's not unusual at planning committee meetings for at least one ('wanting to approve') Councillor to say 'we (i.e. Councillors) have discretion'. MRRA would desperately like someone who knows the difference between discretion and open slather to explain to these people that approving everything that comes across the desk is NOT exercising discretion... to explain that just because something isn't prohibited doesn't give it an automatic right to be approved... to explain that "the applicants are nice people" isn't a sound or acceptable basis for giving someone a planning permit. We don't let people drive on the wrong side of the road because they are 'nice'. Why then do some of our Councillors think they can run their own show and make their own rules - and exceptions - when it comes to planning?
MRRA Presentation and Deputy Ombudsman's Submission Fall On Fallow Ground: Code Of Conduct Hijacked For Some "Simplification" As Most Councillors Baulk At Prohibition On Meeting Privately With Developers
(14/10/06 - C) Isn't this the type of behaviour that led to Royal Commissions in Queensland and NSW? How much longer do residents have to put up with Councillors who seem to think they can do whatever they want? Doesn't the Bracks government care?
In a move that perhaps sums up what's wrong with Councils under the Bracks' government's watch, at last week's Council Policy and Issues Committee meeting, five Macedon Ranges' Councillors decided they weren't having the revised Councillor Code of Conduct presented for adoption. Note: Cr. Noel Harvey (West) was absent.
After MRRA's oral presentation (Click here), Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) moved, and Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) seconded, a motion to adopt the Code. Cr. Helen Relph (South) opposed, kicking off the debate. It soon became clear others weren't buying it either. They tip-toed around, avoiding an outright 'no', before falling back on that old standard, "let's send it off to a sub-committee of Councillors".
CE Ian Morris made it clear at the outset that for the Code to have any meaning Councillors needed to agree to it by consensus - a split vote would not be enough.
Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) said the Code was an excellent document. He referred to extensive email traffic between Councillors in the days prior to the meeting, and knew of some concerns expressed about the content but said they were management issues. Some Councillors had concerns with 9.2 (the section of the Code that said no private meetings with developers) but council needed to say to people these are the standards. For example, if your next door neighbour puts in an application, just tell them you can't discuss it without compromising your position - real friends won't do that to you. This is a standard for ourselves. He said submission comments were excellent and adopting this Code would be the outstanding achievement of the Council year, adding he had received calls from around the State - people were watching what this Council did. Council could lift the bar and the community would be pleased if it did.
Cr. Helen Relph (South) likewise said the Code was excellent but... she had problems with Planning Application Conference [PAC] guidelines being included in the Code, citing that if the guidelines changed the Code would have to be changed, so it would be better to leave them out of the Code in the first place. There were a couple of things but she didn't want to go into detail. A couple of little things needed to be tweaked.
Cr. Henry Bleeck (East) said he was concerned with the PAC processes - he wasn't going to be a puppet to Council officers [the Code says an officer, not councillor, should chair PAC meetings] and asked who was running the show, Councillors or Council officers. He added he represents the view of ratepayers and their view is that he is ethical.
Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) spoke at some length, firstly reassuring Cr. Bleeck that Council is a corporate body where officers carry out policy, who's running it is irrelevant. He said the Code had its genesis in the OEDC Code for Officers, which had been created so there would be confidence in how Officers performed. He referred to ICAC [Independent Commission Against Corruption], a body in NSW, and an equivalent organisation in Queensland, that were set up after corruption inquiries in both states and said how ICAC aimed to achieve proper and ethical standards in government. He told Councillors to first get a Code; the aim of having a Code is to avoid situations the Code describes. He responded to criticism of there being too much information in the Code by saying it was better to find all rules in one document, and added he would like to see an officers' Code as well. He urged Councillors to understand that the Code needed to be a contract between Councillors and the community, 'our' agreement with them and what they expect. He said in planning, Council deals with the private rights of individuals; it needs to act clearly at arm's-length and must also be seen to act that way. He assured Councillors that setting standards [by adopting the Code] was not a slight on their character; adopting the Code is simply saying that the community can have confidence in how Councillors will act. Cr. Gyorffy confessed that he personally thought a harder line should have been adopted - no meetings with developers at all - but having to have an officer present at such meetings was a compromise he could live with. He added that the problem isn't just having meetings, it's also what is said at the meetings, and having a witness provides protection for all Councillors; it makes it an open process. He endorsed Cr. Guthrie's comments and urged his colleagues to present something to the State of Victoria that is a shining light of this year, to go with the Code as something that could be promoted to other bodies.
Cr. John Letchford (South) said there were glitches and mis-matches and there are other concerns that still have to be done. The Code needs work. He flagged he would move an alternative motion to form a working party to review submissions and bring the Code back to a Councillor briefing session. Like Cr. Relph, he also didn't support PAC Guidelines being included in the Code, saying a PAC is a separate process from policy. He said if a friend has a development application, it can be covered under declarations made at the beginning of meetings [declarations of conflict of interest]. He said the Code was becoming a sea of words and was over-stated if a Councillor was acting honestly. The Code was missing the salient points and was a whole list of rules and regulations; it was clouded, and had glitches and mis-matches. He finished by saying the Code needs to be streamlined, so pull up a committee of 3 Councillors and look at alternatives. There were a whole lot of other things that could be thrown in - such as natural justice - but the Code needed to be clear and concise and give guidance to community members.
Cr. Geoff Neil (East) said you're either ethical or you're not - that's what he believes. He refuted - wholeheartedly refuted - the intimation that if people didn't sign the Code they were crooks. He didn't have problems with the Code, it just needed a bit of polish. He thought looking at it would be a good thing, a couple of issues need to be cleared up, but he couldn't accept it in its current form. That wasn't a rejection, it just needs further enhancement.
The quote of the night came from CE Ian Morris when he took issue with Cr. Bleeck's comments about officers, and ended saying he wouldn't have a bar of decisions made in the backroom.
Cr. Guthrie closed saying it had been interesting listening to the discussion. He had hoped there would be consensus. He recommended the Code, as is, to all saying if it is referred to a Councillor committee, there might not be much left of it when it came back, as had happened with another policy (Dwellings in Rural Areas). He finished by saying the Code was an excellent document and he intended to abide by it.
Cr. John Letchford objected to Cr. Guthrie's comment about the Rural policy (Cr. Letchford was a member of the committee that 'reviewed' that policy). Note: Crs. Letchford, Relph and McGregor "simplified" Council's Dwellings and Subdivision in Rural Areas policy. Click here to see MRRA's report on what was left of the policy after the Councillors turned their attention to it.
The motion to adopt the Code was put, and was supported only by Crs. Guthrie and Gyorffy. Cr. John Letchford then moved his alternative motion, seconded by Cr. Helen Relph, that the Code be shipped off to a 3 member committee, and that all submitters be thanked. The motion was carried.
Crs. Letchford and Relph nominated to be on the (sub-)committee. Cr. Gyorffy made a late nomination and became the third committee member.
MRRA Says:
In our oral presentation to Council, MRRA said to the Councillors:
"You asked people to trust you when you asked them to vote for you. The very least you owe your constituents is to pledge in writing to act accountably and to meet standards acceptable to the community. You can do that by adopting the revised Code, here tonight."
But they didn't. Is that a sign of the low regard most of our Councillors have for the people who voted for them, and for the principles of accountability that matter to the broader community?
Cr. John Letchford asked the only question of MRRA. He wanted to know how MRRA operated, if we had a Code of Conduct. We said that as an incorporated association, we don't have a Code such as the one proposed for Council but do operate under the Associations' Incorporation Act. Cr. Letchford then asked if it wasn't therefore equally sufficient for Council to simply operate under the Local Government Act and not have a Code. We told the Councillor he was hardly making an apples-for-apples comparison, and he backed away. In MRRA's mind, the question was out of order in the first place.
Is it just MRRA, or is there is something a tad "off" with someone in that position trying to compare the operating processes of a not-for-profit community group with those of a Council, and apparently attempting to justify Council not having a Code because the community group doesn't have one?
In any event, anyone who knows anything about incorporated associations would know it is mandatory, under the Associations' Incorporation Act, for an association to have adopted Rules before an association can even be registered. Those Rules must contain specified elements such as dispute resolution processes and processes for taking action against those who breach the Rules or bring the association into disrepute. Come to think of it - maybe incorporated associations have to meet higher standards than this Council seems to want to! And that's in addition to having to hold elections EVERY YEAR. Now there's a mouth-watering thought...
Is Council About To 'Come A Gutser' As A Fatal Flaw In The Original Gisborne Call Centre Permit Is Exposed? Permit Under Formal Legal Challenge - Applicant Could Be Forced To Start Again
(30/9/06 - P) But no sense of danger as "back-flip with pike and double-twist" by Crs. Letchford and Relph ensures Mayor's rescission motion gets up and the trail of Council blunders continues.
The Gisborne Call Centre debacle continued at last Wednesday's Council meeting. Examples of Council 'dropping the ball' are already substantial (e.g. no community consultation, a rolling series of significant amendments, behind closed doors decision-making, councillors walking out, a late objection ignored, a meeting without standing orders, minutes opposed as incorrect, etc.), but the clanger Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) dropped out last Wednesday produced the same shocked, absolute silence the passing of a death sentence does.
Background: Two weeks ago (13 September), an attempt to move this mess forward by fobbing off responsibility for Permit Amendments 3 and 4 by delegating decisions to Council officers fell over when Crs. John Letchford and Helen Relph (both South ward) abandoned their previous support for the development and voted (with Crs. Gyorffy, Guthrie and McGregor) to advise the developer that Council required a new permit process if he wanted to go as far as Amendment number 4. See earlier MRRA report. Mayor Geoff Neil (East), who opposed the "starting again" motion, subsequently whipped in a rescission motion to overturn the 13th September motion, and the rescission was up for approval last Wednesday night.
