Glen Eira Debates

This email and an attachment arrived this morning:

Dear Gleneira Debates,
 
I just read your entry on the middle of the Racecourse and I am appalled at the way such a Public issue is being handled. But then I am not surprised at that.
 
I am attaching Council’s letter of 22 November about changes of the road arrangements on Glenhuntly Rd cnr Manchester Gve. The letter invites comments by 7 December. I am a trader nearby and really do not have time for writing and commenting on such a complex in my view issue. The corner has Safeway with 20,000 visitors per week and a 4 storey building being built on the corner. Again there will be a huge influx of cars and people using Public Transport.
 
This is a Public Realm issue and should have a meeting of residents and users of the area. The traders should be invited to a presentation and verbal detailed explanation not just a drawing, which may or may not be understood. The issue of Parking is also briefly mentioned, but my impression is that it is a fait accompli.
 
This may be a disaster intersection, since future traffic flows are not being accounted for.
 
It’s clear that the Engagement process and communication to the Public is unsatisfactory. I just wonder if the changes were simply done on behest of the 2 stakeholders: Safeway and the Developer without any reference to the Public. I also wonder if Councillors themselves know anything about these changes.
 
Could you please alert your readers and the Public of this project.
 
Unhappy Trader

JamesGlenhuntlyCrossRoads.[1]

Today’s Glen Eira Council advertisement in the Caulfield Leader. We quote:

Notice is given pursuant to Section 89(4) of the Local Government Act, 1989 that a meeting of Glen Eira City Council’s Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee will be held on Monday 13^th December 2010 in the Council Chamber, corner of Hawthorn and Glen Eira Roads, Caulfield, commencing at 7pm.

The business to be transacted at this meeting will be

• Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) Planning Scheme Amendment (C60) – to consider either approval (adoption) or abandonment of the amendment and
• Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) – to consider a planning application for works in the centre of the reserve (the construction of a car parking area, amenities, playground equipment, and sport/fitness equipment).

We have major concerns with this announcement which we believe amounts to an attempt by this administration to ram through an unpopular option as quickly and quietly as possible. We demand answers to the following:

1. Up until now the centre of the racecourse has been treated by Council as a ‘normal’ planning application. Suddenly it has become the domain of a Special Committee with delegated powers. Why is this application removed from an open council meeting?
2. Were ALL councillors consulted/informed that this was to happen?
3. The size of the advertisement is a further indictment on this Council and its genuine attempt to engage and inform the community. When half page ads can be taken out to promote ‘concerts’, then surely a half page ad –  at least –  can be taken out to inform residents of the most significant planning issue that has confronted the municipality!! We conclude that the intention remains – the less people know, the better!!

Several posts ago we brought up the issue of the ‘exchange of land’ involving the Coatesville Tennis Club. We cited what Magee had said in council meeting – namely that the intention was merely to develop the area to accommodate disabled players PLUS: “to put in some new courts which council has already agreed to help them…and also by giving over the land adjacent to the tennis courts, council land,…increase the footprint of the tennis courts ..and in return council will pick up the two tennis courts now in Mackie reserve. …. the club has been informed this week that the state government will be looking very favourably on matching council’s contribution …so I recommend this as a first step to our colleagues…..”

We also questioned when, how, and by whom the decision for the above had taken place. Nothing has occurred in an open council meeting! Nothing has been voted on as far as we can tell in an open council meeting! Nothing has been itemised for ‘in camera’ discussions –  as far as we can tell.

What we do know however, is that on September 1^st, 2009 the following Request for a Report was made –

Crs Magee/Hyams

That a report be prepared on the feasibility of relocating the two tennis courts on Mackie Reserve in East Bentleigh to 31 Orange Street in East Bentleigh. 

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

NO SUCH REPORT HAS BEEN TABLED AT COUNCIL MEETING! It appears that once again decisions are far from transparent and public. That requests for a report are meaningless exercises since they are never tabled, and perhaps never see the light of day. We again offer our pages to Jim Magee and/or Jamie Hyams, in order to explain what appear to be extraordinary circumstances that leave us befuddled, bemused, and suspicious!!!!!

Because nothing is out in the open, we are left to merely conjecture, to try and piece one and two together. Our conclusions are depressingly always the same: decisions keep being made behind closed doors against the spirit of Section 3C of the Local Government Act which, we remind readers, was the favourite lament of the Muncipal Inspector!

