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 13th 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:
- 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?
- Were ALL councillors consulted/informed that this was to happen?
- 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!!
Glen Eira Debates 
November 30, 2010 at 11:20 AM
I’ll lay you odds that this is the brainchild of Newton. It simply reeks with all his fingerprints and past tactics. Sideline possible opposition – Penhalluriack, Forge in particular – then shunt everything onto the ‘gang of four’ and hey presto – you’ve got what you want. Machiavelli would be mighty proud of you Newton. Oh, and as for us poor slobs, who gives a damn! It’s legal you morons he says! You can’t touch me. Yup, this is openness, transparency, and democracy at work. Take a bow Andrew. You’re a master at it!
November 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM
Forgot something important. In the world of political and bureaucratic chicanery, timing is everything. The special committee meeting happens before the last council meeting. Meaning that any motion put at the council meeting is too late – the c60 has already come and gone!! smart, smart, smart! Wonder why the meeting couldn’t be set for Wednesday say? Then there is the other reason that December 13th is so close to xmas that it’s ideal for something as contentious as the c60. Yup, let’s wait til everyone is almost on holidays, or fed up with council stuff, or don’t read the papers, didn’t get the letter and even if there is a bit of a stink council don’t meet again until February. Superb tactical planning Newton. Again, the master shows his true skills!
November 30, 2010 at 11:35 AM
For how much longer will councillors allow this travesty to keep going on? Each time I read a new post on this blog I come to the same conclusion – Newton is no good for this council. Time after time the same issues come up about who did what, when, and who knew about it. Minutes aren’t published correctly, decisions are secret, discussions are secret, and nothing but nothing is out in the oopen where it should be. It is clear that under his stewardship ethics and proper process have been ditched out the window. If he is not directly responsible, then those under him are. But he must carry the load – the buck stops with him. Get rid of him now – sack him. Pay him out whatever it costs. This will be miniscule compared to the overall costs to the community.
November 30, 2010 at 12:11 PM
The meeting must be halted and the committee disbanded. I do not want 4 people voting on something that is likely to affect me and my family for the rest of our lives. I don’t give a damn about Winky Pop. What I do care about is the way this whole process has been deliberately skewed and engineered to end up like this.
A new government is in so its possible to get things changed. Get off your backsides councillors and for once do something that really supports those people who depend on you. If you allow this to go on then you will have a revolution on your hands
November 30, 2010 at 1:55 PM
This comment by ‘flathead’ went up on the Huppert post. We believe it also belongs here:
Jennifer Huppert, in her election eve reply, has deliberately misread the signs she speaks of as being displayed around the racecourse. Some signs do in fact say sunrise to sunset but in fact they also say they open at 9.30 and close between 2.00p.m. and 4.30p.m.Effectively in winter this means that some of the access is only for 5 and half hours a day in winter.
She did not try walking through the tunnels by herself did she? Was it welcoming and was the gate at the track end of the station tunnel locked when she almost reached her destination and be forced to retrace her steps in this dispicable means of entry to the park. Did she miss the signs which told hopeful park users that the station entry was locked for about thirty days for Caulfield Cup Carnival preparations. There were only three race days but the gae closed for about thirty days… can you explain Ms Huppert?
2 Ther has been no agreement whatsoever with MRC and GE City Council.
3 The new park as we see it is only a further MRC LAND GRAB for cement roads and car parking for the mMRC partons on up to 363 days a year. From the miniscule plans there appears to be a small car park for residents and a larger on for MRC patrons whether they be at a raceday or major event (up to 363 days a year) all around one of the lakes I guess it owould be a hundred or so cars. what abour a space efor ball. Other parts of the plan are for a concrete road for MRC service vehicles… why couldn’t some of the other hard surfaces be used Jennifer? Would this be for a helipad or something like that?
4 The application also included the idea of a horse warm up area surrounded by a 2.1 metre black chain mesh fence with added obsure material to be chosen after consultation with trainers so as horses will have their sights limited to the surrounds of the other lake until 9.30 every day!!! Now on the topic of fences Ms HUPPERT WHEN YOU ADD UP THE LENGTH OF ALL THE FENCES PLANNED THERIN (THE CENTRE OF THE RACECOURSE) THERE WILL BE NO REAL OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTS CAGED UP IN BOX FLATS TO BE FREE OF RESTRICTIVE VISION.
5We call on you to influence the MRC to re-instate the bitumen pathways which enabled residents to cross the said land day and night and to re-instate the simple street lights which showed the way along the path in the evening.
6 We call on all politicians to take steps to enable residents to be able to play ball in this 54 hectare area and for the construction of a gravel walking/bike track around the outside of the main track.
7 Ms Huppert use your influence, do not be put off by suggestions of frightening horses as the MRC sub-let the racecourse as a helipad earlier this month
for a helicopter passenger service which was in service for four days for about twelve hours on some of the days!! Yet another form of pandering to the rich and famous in our community.
November 30, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Finally got hold of the leader and it tells me exactly where the priorities of this council lie. The announcement of the meeting is one column wide and about three inches long. There’s another announcement concerning the selling off of land. That is two columns wide and I’d estimate a good third of the page overall.
November 30, 2010 at 2:39 PM
Even the dog notice is bigger than the C60 meeting!