Wednesday 27th September: Enter Crs. Letchford and Relph with their award-winning backflip, with Cr. Letchford in sensational form as he seconded motions to firstly consider the Call Centre application, and then to rescind the 13 September 'start again' resolution (er... a resolution he also seconded!). Mayor Geoff Neil (East) said the 13 September motion was flawed - i.e. Council couldn't instruct the applicant to resubmit the application, and it didn't state what type of advertising process would be done. Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) replied saying there is no need to specify the advertizing process because Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act follows as a matter of course, and the motion was perfectly OK. He added that Council could simply say 'NO, you're not getting Amendment 4 - you put in a new application'. He defied anyone to tell him where this permit was up to, and said Council was considering bits without looking at the whole. He, along with Crs. Rob Guthrie (South) and Sandra McGregor (East), opposed the rescission but it was approved on the votes of Crs. Letchford (South), Relph (South), Harvey (West), Neil (East), Bleeck (East) and Connor (West).
Having got rid of the motion to 'start again', next came a motion to crank the Call Centre forward again: Part A of the motion in the circulated meeting papers dealt with Amendment 3 and the permit for it issued in August without considering an objection Council had received. It included a recommendation to cancel that permit at VCAT and issue a new amended permit after 'considering' the objection (Note: Part A also included the new amended permit for approval). Part B approved Amendment 4 (without resolving Amendment 3). Part C said that if an appeal is lodged at VCAT Council would adopt Amendment 4 as its position.
The Mayor stepped up to the plate and moved yet another alternative motion, that Part B alone of the officer's recommendations be adopted, and he was seconded by Cr. Noel Harvey (West). The Mayor told Councillors they didn't need to debate the merits, they just needed to determine Amendment 4 which was substantially better than Amendment 3 (Council had had legal advice).
Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) opposed, and dropped a bombshell. He began by saying he had been going over what Council had done. There were 3 permit triggers - Use, Parking, and amending a development plan. In December 2005 Council looked at refusing 14 shops on the site but instead deferred making a decision. When that application later came back to Council, changes had been made and the shops were approved with stringent conditions on the development plan. He couldn't find those conditions on the permit issued in May 2006. He couldn't make sense of the May Planning Committee minutes either - until he read the officer's recommendation, Part A of which was to change the development plan from that approved in December, and Part B the permit that was to issue. However on 24 May, Council had received an alternative Part B on the night that didn't include Part A (the necessary change to the development plan). Council went on to approve the permit (Part B), but not Part A, the changed development plan that needed to be approved before Council could issue a permit. That is, unless Council changed the development plan it couldn't issue a permit. Cr. Guthrie said the development plan had not been amended since December and so Council shouldn't have issued a permit in May. The permit was illegal. As for giving notice, planning scheme exemptions from giving notice didn't apply to the Use or development plan permit triggers, so the argument that Council didn't need to give notice are flawed.
Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) stood and said all permits (amendments) were invalid - if it doesn't comply, you get nothing. He said he had been sending emails around to Councillors telling them the permit was invalid. There were also problems with parking - it was less than half what the planning scheme wants. The whole thing was a disaster because all the way through people had only kept an eye on getting 300 jobs in Gisborne. He thundered that Council was here for the planning scheme, not an economic scheme, and still hasn't asked the public what they want. He said the situation can only be fixed by starting again. The permit is illegal, the motion is not supportable, and Council shouldn't continue down that path. Cr. Gyorffy then asked if the legal advice obtained by Council, which said Council could approve Amendment 4, had been made in the knowledge that Council had failed to amend the development plan in May, and was told no-one knew.
The room was very quiet as the Mayor spoke, awkwardly trying to justify the shortfall in parking spaces, saying legal opinions vary (Cr. Gyorffy told him to make sure he picked the right one), and saying one of the reasons he liked the call centre was because it would give the Gisborne business sector renewed life. He urged Councillors to endorse Part B as a way forward that was supported by officers and legal advice. And he got that endorsement from Crs. Noel Harvey, John Letchford, Henry Bleeck, Helen Relph and John Connor.
Crs. Tom Gyorffy, Rob Guthrie and Sandra McGregor opposed.
The Mayor then moved another, previously unannounced motion, that Council give delegated authority to Ms Veronica Schilling to consider and amend the permit Council had just voted to issue - minor amendments only, nothing of substance. Cr. John Letchford seconded the motion. Cr. Tom Gyorffy opposed, quickly standing and saying it was outrageous to consider even more changes. He said there were 'hundreds' of problems with the proposal - carparks, bits of verandah overhangs that would be taken off by trucks and so on. How many more goes was the applicant going to get? He said it was a joke, and the applicant should be told there would be no more chances without going through hoops.
Nevertheless, the same old voting block - Letchford, Relph, Neil, Connor, Bleeck, Harvey - passed the motion to delegate, and the same Councillors opposed: Gyorffy, Guthrie McGregor.
MRRA Says:
If it wasn't so serious, it would be Keystone Kops, wet-your-pants funny...
The amended 'permit' so courageously approved by six Councillors after Cr. Guthrie's comments reads like a 'to-do' list.
The applicant still has to amend plans to change the facade of the building; find more on-site parking spaces by rearranging the internal site layout or reducing office and retail floorspace; find a way to overcome the problem of some cars in the first floor carpark having to reverse out of the building and site; fix the loading bay problems (on the plans, the truck is significantly larger than the loading bay); and all signs need another permit. Minor changes? Nothing of substance? To fix all these problems should need a complete redesign - and a completely new permit! And all of it being done without community consultation, under officer delegation.
What are the ramifications for Council if Cr. Guthrie's position is upheld by the formal legal opinion he asked the Chief Executive to obtain? Well, for starters, the applicant doesn't have any permit except the one issued last December for 14 single-storey shops. Secondly, Council could face being sued by the applicant.
And what about the lone objector? Through its dodging and weaving approach Council has failed to deal with Amendment 3 at all even though by its own admission it has incorrectly issued a permit, and has a legitimate objection to it. It seems this is to be ignored as, it appears, is the objector. Although if reports MRRA is getting of the objector being 'heavied' to withdraw his objection are true, there might be a whole other chapter unfolding.
But all is not lost. Last Wednesday night Council issued a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Permit. THAT MEANS THERE ARE 21 DAYS IN WHICH TO APPEAL COUNCIL'S DECISION AND THIS NOW OPENS THE DOOR FOR THE COMMUNITY TO TAKE THIS FIASCO TO VCAT. BECAUSE THERE IS A WRITTEN OBJECTION, ANY PERSON WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSAL CAN APPLY FOR LEAVE FROM VCAT TO HAVE COUNCIL'S DECISION REVIEWED.
We are a very long way from the end of this, but isn't it already time for heads to roll, including the heads of some Councillors?
"Pull Up The Drawbridge, Flood The Moat" - Council Dives Back Into The Bunker Of Behind Closed Doors 'Briefing' Sessions
(30/9/06 - C) Seems some Councillors just can't cope without them It seems some Councillors are blaming the horrid things that are going wrong at Council on not being well-enough briefed. The charge to take Councillors (well, those that attend briefing meetings) back behind closed doors was led by Cr. John Letchford (South) who put up a motion to overturn Council's reluctant decision earlier this month to go with only one all-afternoon briefing meeting each month. He wanted 3 all-afternoon meetings a month. Mayor Geoff Neil (East) seconded the motion. Both said having briefings would make for better and more informed decisions. Cr. Letchford argued that going back to having briefings was one way of deliberating. It was part of a Councillor's commitment to attend and Councillors owed it to the officers, it would allow flexibility. He said that with the Gisborne Call Centre, if Council had had longer briefing sessions everyone would have been up to speed. Council needs to look at things in a reasonable and relaxed time. Cr. Helen Relph (South), supporting the motion, said briefings were the only way of being informed, if Council wasn't informed how could it make informed decisions? Cr. Noel Harvey (West) said briefings were part of getting informed, and he was never fully informed from briefing meetings. It was a way of discussing the pros and cons and forming a decision/position. Councillors should be prepared to put the time in. Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) said his commitment when he stood for Council last year was to the program in place at that time, as approved by Councillors in 2004 and on 4th September 2006. When he ran for Council he was committed to that program and knew exactly what he was taking on. Others are trying to change it. He pointed out that the Policy and Issues, and Finance and Operations, committees were in fact briefing meetings open to the public; if others wanted an afternoon briefing as well, Council may as well get rid of the committees, and do it now. Cr. Tom Gyorffy opposed as well, confirming that the committees were briefings held in public and that the others were missing the point. He holds particular concerns that afternoon briefings are being used as a substitute for Council meetings. Also that briefings are held on the same day the decision is made. He said it was a nonsense to have more briefings - half the Councillors aren't there anyway, and he doubted if Councillors got more from them than they were getting now - if Councillors read their notice papers. The motion was carried, with the additional proviso that the three all-afternoon Wednesday briefings be held on an "as required" basis, with the support of Crs. Geoff Neil (East), Noel Harvey (West), John Connor (West), John Letchford (South), Helen Relph (South) and Henry Bleeck (East). Crs. Tom Gyorffy (West), Rob Guthrie (South) and Sandra McGregor (East) opposed. The motion was carried, with the additional proviso that the three all-afternoon Wednesday briefings be held on an "as required" basis, with the support of Crs. Geoff Neil (East), Noel Harvey (West), John Connor (West), John Letchford (South), Helen Relph (South) and Henry Bleeck (East). Crs. Tom Gyorffy (West), Rob Guthrie (South) and Sandra McGregor (East) opposed.