Council’s letter announcing the Special Meeting of the Racecourse Precinct Committee contained the following information:

• Purpose was to consider the rezoning amendment
• To ‘facilitate retail and residential development’
• Agendas would be available at libraries, website, on the Friday preceding the Monday 13^th meeting

One sentence in particular stood out: ‘You will not have the opportunity to address the council meeting’. The letter was signed by Susan Ross, Strategic Planner.

The results of Saturday’s election however, have cast an entirely different complexion on the issue. We cite a recently received comment from ‘Curious’ – “What an incredible result we got in Victoria. And the unnecessary spend and/or waste and/or lack of services clearly were the key factors in delivering the Government to Ted Bailliue Liberals. But the most surprising outcome is the result in Bentleigh, where Rob Hudson was rolled. I reckon that the unnecessary and therefore quite wasteful spend on GESAC, which attracted lots of money from Labour Governments has became a negative for Rob Hudson.

I think there is a lesson in that for the Glen Eira Council. Do not ignore community views! They were clearly not acceptable by many! The full impact of this huge GESAC project is yet to be revealed. And we are still to see how the issue of Caulfield Racecourse Recreation Public Ground and Public Park issue is going to be resolved by the Ted Baillieu Government? CONGRATULATIONS TO DAVID SOUTHWICK, ELIZABETH MILLER AND TED BAILLIEU FOR A STUNNING SUCCESS.”

What we now have is an entirely new ball game. Madden is gone, Southwick has declared his support for appropriate development of the Racecourse and surrounding precincts and Miller will follow suit. Even Huppert in her response to our questions laid the blame at Council’s doorstep! Now is the time for concerted opposition to Council’s inertia, and neglect of community opinion. Their latest effort in denying residents the opportunity to address the December 13^th meeting must be challenged. Councillors must be made acutely aware that ‘a new age’ has dawned and their days of rubber stamping of administrative proposals is a thing of the past. We urge all residents to:

• Email the mayor demanding your right to address Council
• When your request is denied, inundate the wider media, parliamentarians, neighbours and friends with your disgust
• Highlight again and again how the community is being effectively muzzled by the ‘gang of four’ and how undemocratic and anti-community this is
• Demand the suspension of this meeting

Any other suggestions, thoughts, comments by readers are most welcome.

Item 9.15 of last week’s meeting contains council’s response to the Municipal Inspector’s recommendations. Many of the points made relate to ‘accuracy of minutes’. It is thus astounding that the minutes which were published on Friday contain two glaring errors –

• There is no mention of Cr. Penhalluriack’s dissent. He unequivocally stated that he wished this to be recorded in the minutes
• The failure to include part of a question to Cr. Lipshutz which asked him whether he was the author of the email

 The failure to include both of these events in the minutes is the result of either incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to keep the wider community ill informed of what happens at council meetings. Since these minutes thereby become the ‘public record’ held for posterity, it represents a complete rewriting of history and is nothing short of a major ‘cover up’ if allowed to stand.

If these omissions are the result of incompetence, then the individual responsible should be called to account. We find it difficult to accept this notion however, since we believe that prior to material being disseminated it would have been checked by fairly ‘high level’ individuals.

Once again, we can only conclude that the inspector’s report, and council’s response to these recommendations remain shallow words, rather than real commitment to openness and transparency. Finally, we also point out that council is spending further money to hire a so-called ‘independent note-taker’!!! We now have ratepayers funds being used for ‘note-taking’ and ‘retraining’. How much is this costing councillors?

The following public question was directed to Lipshutz. It relates to the Frisbee Affair, which we have previously reported upon. To refresh readers’ memories the issues revolve around:

• An ‘unauthorised sporting group’ regularly playing Frisbee without a permit
• Lipshutz’s son is/was one of the Frisbee players
• This Frisbee group has never been fined in contrast to a social soccer group and one of its members
• The soccer group has repeatedly asked public questions as to why there does not appear to be equal treatment for all and concludes that this is because of both Tang and Lipshutz’s ‘relationships’ with the Frisbee group

The question asked Lipshutz whether he had written the following, obtained under FOI  –

“My son has reported that he and his friends were approached by a Council officer on Friday and warned off playing Frisbee in Caulfield Park (the Lacrosse oval). I am advised that there is a regular Friday afternoon Frisbee game which is not organised and basically anyone can turn up. I consider it a bit rich to prevent a bunch of kids playing Frisbee. My son says that they play on that oval as all the other ovals are being used for cricket. Could you please look into this for me. Were the matter to be reported in The Leader I think we would look a little ridiculous.” (our emphases) 

The answer was ‘yes’!!!!!!!