November 30, 2010 at 4:08 PM
I would like to take another tack on this issue and would be grateful if people could correct me if I’m wrong. The Winky Pop issue is at the centre of all of this I think. It would thus be good if we had clear guidelines and a comprehensive understanding of its implications. I want to know first of all who decides when someone is winky popped? If it’s the councillor themselves then how are they to know that they can’t change their minds if they are not presented with all the evidence? The way it stands now, they eliminate themselves before discussion even takes place. This just simply doesn’t make sense. On the other hand if it’s the administration that determines a councillor is winky popped, then the avenues for abuse are enormous. I would really like this council to hire someone like Julian Burnside QC and get to the bottom of it all. If council doesn’t bat any eye to spend $40,000 plus on the reappointment of the CEO, then I argue that they can spend even this amount to settle the issues surrounding winky pop and the racecourse.
November 30, 2010 at 4:36 PM
I agree with D.Evans comment and would like to also take it a step further. We should remember that the Victorian Labor government proposed legislation claimed to clarify the Winky Pop principles under The Local Government Amendment (Councillor Conduct and Other Matters) Bill 2008. The Liberals voted against this bill citing that just because someone writes a submission on an issue such as the racecourse, they should not be excluded from voting on the issue. Fortunately the Greens agreed and it was not passed. How can we make a decision now in light of the Liberals controlling both houses? Again defer the special committee meeting now or risk defending a long drawn out legal action by residents (much more likely than one by the MRC) – how would that look?
November 30, 2010 at 7:17 PM
None of this should be rocket science. The crux of everything is how these councillors have allowed themselves to be duped into granting delegation powers for almost everything that goes on in this council. Obviously this is needed to do the humdrum. But not for such important stuff as the racecourse and general planning. Look at the delegations under the Planning Acts and you’ll see why so few applications acctually hit chamber floors. The terminology is so vague that you could drive a truck through most of it. Couple these with handing power over to officers and then you’re really stuffed. Nothing practically gets to councillors.
If councillors are serious about representing their constituents and really doing their job then they must reassert the power that is granted them by legislation. This means examining and changing a vast majority of the delegated powers that currently exist.
November 30, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Section 80 of the Local Government Act, 1989 states:
a Council may apply, in writing, to the Minister for an exemption of
any Councillor from any or all of the provisions of section 79 if the
Council is of the opinion that the transaction of any Council or
special committee business would be impeded because of the number of
Councillors affected by section 79;
(b) a Chief Executive Officer of a Council may apply, in writing, to the
Minister, after receiving written declarations of conflicts of
interest from a majority of Councillors, for an exemption of those
Councillors from any or all of the provisions of section 79.
(1A) After reviewing an application received from a Council or a Chief
Executive Officer, the Minister may require the Council or Chief Executive
Officer to provide additional information in respect of the application,
including copies of the written declarations of conflicts of interests made by
Councillors under section 79.
(1B) In considering an application made by a Council or Chief Executive
Officer, the Minister must have regard to-
(a) the extent of the conflicts of interest of the Councillors; and
(b) the public interest.
(2) The Minister may, after considering an application under subsection (1B),
exempt in writing a Councillor from any or all of the provisions of section 79
for an unlimited or specified period, subject to any conditions the Minister
thinks fit.
For good measure, there’s also section 77A(4) –
A relevant person does not have a conflict of interest in a matter if the
direct interest or indirect interest of the relevant person is so remote or
insignificant that the direct interest or indirect interest could not
reasonably be regarded as capable of influencing any actions or decisions of
the relevant person in relation to the matter.
(5) A relevant person does not have a conflict of interest in a matter if the
direct interest or indirect interest the relevant person holds-
(a) is held as a resident, ratepayer or voter and does not exceed the
interests generally held by other residents, ratepayers or voters; or
(b) is held in common with a large class of persons and does not exceed
the interests generally held by the class of persons.
Has this been considered by Council? If all else fails, here is the seemingly perfect opportunity to overturn the winky pop exclusions. If the racecourse is not in the ‘public interest’ – then nothing will ever be! And how does any ‘interest’ exceed the ‘normal’ interests of other residents, ratepayers, etc.?
December 1, 2010 at 11:44 PM
I suggest that everybody interested in C60 or the planning application for the centre of the ground to submit an objection. Then at least you can be a party should the matter go to VCAT (and if the applicant doesn’t get what they want it will certainly go to VCAT ). It’ll be interesting to see whether the election has any effect on VCAT too. Traditionally they have been very pro-development, to the extent that they waive most non-compliances with Rescode, and don’t insist on information required by the Planning Scheme being provided.
December 2, 2010 at 8:01 AM
Reprobate, what if I am interest in C60 but support it – should I lodge an objection? Or is this blog only for opponents of everything to do with Glen Eira rather than real debate?
December 2, 2010 at 4:02 PM
I suspect these questions were intended rhetorically. However the Planning and Environment Acts covers the first, and the moderators here have made clear they welcome contributions, debate, and differences of opinion. It is an empirical fact that many of the posts here have an anti-Glen Eira Council flavour, which could be a reflection of the number of people Council has pissed off, and who have in the past lacked an effective forum.