MRRA Says:
From what we see at Council and Committee meetings, it's doubtful if 10 briefings a month would improve the quality of decision-making processes - or decisions. If you don't get it, you just don't get it - right?
What we have seen walking into the chamber is an agreed position - agreed between those who attended the afternoon meetings. All you have to do is watch faces. Who knows, and who doesn't. Eye contact here, the lift of an eyebrow there. Out roll the changes and alternative motions made as a result of the afternoon briefing: agreed positions. Out rolls the bombastic posturing. Then there's the principle applied by some that making the decision is all-important - e.g. plough on, a bad decision is better than no decision. How do briefing sessions change the 'gotta-make-a-decision' mentality?
There's not a lot of democracy or merit in how decisions are being made, particularly when only some Councillors attend the briefings. The fact that dealing with issues in public makes so many of our Councillors uncomfortable says something too. And as for Cr. Letchford's recent argument that briefings help Councillors avoid asking stupid and moronic questions in chamber - nice thought, but will it work? We aren't holding our breath...
Those Councillors who supported "pulling up the drawbridge" again put up arguments that were fairly pathetic and just a teensy bit see-through and self-serving. From the rhetoric in chamber in recent weeks, it might not be difficult for a reasonable person to form a view that what this is really about is hiding ignorance, protecting images, maintaining power blocks and controlling outcomes - and that works better behind closed doors. Or at least some think it does. NB The Gisborne Call Centre is just one example of what goes wrong when what should be done in public is done behind closed doors.
Crs. Gyorffy, Guthrie And McGregor Accuse Other Councillors Of Making "Secret" Council Decisions At Behind-Closed-Doors Briefing Sessions: "We Aren't Being Consulted About 'Council' Decisions"
(12/9/06 - C) Council is dysfunctional, says Cr. Gyorffy - Council should operate in public so everyone knows, not make decisions at afternoon briefings behind closed doors.
It got a bit lively at last Wednesday's Council Committee meeting over claims decisions are being made at 'secret' briefing meetings only some Councillors attend.
As Council considered its briefing meeting cycle Officer Stephen Mahon explained that at an earlier facilitated meeting on Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors, management of business had been addressed and the proposal before Councillors responded to core issues raised. It was proposed to have no briefings on Policy and Issues, and Finance and Management, Committee meeting days (1st Wednesday of the month); on Planning Committee meeting days (2nd Wednesday) briefings would be tailored to accommodate matters to be addressed; and on Council meeting days (4th Wednesday), briefings would start at 3.00pm.
Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West ward) wanted more information on the wording of a recommendation that Council meet on Planning Committee days...' to receive presentations from other parties', asking what was contemplated. Mr. Mahon replied past practice was to accept presentations from developers at briefing meetings, and from time to time, presentations on other issues are also made.
Cr. Geoff Neil (East) wanted a change to the recommendation to include the Mayor being consulted in relation to scheduling meetings for the budget - he wanted discretion for Councillors as well as the Chief Executive. He asked other Councillors if the recommendations allowed enough time to address all the issues. A surprised-looking Mr. Mahon said that at the earlier Code of Conduct Review, legitimate issues had been raised about timing and briefings and sharing information amongst Councillors, and he thought it had been agreed this was the way to go. The Chief Executive, Ian Morris, explained that a starting time had not been assigned to planning days to allow flexibility, but briefings would probably start at 1 or 2 pm, and the proposed changes related to starting times for Council meeting days (3pm), and only having two briefings a month.
Cr. Noel Harvey (West) said that was far too prescriptive - briefings may need to start earlier. He had no problems with the principle of 3pm but setting a starting time meant the meeting couldn't start before then. He also objected to being restricted (on the 3rd Wednesday, when formal meetings are usually not held) to being restricted to dealing only with "Ward based community engagement and consultation" and wanted it changed to include 'any other matters as required'. The CE explained scheduled meeting times provide a framework for officers to schedule other meetings. Cr. Noel Harvey (West) then moved the officer's recommendation with changes he wanted, Mayor Geoff Neil (East) seconded, if a change was made to allow the Mayor to be consulted about the CE's scheduling of some meetings. Cr. Harvey (West) said he was happy with that, arguing there was no flexibility without the proposed changes, for example today started at 5, could have moved it back to 4. He didn't want restrictions on what could be dealt with on the 3rd Wednesday - he had put aside Wednesdays as "Council Day".
Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) opposed, saying when council had its facilitated meeting on the Code of Conduct, one thing was clearly understood: briefing = briefing, not back-door meetings. In the last two months there had often been instances of only some Councillors making decisions before coming to Chamber. That meant other Councillors had no input into decisions. Cr. Geoff Neil (East) asked for examples; Cr. Gyorffy (West) said he was coming to that, then added on 12 July there had been an afternoon briefing meeting - while the CE had been on leave - in which restrictions on the number of people permitted on-site at the Gisborne Call Centre - an issue strongly debated in open Chamber in May - were changed from 80 people to 150 people. That decision never came back to any meeting of Council, and then a permit issued based on the change. At the last meeting in Romsey, regarding the settlement of the Kyneton Bowling Club matter, there was another afternoon briefing when other Councillors were not present, and they weren't told of the decision that some had made. These three Councillors asked questions at the real meeting, thinking the matter was under discussion, but the decision had already been made. Cr. Gyorffy (West) said the previous Sunday he had sent an email trying to fix the permit for the Call Centre (relating to adoption of minutes), but it was discussed in the afternoon briefing, and the motion was put, only no-one told those who weren't at the briefing. Then when he tried to explain what should be done, it made no difference because what had been decided in the afternoon went through. Cr. Gyorffy (West) said this Council is dysfunctional, and he couldn't support this meeting/briefing situation. Council should operate in public so everyone knows, not afternoon briefings behind closed doors. He referred to the 1999 Hunt Report on Council processes, which found briefings were OK but held well before meetings, not on the same day, and finished saying that as far as presentations by developers to briefings went, that matter was being addressed in the draft Code of Conduct and shouldn't even be on the briefing schedule.
Mayor Geoff Neil (East) replied he could easily respond to each point raised by Cr. Gyorffy, but instead insisted no decision had been made in the instances detailed, and there had only been discussions between staff and Councillors on 12 July - and the decision was made under delegation anyway. He wasn't convinced there was anything not correct or wrong done.
Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) responded saying what is discussed at briefings is not public. He was at the 12 July briefing and the Mayor's recollection of events was incorrect. He wasn't present at the Bowling Club matter briefing and didn't know the results of the briefings at the the evening Council meeting where he had asked what the settlement was, and no-one could answer. He didn't know the decision had already been made - and a subsequent email from the CE indicated some sort of decision had been made at that afternoon briefing.
Cr. Geoff Neil (East) said it was determined at the briefing to settle the matter, but not a dollar amount. Cr. Guthrie (South) rebutted Cr. Neil's claim, relating how he got a call from a resident the following day who had been told the settlement amount by a Councillor - a resident knew but he, a Councillor, did not. He added he would only support briefings as per the 1999 Hunt Report and findings from the 2004 review of that report.
Cr. Helen Relph (South) said briefings are value. Matters should come to Council before meetings; don't limit briefings, we do need to meet. Briefings are extremely valuable; new information comes in, Council should hear it. Briefings can also take place by email, if things need to be conveyed, information comes into home. Briefings provide a chance to get information one-on-one, have discussion, hear each others' views, and be discussing in a valuable way.
Cr. John Letchford (South) announced he hates making backdoor decisions. Back-door decision-making - he hadn't seen it. He missed one briefing and went around asking the others what he missed - anyone can ask at a Council meeting what happened in the afternoon. He said he had difficulties gazing into a crystal ball, knowing what's urgent and what's not, and pointed to a late change to an officer's report circulated at this meeting, saying does knowing at the last minute mean we don't accept it? He said he agreed with Cr. Harvey, need briefings for decision-forming; don't want Council embarrassing themselves by asking stupid and moronic questions. He said there was no back-door decision on 12 July, he was there. As for the Bowling Club matter, it was a notice of motion and several of them gave concern. It's good to discuss matters in briefings, so when it comes to Chamber, residents want to see smart decision-making, without diatribe - that's makes for an easier flow.
Cr. Sandra McGregor (East) responded saying the Councillor should talk about embarrassment when the papers last week described her as confused at Romsey - she was confused all right! The decision was made in the afternoon and she wasn't privy to it.
Cr. Noel Harvey (West) closed saying in all his years on Council there had never been a decision made in briefings, that was illegal. Decisions are made in public. As for Cr. Guthrie's claim, he didn't believe anyone would tell a resident, he didn't believe Cr. Guthrie, his claim was untrue. As for the Bowling Club motion, he'd changed it in Chamber so it wasn't a decision behind closed doors. Anyone saying the decision was made behind closed doors is a misrepresentation. Briefings make for informed decision-making but should be held well in advance of the actual meeting.
The motion was moved Noel Harvey (West), seconded John Connor (West), and carried with support from Helen Relph (South), Geoff Neil (East), Henry Bleeck (East) and John Letchford (South). Crs. Tom Gyorffy (West), Rob Guthrie (South) and Sandra McGregor (East) opposed.
MRRA Says:
It's quite clear from relevant documentation that a decision was made at some time on 12 July to vary the Gisborne Call Centre conditions - and it wasn't made at the evening Planning Committee meeting. The 26 July minutes, where they referred to the 12 July decision, are to be changed to say that decision was instead made on May 24, but there is no record of it in Council's adopted minutes for that meeting. So when was it made? Crs. Harvey and Letchford say a decision wasn't made on the 12 July; Cr. Geoff Neil says it was made under delegation; Cr. Rob Guthrie says a decision was made - and so originally did Council's draft 26 July minutes.