Readers may also find it interesting that the Local Government Act, 1989 specifically states under Section 76E –

 “A councillor must not improperly direct, or improperly influence, or seek to improperly direct or improperly influence, a member of Council Staff in the exercise of any power or in the performance of any duty or function by the member.”

Response to questions regarding Caulfield Racecourse

1.      Immediate public access to the middle of the racecourse

Members of the public currently have access to the middle of the racecourse everyday between 9.30am and sunset, other than on race days and when there are major events. The hours of access are readily available on signs located at various points around the racecourse perimeter.

2.         Development as a public recreation ground and public park

Following discussions which I convened between Glen Eira City Council and the Melbourne Racing Club, agreement has been reached regarding development of new recreational facilities within the centre of the racecourse, as well as improved access and extended hours of access.

Plans for the works have been submitted to Council for a permit, and I look forward to the works being completed in early 2011.

3.      Appropriate development of Caulfield Village

The Melbourne Racing Club is seeking the rezoning of land between the Racecourse and the Railway Line. This is a matter for Glen Eira City Council, and not the State Government. The Liberal candidate for Caulfield appears not to understand the planning laws, which provide that rezoning decisions are determined by local government.

4.      Development as a major transport hub

Metro are investing in a new café at Caulfield station as part of their plan to turn stations into community hubs. Caulfield is very well served by public transport with the station located on the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines and a number of trams and local bus routes.

5.      Involvement of local and wider community together with stakeholders at each step of development

In relation to the proposed development known as Caulfield Village, members of the public have had the opportunity to have input into the planning scheme amendment process. In relation to use of the racecourse, Melbourne Racing Club recently held a public meeting regarding the plans for the new recreational facilities in the centre of the Racecourse. I .encourage both Council and the MRC to continue to keep residents and stakeholders involved in the planning for the precinct in the future.

We received the following comment from a reader and wish to highlight it in a separate post. It reads:

“Received notification of a caulfield racecourse precinct special committee meeting on Monday 13th December 2010 at 7pm at the town hall. It states you will not be allowed to address the meeting or ask questions. Obviously the decision has been made by the gang of four. Heaven help us all.”

As per usual, nothing is up on Council website, so we would appreciate it if readers could please send us a copy  – gedebates@gmail.com

As a result of the almost deafening silence on the Caulfield Racecourse issue from candidates in Saturday’s election, we’ve compiled the following table listing their details. Contact them, ask your questions, and get some answers!

It seems that at last night’s Council meeting, Jim Magee may have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag, and thereby provided the community with solid evidence that decisions are not made in open council, but behind the closed doors of Assembly of councillors, briefing meetings, or perhaps even little tete a tetes between certain councillors and administrators. We have also learnt that Jim Magee almost religiously spends two hours each morning sitting in directors’ offices and having what we presume is a ‘pow-wow’. Nothing wrong with this, of course, but it all depends on what is being discussed.

Last night when moving the motion on the Coatesville tennis club ‘renovations’ Magee informed council that the tennis club was merely making some additions such as ‘renovation to their toilets’ since they had been trying to get a program for disabled players up and running and that this was the first stage to accommodate that. Magee then went on to state that the club also intends

“to put in some new courts which council has already agreed to help them…and also by giving over the land adjacent to the tennis courts, council land,…increase the footprint of the tennis courts ..and in return council will pick up the two tennis courts now in Mackie reserve. …. the club has been informed this week that the state government will be looking very favourably on matching council’s contribution …so I recommend this as a first step to our colleagues…..”

Readers should note the following:

1. Officers’ reports on this Agenda Item contain no mention of this ‘land swap’; nor do they contain information about the ‘enlarged footprint’.
2. In camera items for the past year contain no reference to this ‘land swap; – hence if it was discussed as an in camera item, then Magee is breaking this confidentiality it seems. If discussed as part of an Assembly of Councillors, then why is Magee speaking as if a DECISION has already been made? Assembly of councillors are expressly forbidden to make decisions that should come before Council.
3. The Local Govt Act requires that all sale OR EXCHANGE OF LAND be announced via public notice and that Section 223 apply.
4. The 2010/11 budget contain no mention of any ‘council contribution’ or notation that ‘council has already agreed to help them’ financially.
5. So, where, when and by whom was this decision to EXCHANGE LAND made? Where, when and by whom was the decision made TO HELP the club?

Please note we are not arguing the validity or otherwise of this tennis club’s case. What we are questioning again and again are the fundamental issues of GOVERNANCE, CORRECT PROCESS AND TRANSPARENCY. We welcome Jim Magee’s response to these questions!