Who's telling the truth?
If all decisions were made in public, the question wouldn't even arise...
There is something fundamentally wrong with a Council that prefers to make decisions with only some Councillors present (the 'same olds') at briefings the general public can't attend. The Hunt Report found and condemned the same types of practices in 1999 (a time when Noel Harvey, John Letchford and Geoff Neil were Councillors).
MRRA agrees with Cr. Tom Gyorffy - this Councillor group is dysfunctional. Who's going to do something about it?
Cr. John Letchford Says 'Put The Gisborne Call Centre In The Gisborne Industrial Estate'
(12/9/06 - P) Sounds easy, until you look at the planning scheme...
It was interesting to see Cr. John Letchford's recent suggestion, in a local newspaper, that what he apparently now calls the 'huge and suburban' Gisborne Call Centre proposal should go into the Gisborne Industrial Estate. Easy-peasy. Sadly, the Gisborne Industrial Estate is within an Industrial 1 zone. Even sadder, that zone prohibits offices with more than 500 square metres of floor space. Tragically, according to the 24 May 2006 Council officer's report, the Call Centre (on its own) had a floor space of more than 3,000 square metres making it - oops! - a prohibited use in the Gisborne Industrial Estate.
MRRA Says:
Although only 'planning hacks' in Cr. Letchford's eyes, MRRA does read the Shire's planning scheme. We had every confidence planner John - the rising star - would nut it out too... Ah well, better luck next time.
Of course the other option would be to 'down-size' the proposal so it can fit in the Industrial 1 zone. Now let's see: if there was originally a maximum of 80 people for 3,000 square metres, wouldn't that work out in rough terms at around 20-odd people for 500 square metres' floorspace in the Industrial Estate? Hmm... maybe not so many people (or jobs?), and not such a good idea, after all.
Three Councillors Oppose Adoption Of 26 July Council Meeting Minutes: Not True And Correct Record
(28/8/06 - C) Is a 'confirmed minute' the same as an 'approved motion of Council'? The question still remains: are Council's 26 July decisions legal?
At last Wednesday's Council meeting, an attempt was made to sort out the mess created at the 26 July Council meeting when the last half of the meeting was conducted without standing orders. Under Council's Local Law for Meetings (#5), once standing orders are suspended (as they were mid-way through the 26 July meeting), no motions can be accepted until a motion is passed to resume standing orders.
Cr. John Letchford (South) moved, and Cr. Helen Relph (South) seconded, an alternative motion that the minutes up to the resumption of the meeting be confirmed, and that items dealt with after the break "be resolutions of Council and be confirmed". Cr. Rob Guthrie pointed out a reference in the minutes to a decision made on 12 July about the Gisborne Call Centre was incorrect. Officer Stephen Mahon confirmed the reference was incorrect; no decision had been made about that matter on 12 July - the decision referred had to have been made on May 24. He recommended, and Councillors agreed to, a note being added to the minutes to that effect. Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) opposed adoption of the alternative motion. Cr. John Letchford (South) said there were a couple of anomalies in the minutes but it was just a procedural matter; the minutes were a true depiction of the meeting. He added there had been discussion of how to deal with this issue that (Wednesday) afternoon and those Councillors in attendance had agreed the alternative motion was an appropriate way of proceeding. Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) proposed an amendment to the alternative motion, saying he had difficulty with 2 points: he asked for the Gisborne Call Centre decision [the one made behind closed doors which resulted in two Councillors leaving the chamber] be deleted from the alternative motion and be brought back to another Council meeting, because the changes made to the permit on 26 July made no sense when married with the 24 May permit. His second difficulty was that all decisions made after the break on 26 July needed to really be resolutions of Council, not just confirmed minutes, and asked that the wording of the alternative motion be changed from "are resolutions of Council" to "are now passed". Mover of the alternative motion, Cr. John Letchford (South) said leave it as it is. After some to-ing and fro-ing, Cr. Gyorffy was advised to move a separate motion to bring the Call Centre matter back to Council. However Mayor Geoff Neil (East) then waded in, saying Cr. Gyorffy's motion was out of order, that the minutes are a true reflection of what happened at the meeting and the alternative motion should be passed as typed. Which it was, but opposed by Crs. Tom Gyorffy, Rob Guthrie and Sandra McGregor. MRRA Says: Well, it's bounced clean out of the frying pan, hasn't it... to where? It seemed such a little thing to just vote to say all of the actions taken on 26 July were hereby passed by Council (which would have given them legitimacy as decisions of Council), and then confirmed that the minutes were an accurate account of those decisions. But oh, no... the Councillors who meet in private briefings in the afternoon before a Council meeting had already decided what would happen. So Macedon Ranges now has minutes of Council decisions which are not supported by 3 Councillors as being a true and accurate record of what happened at the meeting. Are they legal decisions, or aren't they? Do they count, or not?
Councillors Walk Out As 'Recycleds' Revert To Type On Gisborne Call Centre: Door Slammed On Community - And Process
(31/7/06 - P) 'Behind closed doors' is back with a vengeance but Crs. Gyorffy and Guthrie say they weren't going there
Something's definitely going on with the planning application for a Call Centre in Prince Street, Gisborne. Something at least five of our Councillors are privy to but don't seem to want the community to know about.
Councillors Rob Guthrie (South ward) and Tom Gyorffy (West) walked out of last Wednesday's Council meeting after five of their fellow Councillors voted to take the Call Centre application behind closed doors to, as it turns out, amend the permit conditions. Those five were Mayor Geoff Neil (East) who moved the motion to go confidential, and Cr. John Letchford (South) who seconded it, with support from Crs. John Connor (West), Noel Harvey (West) and Helen Relph (South). Cr. Henry Bleeck (East) seemed to oppose the motion, Crs. Tom Gyorffy and Rob Guthrie definitely did. Note: Cr. Sandra McGregor (East) was absent. The Mayor said the application warranted going confidential because it needed frank assessment which couldn’t be done in open chamber; because confidences had been given to him by other parties, and there were significant cost implications on Council and a policy shift. Before leaving the chamber Cr. Gyorffy (East) told the Mayor he had a conscientious objection to making planning decisions behind closed doors.
The Call Centre is collecting quite a history. It began on 14th December 2005 when an application for 14 single storey shops (floor area 3,253m2), on what is now the Call Centre site, came before Council. Public notice was given of this application, with one objection received. Planning officer Bruce Lancashire recommended refusal because parking was insufficient and the development represented poor urban design. Council instead deferred consideration to allow further discussions with the developer. The application came back to Council on December 21st, again with a recommendation to refuse. A late report circulated to Council recommended approval with stringent permit conditions. The permit said provide 96 on-site car spaces (78 were proposed) and 24 on-street (24 proposed): total 120 spaces to be provided. The planning scheme says provide 260 spaces.
On May 24th 2006, at its ordinary meeting Council considered a new application for the same land: 3 storeys of shops and offices with a floor area of around 7,900 m2, including a Call Centre occupying the entire second floor, plus a basement carpark. Planning Officer Barry Green advised Council no public notice was given of this proposal because it was not felt it would cause any detriment. The permit approved by Council restricted the number of Call Centre staff on site to 80, but other permit conditions for this significantly enlarged proposal required substantially less of developers than those applied to the smaller, single-storey development approved on 21 December. See earlier story. Based on the officer's report, the plan proposed 184 on-site spaces. Council cut planning scheme parking requirements, finally asking for 183 on-site car spaces and 38 on-street: total 221 spaces. The planning scheme says provide 398 spaces for this amount of floorspace.
From Council minutes of last Wednesday's meeting (received from Council today), it appears the same five Councillors who voted to go behind closed doors decided, while there, to remove the '80 staff on site' restriction - there is now no limit on the number of people who can be on-site (NB Oddly, the minutes refer to removing a cap of 150 persons - how did the cap go from 80 to 150?). It also seems the 38 on-street car spaces counted as being provided by the development include car spaces that already exist (i.e. there aren't necessarily 38 new spaces being created), and Council, by allowing the development to claim existing street spaces, is contributing the equivalent of $200,000 to the project. Ever generous, Council is also giving the developers the option of paying cash for the shortfall in car spaces, or of putting parking spaces somewhere else in the town - well, we at least hope it will be in Gisborne.
You might note elsewhere on this website that Council currently has a cash-in-lieu parking policy out for public comment until August 11 - the policy hasn't yet been adopted by Council, although it appears to be being implemented here.
MRRA Says:
What next - another job-creating Juvenile Justice Centre (JJC) proposal, like the one that almost brought Council down in 1999, and brought thousands of residents out in protest? The JJC that gave rise to the Hunt Report, the report that found Council wasn't operating properly? The report that made all those recommendations for doing things more democratically - things like respecting and consulting the community, not tossing process out the window, and not having an executive style Council where just some of the Councillors made the decisions for everyone?
Crs. Harvey, Neil and Letchford were on Council in 1999. And they are on Council now. They surely remember the Hunt Report...
There are 3 critical issues with the Gisborne Call Centre: Denial of rights and natural justice, lack of process, secrecy.
The community's legal rights to be notified and to comment on this application have been ignored, while at the same time those behind the development seem to have had the ear of Council. Not giving public notice, and so getting no objections, means the development approval can't be reviewed at VCAT.
Council has side-stepped and short-cut planning requirements and processes to get the development through, for example, it doesn't come within a bull's roar of planning scheme requirements for parking (and long-term, that's going to hurt Gisborne). Governance processes haven't been there either.
Council Almost Goes With Illegal Move On Amendments C47 and C49
(23/7/06 - P) Claims that Department of Sustainability and Environment agreed to recommendations not allowed by Act
At the 12 July Council Planning Committee meeting, Macedon Ranges Council had before it recommendations to send elements of these planning scheme amendments to the Minister for Planning for approval, despite there being submissions objecting to and calling for changes to the amendments. Under the Planning and Environment Act, a Council has only three options for dealing with submissions asking for changes to an amendment: it can make the requested change, it can abandon the amendment or it can send the amendment to an independent Panel. The recommendations before Council represented a fourth option: ignore submissions (and the Act). Someone seems to have confused an amendment process with a planning permit process, and recommendations to forward parts of the amendments to the Minister seemed to have been based on an assumption that there wasn't a lot of opposition, so just approve it (which perhaps gives an insight into how Council views objections to development proposals). On the night, the Council planning officer present seemed to verbally advise Council that the Department of Sustainability and Environment [DSE] originally supported the 'to the Minister' recommendations but now did not support doing that. Only two Councillors spoke on C49: Cr. Rob Guthrie (South ward) read section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act to his fellow councillors, and advised that the recommendation before Council was illegal. He then moved (seconded Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West)) that the amendment be sent to an independent panel (carried unopposed). Cr. Noel Harvey (West) advised near the end of the C49 agenda item he had just noticed that Parks Victoria submitted to the amendment and he may have an interest in the matter as he had recently been appointed to the Parks Victoria Board. The only change in how Council dealt with C47 was that Cr. John Letchford (South) seconded the motion to also move that amendment to a Panel.
Note: The C47 amendment proposes various changes, several initiated by individuals looking for site specific rezoning to support future development proposals (including introduction of the Mixed Use zone into the Macedon Ranges planning scheme), while the C49 amendment would rezone a business zone in Riddells Creek to a residential zone to support a residential subdivision proposal. There were some 33 submissions to C49, and 12 to C47.
MRRA Says:
It would be a matter of immense concern if DSE had in fact condoned such a deviation from the Planning and Environment Act's requirements, as represented by the recommendations before Council for these amendments. It is also of concern that submissions seem to have been misplaced by Council (two were 'found' on the night), that not all submitters seem to have been told about meetings or about the amendments coming before Council, and that no-one from the community addressed Council on agenda items as usually happens at these Planning Committee meetings (the Mayor advised the meeting he did not have a list of speakers). But the greatest concern of all is that one way or another, poor processes and breaching the Act almost got through the approvals system. That's not an acceptable situation.
Council Reverses Dumb And Dishonourable Decision: Macedon's Honour Avenue May Now Live
(3/7/06 - P) One knee-jerk decision follows another as majority of Councillors are shamed into changing their minds
It started at the May 3 Finance and Operations Committee meeting, where Councillors Rob Guthrie and Tom Gyorffy respectively moved and seconded a motion that $12,000 be referred to the 2006/2007 Council budget, and $2,500 to the recurrent budget, to provide an irrigation system along Honour Avenue, Macedon. Only seven Councillors attended that meeting. Crs. Helen Relph (South ward) and Cr. John Letchford (South ward) were absent. MRRA understands that, in a 4/3 decision, Crs. Guthrie (South ward), Gyorffy (West ward), McGregor (East ward) and Mayor Neil (East ward) voted for the irrigation system; Crs. Connor (West ward), Harvey (West ward) and Bleeck (East ward) voted against.
Three weeks later, at the 24 May ordinary Council meeting, and with Cr. Helen Relph (South) still absent, the vote went the other way. Cr. Henry Bleeck (East) moved, and Cr. John Letchford (South) seconded, a motion that no further action be taken on the Honour Avenue trees (i.e. let them die and then replace the pin oaks with eucalypts). The motion was carried 5/3 with assistance from Crs. John Connor (West), Sandra McGregor (East), and Noel Harvey (West). Crs. Rob Guthrie (South), Tom Gyorffy (West) and Mayor Geoff Neil (East) opposed the motion.
It seems the key factors in overturning the original resolution to irrigate the trees were Cr. John Letchford (South) - absent from the first meeting - who subsequently opposed watering the trees, and Cr. Sandra McGregor (East) who seems to have changed her mind between the two meetings.
Honour Avenue is located in South ward. Of the three South ward Councillors, Rob Guthrie twice supported saving the trees, Helen Relph was absent both times, and John Letchford seconded the May 24 motion to let the trees die, i.e. not water them.
In the four weeks since the 5/3 decision to not irrigate the trees, public protest has been strong. Consequently, at the 28 June ordinary Council meeting in Gisborne, Councillors voted unanimously (8/0 - Cr. McGregor absent) not to water the trees but to prepare a management plan to preserve the trees, with Cr. Harvey apparently now in support of using various water sources, not just recycled water. Funding needed to 'preserve' the trees has not been included in Council's 2006/2007 budget.
"Pinball Wizard" Performances As Councillors Go With Top Dollar For Councillor Allowances
(10/6/06 - C) Silence reigns during MRRA's presentation and the decision
MRRA president Neil Manning and secretary Christine Pruneau appeared before Council at its Finance and Operations committee meeting last Wednesday putting a case for a reduction in the Mayoral allowance, for more information on 'other benefits', and for definition of and community consultation on a Mayor's role. It was the first time residents in Macedon Ranges had been invited to comment on Councillor allowances, and MRRA's was the only submission. Council's decision to go with the highest allowances available for Councillors and Mayor sets the scene for the next 3 years (previously Councillors reviewed allowances annually). So residents are now stuck with top dollar payments until a new Council is elected in 2008.
MRRA Says:
No Councillors had any questions for MRRA at the conclusion of its presentation (note: Cr. Gyorffy was absent). In fact, it seems no-one was interested in saying anything at all because there was no debate and no objection, with the motion (moved Cr. Harvey, seconded Cr. Letchford) going through unopposed.
We are left to wonder if the decision had been made elsewhere or earlier, and simply played out in stony silence in chamber (although after the vote, Cr. Neil made some suggestion that perhaps people aren't aware of a Mayor's workload and perhaps it should be defined, and Cr. Letchford seemed to suggest Council charge members of the press for meals and drinks to help offset costs of 'other benefits' provided to Councillors).
MRRA didn't get the feeling that our comments were being taken on board as constructive. Hey, they didn't even want to talk about it. And Council wonders why people don't bother making submissions... Wonder no more.
The Letchford Comments
Cr. Letchford's comments about the press riled Mr. Don Gunn of the Midland Express and Kyneton Guardian, who made his feelings clear in last Friday's Guardian:
Cr. Letchford then took the opportunity to launch an extraordinary attack on members of the press who cover Council. He pointed out that Council provided food in the form of meals on meeting nights and drinks after meetings, and this was part of the costs council had to bear in its operations. After the meeting I pointed out to the Mayor Geoff Neil, that as a senior member of the press gallery I found Cr. Letchford's remarks offensive, because of an implication that the press 'gathered at the trough' at the expense of ratepayers, and the further implication of an implicit obligation involved in accepting council hospitality.
Our reporters only accept specific invitations from the Mayor, or Chief Executive, to attend councillor dinners. Usually the reason is that there is a guest speaker (such as the recent visit by VCAT chief, Justice Stuart Morris) the reporters can ask questions of. In my own case, I can only recall about 5 such dinners in the past 4 years I have attended.
MRRA knows who it would rely on having their facts right. Good for you, Don.
Council In Uproar With Claim Of Recycled "Bullies" Trying To Take Control
(30/5/06 - E) Cr. Tom Gyorffy calls for Mayor (Geoff Neil) and Crs Noel Harvey and John Letchford to resign
It has been a fairly tempestuous week in local politics, but the explosion has been brewing since Council elections last November. Cr. Geoff Neil, whom MRRA called on in March to resign as Mayor and who has built something of a reputation for putting a foot or two in his mouth since he was re-elected, went full on into Councillors Guthrie and Gyorffy at last week's Council meeting, suspending standing orders to do so. It seems the Mayor, Cr.Noel Harvey and Cr. John Letchford were fairly adamant that the two 'G's (Guthrie and Gyorffy) are responsible for a cost (?) of $160,000 to Council because they were supposedly parties to a recent enforcement hearing at VCAT. The hearing was instigated by a community group contesting Council's ability to provide sufficient parking spaces to meet VCAT requirements for the Kyneton Bowling Club pokies expansion. Seems the Council triumvirate were fairly set on trying to put those two 'upstarts' very publicly back in their places - that is, on the outer and outside the circle of power at Council. It's just a pity one or the other of the aggressors didn't check their facts before lurching into it.
For example, Crs. Guthrie and Gyorffy were actually called as witnesses at VCAT (i.e. they weren't 'parties' to the hearing); the Mayor's version of 'costs' apparently includes compensation to Council for losses incurred through delays to construction claimed to have been caused by the VCAT hearing (the only problem with that is Council only got the green light from Minister Hulls and Heritage Victoria to go ahead a week or so ago - well after the VCAT decision was handed down).
It's also a pity those behaving as if they were the Three Musketeers didn't duplicate Cr. Guthrie's concern for behaving in a manner more redolent of the Councillor's Code of Conduct. Or is that just so much paper?
MRRA Says:
Beam us up, Scottie...
Now let's see: Is a Council chamber a place where Councillors who aren't liked by grand-standing self-proclaimed powerbrokers and/or control fiends go to be baited and berated?
Are some of our Councillors trying to take Council back to the horrible ways it was (in)famous for before some of our present Councillors were thrown out by the people in 2003? Are we back in 2002 when a former Councillor publicly criticized Noel Harvey for bullying? Do we have a 'kitchen cabinet' operating, as was suspected back in the dark old days when some of our present representatives were last Councillors? Are decisions made behind closed doors at afternoon briefing sessions by whoever happens to attend?
Is this where democracy is at in Macedon Ranges? Is this where you want it to be?
Some members of this 'new' Council have already 'distinguished' themselves by blaming Gisborne residents for over-development at Helensville; is the community again to be blamed for everything the majority of our Councillors get wrong?
Are we overdosing on testosterone? Will self-promoting publicity stunts make a comeback (can we ever forget that photograph of a former Mayor inside a trolley bin)? As arrogance increases, will the community be subjected to ever-increasing doses of the mushroom treatment? It was last time around...
We hate to say it, but MRRA did try to alert the community when it assigned zero stars to Noel Harvey (0) and John Letchford (0), and only one star to Geoff Neil (1), before last November's Council election. The types of behaviours that are now coming to light, with which MRRA was already familiar, played a key role in determining how many stars candidates received. Click here to see how MRRA rated candidates.
Council's Rescission Motion To Destroy Clarkefield Hall - Was It Legal?
(9/5/06 - C) Process flaunted? Motion doesn't appear to meet Local Law requirements
When Macedon Ranges' Councillors voted 7 to 1 (Cr. Guthrie opposed) to rescind a two year old resolution to defer demolition of Clarkefield Hall, they seem to have stepped right outside their own meeting and process rules. It started when Cr. Henry Bleeck moved the rescission motion (seconded Cr. Letchford). But Cr. Bleeck hadn't included all of the original motion, which Cr. Guthrie pointed out was in two parts. Cr. Bleeck had only moved to rescind part 1 of the original (to defer demolition) while part 2 related to making the Hall safe and secure. The Councillors then decided to simply add the second part of the original motion to the rescission motion as an amendment (moved Cr. Neil, seconded Cr. Letchford), and voted to demolish Clarkefield Hall (Cr. Guthrie opposed, Cr. Gyorffy absent).
MRRA Says:
Funny things, rescission motions. There are lots of rules that apply. Here's the notice of motion from the 27 April 2006 Council meeting agenda (note, Council minutes are not yet available from Council's website):
Notice of Rescission No. 08/2006 – Cr Henry Bleeck
That the resolution of Council made on 21 April 2004, in relation to the demolition of Clarkefield Hall viz,
1. That Council defer the demolition of the Clarkefield Hall pending the completion of the Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study 1994 heritage amendment process.
be rescinded,
And if so rescinded, that Council resolve to proceed with the demolition of Clarkefield Hall.
Whereas the original 21/4/04 motion was as follows: It was moved by Cr Gee seconded by Cr Guthrie that Council; 1. Defer the demolition of the Clarkefield Hall pending the completion of the Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study 1994 heritage amendment process, and 2. Undertake the basic remedial and safety works to the hall as identified by the Council Building Surveyor to make it safe and secure. The motion was put and carried. Cr Guthrie requested a division. For : Cr’s Petrovich, Guthrie, Gee, Dunn and Todd (5) Against : Cr’s Connor, Evans, Carroll and Morabito (4)
The first rule about rescission motions is that they aren't allowed (can't happen) if the original motion has been acted on.
Local Law No. 5 - Meetings and Common Seal, says at 90, "A decision will be deemed to be acted on upon once its details have been formally communicated to persons affected by or reliant on the resolution or where a statutory procedure has been carried out as a result of that decision."
MRRA isn't aware of any report that went to Council advising that the original motion hadn't been 'communicated to or acted on' as per the terms of Local Law 5. The original motion was two years old. Has it been acted on?
Council is preparing two amendments (C33 - Precincts, and C34 - Other Areas) to place heritage overlays in the planning scheme, including overlays arising from the Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study. In the Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study, the Clarkefield Hall is part of a heritage precinct (Clarkefield Civic, Commercial and Residential Precinct), such as those being addressed in Amendment C33. Has the motion been acted on?
If it hasn't, particularly part 2, MRRA would like to know why, in two years, basic steps to secure the hall hadn't been taken.
Even if the hurdle of whether the motion had been acted on can be overcome, there still remains the issue of whether the Council could do what it did:
Local Law 5 says, at 95, "A notice of... rescission listed on a meeting agenda may be moved by any councillor present but cannot be amended."
What do you think? Have our Councillors acted in a proper and responsible way? Please give us your comments by sending an email on mrra.sec999@gmail.com
'Recycled' Councillors Blame Residents For Disastrous Development At Helensville
(19/4/06 - P) Cowardly but not necessarily unexpected finger-pointing as Councillors ignore the role they played
At last Wednesday's Planning Committee meeting, in debate relating to an application to carve up the last of Helensville in Gisborne, three of our 'recycled' Councillors (Letchford, Harvey and Neil) made it very clear that the cramped, towering over-development that now blights the once beautiful Helensville site was very firmly the fault of residents who objected to the original proposal. According to our recycled Councillors, self serving, self-important residents should have accepted a compromise, and the result of not doing that was a 'shocking mess'. Cr. Noel Harvey went so far as to say he wasn't prepared to put his name to any further disastrous development on the site (isn't it just a bit late for that?). Councillors Neil, Relph, Letchford, McGregor, Bleeck and Connor voted for the subdivision, Councillors Harvey and Gyorffy opposed. Councillor Guthrie declared an interest and left the chamber.
MRRA Says:
Well, well - see them duck for cover. What gall these pompous, short-memoried Councillors have, to blame several hundred residents for objecting to what they (the Councillors) now call 'shocking' and 'disastrous'. Hello???? Who supported and approved the original proposals, saying what a great thing these developments were, how we had to have somewhere for people to live? Not the objectors. Who ignored the repetitive broad hints from numerous VCAT decisions (note: both approvals and refusals), that Council should produce a plan for how the once-rural Helensville site should be developed and integrated with the rest of the Gisborne Township? That wasn't the objectors either. IT WAS OUR COUNCILLORS. Councillors who had six years to prepare a plan. Councillors who wouldn't listen to the people, who just couldn't see what hundreds in the Macedon Ranges' community could see was coming. So, Councillors, instead of attacking those who put in a huge amount of time and money and effort and emotion trying to convince you to change your mind, isn't it time you starting taking responsibility and being accountable for the decisions (and disasters) you make?
Councillors Say No To Native Vegetation Removal - All Except Councillor Letchford, That Is
(19/4/06 - P) Seems the 'Rising Star' couldn't get off the ground this time on protecting our environment
MRRA Says:
In an, um, almost unanimous decision at last Wednesday's Planning Committee meeting, Cr. Connor took the running on an application to refuse native vegetation removal on a lot at Ballymoyer Mews, Ashbourne Road, Woodend. Those of you who know this Tomkinson development would be aware of just how much clearing has already occurred, and how a new two storey house towering over tiny, historic Peel Cottage seems somehow completely out of step with the surrounding area. There is a restrictive covenant on some titles in this subdivision prohibiting further vegetation removal without Council consent. Only one Councillor thought more vegetation should be removed: "cut them down, there's only 4 or 5 of them". Yep, Council's 'qualified planner', Councillor John Letchford. The trunk on one of these trees was more than a metre in diameter. What can we say? 'Meteoric'.
Macedon Ranges Councillors Defy Planning Scheme Again To Get House Approved In Farming Zone
(19/4/06 - P) Cr. Noel Harvey admits he knows the officer's recommendation to refuse is right, but says yes to development anyway
Macedon Ranges' planning woes continued at last Wednesday's Planning Committee meeting when most of our Councillors again went for another house in a rural zone, in a drinking water catchment. This time the application came from a relative of a Council staffer (see earlier story). The officer's report said 'refuse'. But... working on the nice people, good idea, lovely spot principle - how could anyone refuse? Cr. Noel Harvey even admitted the proposal was contrary to the Farming zoning, and the officer was quite right in saying not to approve, but that didn't stop him supporting the proposal in the proclaimed Lake Eppalock drinking water catchment, notwithstanding his membership of the North Central Catchment Management Authority and Coliban Water Boards. The only opposition came from Councillor Tom Gyorffy who, faced with the applicants' arguments about their financial situation, said money was not a good enough reason to overturn the planning scheme. Note: Cr. Guthrie was absent.
Is Council About To 'Come A Gutser' As A Fatal Flaw In The Original Gisborne Call Centre Permit Is Exposed? Permit Under Formal Legal Challenge - Applicant Could Be Forced To Start Again
(30/9/06 - P) But no sense of danger as "back-flip with pike and double-twist" by Crs. Letchford and Relph ensures Mayor's rescission motion gets up and the trail of Council blunders continues.
The Gisborne Call Centre debacle continued at last Wednesday's Council meeting. Examples of Council 'dropping the ball' are already substantial (e.g. no community consultation, a rolling series of significant amendments, behind closed doors decision-making, councillors walking out, a late objection ignored, a meeting without standing orders, minutes opposed as incorrect, etc.), but the clanger Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) dropped out last Wednesday produced the same shocked, absolute silence the passing of a death sentence does.
Background: Two weeks ago (13 September), an attempt to move this mess forward by fobbing off responsibility for Permit Amendments 3 and 4 by delegating decisions to Council officers fell over when Crs. John Letchford and Helen Relph (both South ward) abandoned their previous support for the development and voted (with Crs. Gyorffy, Guthrie and McGregor) to advise the developer that Council required a new permit process if he wanted to go as far as Amendment number 4. See earlier MRRA report. Mayor Geoff Neil (East), who opposed the "starting again" motion, subsequently whipped in a rescission motion to overturn the 13th September motion, and the rescission was up for approval last Wednesday night.
Wednesday 27th September: Enter Crs. Letchford and Relph with their award-winning backflip, with Cr. Letchford in sensational form as he seconded motions to firstly consider the Call Centre application, and then to rescind the 13 September 'start again' resolution (er... a resolution he also seconded!). Mayor Geoff Neil (East) said the 13 September motion was flawed - i.e. Council couldn't instruct the applicant to resubmit the application, and it didn't state what type of advertising process would be done. Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) replied saying there is no need to specify the advertizing process because Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act follows as a matter of course, and the motion was perfectly OK. He added that Council could simply say 'NO, you're not getting Amendment 4 - you put in a new application'. He defied anyone to tell him where this permit was up to, and said Council was considering bits without looking at the whole. He, along with Crs. Rob Guthrie (South) and Sandra McGregor (East), opposed the rescission but it was approved on the votes of Crs. Letchford (South), Relph (South), Harvey (West), Neil (East), Bleeck (East) and Connor (West).
Having got rid of the motion to 'start again', next came a motion to crank the Call Centre forward again: Part A of the motion in the circulated meeting papers dealt with Amendment 3 and the permit for it issued in August without considering an objection Council had received. It included a recommendation to cancel that permit at VCAT and issue a new amended permit after 'considering' the objection (Note: Part A also included the new amended permit for approval). Part B approved Amendment 4 (without resolving Amendment 3). Part C said that if an appeal is lodged at VCAT Council would adopt Amendment 4 as its position.
The Mayor stepped up to the plate and moved yet another alternative motion, that Part B alone of the officer's recommendations be adopted, and he was seconded by Cr. Noel Harvey (West). The Mayor told Councillors they didn't need to debate the merits, they just needed to determine Amendment 4 which was substantially better than Amendment 3 (Council had had legal advice).
Cr. Rob Guthrie (South) opposed, and dropped a bombshell. He began by saying he had been going over what Council had done. There were 3 permit triggers - Use, Parking, and amending a development plan. In December 2005 Council looked at refusing 14 shops on the site but instead deferred making a decision. When that application later came back to Council, changes had been made and the shops were approved with stringent conditions on the development plan. He couldn't find those conditions on the permit issued in May 2006. He couldn't make sense of the May Planning Committee minutes either - until he read the officer's recommendation, Part A of which was to change the development plan from that approved in December, and Part B the permit that was to issue. However on 24 May, Council had received an alternative Part B on the night that didn't include Part A (the necessary change to the development plan). Council went on to approve the permit (Part B), but not Part A, the changed development plan that needed to be approved before Council could issue a permit. That is, unless Council changed the development plan it couldn't issue a permit. Cr. Guthrie said the development plan had not been amended since December and so Council shouldn't have issued a permit in May. The permit was illegal. As for giving notice, planning scheme exemptions from giving notice didn't apply to the Use or development plan permit triggers, so the argument that Council didn't need to give notice are flawed.
Cr. Tom Gyorffy (West) stood and said all permits (amendments) were invalid - if it doesn't comply, you get nothing. He said he had been sending emails around to Councillors telling them the permit was invalid. There were also problems with parking - it was less than half what the planning scheme wants. The whole thing was a disaster because all the way through people had only kept an eye on getting 300 jobs in Gisborne. He thundered that Council was here for the planning scheme, not an economic scheme, and still hasn't asked the public what they want. He said the situation can only be fixed by starting again. The permit is illegal, the motion is not supportable, and Council shouldn't continue down that path. Cr. Gyorffy then asked if the legal advice obtained by Council, which said Council could approve Amendment 4, had been made in the knowledge that Council had failed to amend the development plan in May, and was told no-one knew.
The room was very quiet as the Mayor spoke, awkwardly trying to justify the shortfall in parking spaces, saying legal opinions vary (Cr. Gyorffy told him to make sure he picked the right one), and saying one of the reasons he liked the call centre was because it would give the Gisborne business sector renewed life. He urged Councillors to endorse Part B as a way forward that was supported by officers and legal advice. And he got that endorsement from Crs. Noel Harvey, John Letchford, Henry Bleeck, Helen Relph and John Connor.
Crs. Tom Gyorffy, Rob Guthrie and Sandra McGregor opposed.
The Mayor then moved another, previously unannounced motion, that Council give delegated authority to Ms Veronica Schilling to consider and amend the permit Council had just voted to issue - minor amendments only, nothing of substance. Cr. John Letchford seconded the motion. Cr. Tom Gyorffy opposed, quickly standing and saying it was outrageous to consider even more changes. He said there were 'hundreds' of problems with the proposal - carparks, bits of verandah overhangs that would be taken off by trucks and so on. How many more goes was the applicant going to get? He said it was a joke, and the applicant should be told there would be no more chances without going through hoops.
Nevertheless, the same old voting block - Letchford, Relph, Neil, Connor, Bleeck, Harvey - passed the motion to delegate, and the same Councillors opposed: Gyorffy, Guthrie, McGregor.
Councillor Letchford Bites Back
(18/3/06 - M) MRRA is the 'faceless few', he's the 'rising star' - see what else he says
MRRA Says:
Cr. John Letchford has flashed in an email making it clear he doesn't agree with our story "Cr. John Letchford - Is He Breaking Promises - And Hearts?" (10/3/06). That's fair enough, he's entitled to his opinion, as we are to ours. MRRA is pretty chuffed that John is looking at the site, although we are downright surprised that John doesn't seem aware of restrictions the Privacy Act places on publishing an organisation's membership details. We aren't standing in the shadows John, we are obeying the law. Anyway, after deep thought, MRRA's Committee of Management feels John's response should be shared with visitors to our website. Stop Press: John's bitten again! We've just got a second email... Click here to go there...
Cr. John Letchford: Is He Breaking Promises - And Hearts? Click here to see the Letchford File
(10/3/06 - C) MRRA is confused by the mixed messages John is sending
On the one hand, Cr. John Letchford, who claimed to be a qualified planner in his Candidate Statement last year, said in that Statement that "My focus is on... neighbourhood character protection..." That was before the election which saw John Letchford the first councillor elected in the South Ward. On the other hand, at last Wednesday's Council Planning Committee meeting, Cr. Letchford said neighbourhood character is not to be slavishly followed before voting to approve an application to subdivide an acre lot in Romsey into 4 quarter acre lots in an otherwise 1 acre block neighbourhood. He said the subdivision fit with the planning scheme and referred to ResCode. He went on to say planning wasn't black and white, and needed to be interpreted. Cr. Noel Harvey also supported the application saying the four lot subdivision would actually add to the neighbourhood character and further said small lots are needed to conserve water. Cr. Helen Relph, who seems consistent in supporting small(er) lot development, said it was a great outcome for the applicant. Cr. Henry Bleeck, who also supported the proposal, felt people don't look after big blocks and this leads to land degradation. Mayor Geoff Neil almost begged his fellow Councillors to not support the application and he found support from Crs. Gyorffy, Guthrie Connor and McGregor. The application was refused on a 5/4 split.
MRRA Says:
We thought protecting neighbourhood character was a primary requirement of ResCode. MRRA can't see, and we suspect most of the people in Gisborne who voted for Cr. Letchford also won't be able to see, how creating 4 quarter acre lots in an ocean of acre lots delivers the "neighbourhood character protection" he promised. MRRA is uneasy about where Cr. Letchford is coming from. He has already said in Council chamber, in supporting subdivision of another existing residential lot in Romsey, that large lots are not sustainable. Hhmm... Is it that John just doesn't like Romsey? Does he in fact hold a different view than the one expressed in his Candidate Statement? Does he not understand what the Macedon Ranges' community values? We don't know, but we do know that larger lots are a characteristic of Macedon Ranges that residents value highly, and are a key reason why most people move here. It will be interesting to see if Cr. Letchford applies the same 'I support small lots' principle when a similar application comes in from Gisborne.
We also note that Cr. Harvey's justification for supporting the application, that of conserving water, is similar to advice given to MRRA by Western Water in 2004: e.g. units are good because they have (almost) no gardens so use less water. Has the thought occurred to anyone, as existing lots are carved up and units are jammed in, that those developments mean more people, which in itself means more demand on scarce water supplies - with or without gardens? In most parts of the Shire, we already haven't got enough to go around. As for Cr. Harvey's comment that slicing up a lot like this, in a neighbourhood like this, would add character - well, what can we say other than it seems to say it all about where Cr. Harvey is coming from. And we bet that's not the same place most residents are coming from, or want to go to.
Changed Occupational Health and Safety Laws Expose Councillors To Personal Liability
(1/3/06 - C) Yet most Macedon Ranges' Councillors seem to think it doesn't apply to them.
Is it arrogance? Blind faith? Heads in the sand? One of our recently elected Councillors happens to be a Crown Prosecutor who specializes in Occupational Health and Safety issues, and is regarded by his peers as an expert in the field. Cr. Tom Gyorffy has stressed to his fellow Councillors that they have to operate differently if they want to avoid being sued - personally - as a consequence of changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act last year. While Council has agreed to pull up a report on the subject, it steadfastly refuses to have a Councillor representative on Council's Occupational Health and Safety Committee. Most say it isn't necessary for a Councillor to be involved, leave it to the officers. Mayor Geoff Neil went so far as to suggest, when Cr Gyorffy nominated Cr. Rob Guthrie to be the Councillors' representative, that Cr. Guthrie wasn't a suitable person which caused an uproar at Council's Committee meeting last month.
Gisborne South Freeway Service Centre “Secret Deal” Proposal Made Public
(23/12/05 – P) South Ward Councillor John Letchford goes for it, then against it
MRRA was concerned when Macedon Ranges’ Council went behind closed doors at its 14th December Planning Committee meeting to discuss the Gisborne South Freeway Service Centre issue. MRRA understands a planning permit issued in 1998 for the northbound service centre has expired, and as VCAT later tied a permit issued for the southbound facility in 2003 to the northbound service centre proceeding, neither proposal seems to have a valid planning permit at this stage. The only inkling provided to what Council had discussed was when the resolution made behind closed doors was read out in open chamber: “It was moved by Cr Guthrie seconded by Cr Letchford that Council having considered the request of Phillip Bing and Associates request the Chief Executive to advise the applicants that Council has refused this request for the extension of permits P980-0712 and P202-0076.” Residents who had fought the proposals were not notified that Council was again considering the matter. However, the minutes of the 14th December meeting (now adopted by Council and available from its website) shed more light on what happened. The original motion before Council was to adopt planning officer Barry Green’s recommendation that Council AGREE to renew both permits through a consent order at VCAT. That motion was moved John Letchford, seconded Noel Harvey but lost. Cr. Letchford then seconded the motion to REFUSE. Councillors Relph (knows the applicant) and Connor (manager of a retail petrol station) declared conflicts of interest and did not vote. To see the minutes go to www.mrsc.vic.gov.au, go to Council Meetings and Strategies, Council Meetings, Minutes, 2005, Planning Committee 14 December, page 15.
Council Meetings To Be The Next “Soapie” Success?
(31/7/05 – C) Cr. Petrovich calls for costs and feasibility of video and tape recording of Council meetings
At Council’s 27/7/05 meeting, Cr. Petrovich put up a motion that the Chief Executive investigate and report on costs and feasibility of visually or audibly recording Council meetings. Cr. Guthrie seconded the motion almost before Cr. Petrovich finished speaking, and the motion was carried unanimously (Cr. Todd was absent)
MRRA Says:
Because of the unanimous way the vote went, Cr. Petrovich didn’t get to explain why she felt meetings should be recorded; her reasons would have been interesting. Nevertheless, the Association thinks Council has better things to do with its time and money than this. MRRA can only wonder if our Councillors have any idea of how their performances look from the gallery – perhaps if they saw themselves as others do, they might not have rushed in where even angels wouldn’t be tempted to tread. Still, recording the meetings would allow things currently only seen or heard by a few to have wider exposure – who works hard, who sticks up for the community and big picture, who reads their notice papers, who votes with who, who calls constant Points Of Order – you never know, these recordings might even help a Councillor prove what they did or didn’t do if, say, someone made a complaint about them. If Council does go ahead with this idea, MRRA will be first in line for copies. Mmm… We can’t wait for the ‘Best Of’ and ‘World’s Funniest’ segments, can you?
Local Resident Claims Councillor Gagged Petition Presentation
(21/7/05 – C) Or was the Councillor simply following Council meeting rules?
Local Gisborne resident Russell Mowatt has claimed in a local newspaper that Councillor Deb Dunn ‘gagged’ him at a recent Council committee meeting. Mr. Mowatt went to the Committee meeting armed with a petition carrying some 2100 signatures in support of improved transport services in the Shire. It seems however that Mr. Mowatt expected to address Council but was not allowed to do so after Cr. Dunn queried this action and called Council’s meeting rules to everyone’s attention.
MRRA Says:
The claim of ‘gagging’ isn’t really fair. Council has rules governing how meetings will be conducted, which are publicly available. What’s surprising is that Mr. Mowatt (who has run for Council several times) apparently isn’t familiar with Council’s Local Law No. 5 (Processes Of Municipal Government: Meetings And Common Seal) which says:
“100. Petitions and Joint Letters
A petition or joint letter presented to the Council must lay on the table until the next ordinary meeting of the Council and no motion, other than to receive the petition or joint letter may be accepted by the Chairperson, unless the Council agrees to deal with it earlier.”
An MRRA rep attended this meeting and saw nothing untoward in the process Council adopted. MRRA’s view is that Council has an onus to uphold its own rules, and the same rules should be applied to everyone. That’s what seems to have happened on the night in question.
Council Almost Goes With Another ‘Exceptional’ Decision
(16/5/05 – P) On one of the rare occasions when our planning scheme says ‘must’, four Councillors seemed to think it wasn’t right.
Cr. Rob Guthrie’s arguments that Council not refuse an application for a two lot ‘battleaxe’ subdivision in Emmaline Vale Estate, Gisborne, certainly surprised some people at Council’s 11th May planning committee meeting. The Council officer’s report recommended refusal because the application didn’t meet planning scheme requirements. Key issues were that the property has insufficient frontage to allow further subdivision to be considered, and that the proposal used an ‘artificial contrivance’ to try to overcome this. Cr. Guthrie, noted for exhorting his fellow councillors to stick with what the planning scheme says, disagreed with the officer’s recommendation and instead moved that further discussions be held with the applicants to attempt to achieve a better planning outcome, and to try to resolve the frontage issue. The application proposed including a sliver of land from an adjoining property to meet frontage requirements; however there is a Section 173 agreement on the adjoining land regulating further subdivision. Crs. Relph, Bleeck and Evans supported Cr. Guthrie. Crs. Petrovich, Dunn, Todd and Gee supported the Officer’s recommendation for refusal arguing the proposal would produce an inappropriate outcome and/or was not able to proceed under the planning scheme’s controls. Cr. Gee, as Acting Mayor (Cr. Connor was absent), cast the deciding vote for refusal after also arguing that the proposal, on the escarpment of Jacksons Creek, wasn’t compatible with Council’s ridgeline policy.
Our Councillors: Do Recent Performances Signal A Return To The ‘Bad Old Days’?
(21/3/05 - C) Whose interests are our Councillors representing these days? ‘Spot’ planning scheme amendments, block voting, suspect subdivision proposals, planning scheme ignored. Is it just a touch of bad karma, or is there an election around the corner?
MRRA representatives who attended the last two Council planning committee meetings are deeply concerned at the way some of our Councillors are behaving, ‘back-flipping’ on good planning and on protecting Macedon Ranges. Can you remember the 2003 Council election (and recent by-elections) when candidates (now Councillors) pledged to defend your lifestyles and our environment? Remember last July when our Councillors unanimously called on the State government to protect Macedon Ranges? Some seem to have very short memories indeed.
A five to three voting ‘block’ emerged at the March 9th Planning Committee meeting (Cr. Bleeck was absent). The ‘Five’, Councillors Connor, Evans, Gee, Petrovich and Relph, voted together for most of the night, leaving Councillors Dunn, Guthrie and Todd as the ‘Three’. Cr. Petrovich took a leading role, moving or seconding motions on several items. She moved the motion to approve another * site-specific amendment, this one to assist private school, Braemar, expand its facilities into a maximum conservation area on the Woodend side of Mount Macedon. The amendment involves a 3 lot subdivision which the planning scheme doesn’t allow, and rezoning one of the new lots which would allow the Braemar site to be developed without the need for a planning permit. NB Cr. Petrovich declared an interest in this item – she is a Fellow of Braemar College Ltd.
* A site-specific amendment was also before Council at the February planning committee meeting. It proposed rezoning Rural zoned land on Slatey Creek, Woodend to Residential to allow an Aged Care facility to proceed. Crs. Dunn, Gee, Guthrie, Todd and Relph moved that more information be sought. The amendment now appears to be in difficulty as the site is a floodway. Another application for an amendment currently under consideration is to rezone the existing Business 3 zone at 14 – 22 Sutherlands Road, Riddells Creek to a Residential zone before work starts on an Outline Development Plan to decide the town’s future. Yet another amendment, C40, which has been exhibited and has attracted residents’ objections, proposes to rezone Rural zoned land next to the freeway in North Woodend to a Public Use zone for a Council waste disposal facility and if successful, will allow development of the land without needing a planning permit.
MRRA says:
Where are our Councillors going? What happened to their commitment to protect what’s important in Macedon Ranges, to listen to and represent the wider community? Why indulge in the worst type of planning: “anything, anywhere – the end justifies the means”?
MRRA has supported this Council and would like to continue to do so, but not if Councillors go back to the ‘bad old days’ and behave as our previous Council did. Macedon Ranges has a document called a planning scheme and, even though it’s incomplete, it is legally binding. Councillors can’t be forced to read it, but they are required by law to uphold it. Changing the planning scheme at whim and approving development because ‘they’re nice people’ or it’s a ‘good idea’ or ‘what someone wants’ isn’t strategic; it isn’t even planning.
The wider Macedon Ranges’ community is passionate about this place and wants Councillors who care. Consistency, like charity, has to start at home. There’s no point calling on the State government to protect Macedon Ranges if our Councillors won’t.
Bad planning was a feature of our previous Council and it contributed to the defeat of five sitting Councillors in 2003. With a Council election coming up in November, MRRA asks our Councillors to think about whether they can lift their game. What’s happening at the moment isn’t impressive, and seems to be more about power and politics than our planning scheme or what’s in the best long-term interests of the wider community and Macedon Ranges’ environment.
The Association will be actively encouraging residents to attend Council and Committee meetings to judge Councillors’ (candidates’?) performances for themselves. The view that residents form will, of course, depend upon what they see. The Association will also adopt a watching brief and report its findings back to the community. We sincerely hope our reports can be positive ones.
What You Can Do
Attend Council and Committee meetings and form your own view on how Council is performing. (For Council meeting dates and times, call Council (5422 6999) or check Council’s web-site: www.mrsc.vic.gov.au).
Tell your Councillors how you feel about how they perform.
Express your views in letters to local papers