Tonight’s Special Committee Meeting (Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Lipshutz) decided unanimously to ‘delay’ consideration of the C60 Amendment and the centre of the racecourse planning application. Moved by Lipshutz, who occupied the chair, council will now call for ‘community comment’ on both issues. Objectors will be given 3 minutes each to address council – at a date yet to be determined.
Ostensibly, some may see this as a ‘victory’ for residents. We however, are less assured of the possible outcome. Nothing has been ventured except the belated recognition that this is an important issue, and the community should be heard. We say, about bloody time! Why hasn’t this occurred months and months ago?
More to the point however, what occurred tonight was another example of politics, in all its glory. Under the rubric of ‘let’s listen to the people’, councillors neatly avoided the reality of the situation – ie a new government and the imponderables that this represents!! So it makes us fairly suspicious as to the eventual outcomes. Residents will have their 3 minutes in the spotlight; councillors claim they will listen, BUT WILL THEY ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESIDENTS’ WISHES? We’ve heard it all before – listen and then ignore!
Below are some highlights – Please note the flood of weasel words!
Lipshutz: The issue ‘is so important to the City…sea change in the way we look at the Racecourse precinct and as such it is appropriate that everyone has a right to speak and to address the committee…..there have been so many submissions already…in terms of written submissions….that the community to have a say and that hasn’t happened’. ….it is appropriate by deferring this to another day everyone can have a chance to speak…..I myself have concerns. People have rung me…..parking……I don’t think it’s fair or right that four councillors make the decision……everyone (should have) the opportunity to express their views……special thanks to Cr. Penhalluriack and Cr. Forge…..(they) have given a great deal of thought
HYAMS: Agreed with Lipshutz; also commented that since the agenda went out on Friday and the meeting is on Monday, that not enough time to digest the complexity of the amendment. People haven’t had ‘a chance to consider it and get back to us….Officers have done a lot of work in negotiating with the MRC …it can also be argued that there is a lot more work to be done….one word of caution when you address council….you’ll have three minutes …we could have three hours if everyone speaks for three minutes so I suggest when you address us….stick to planning issues rather than issues about the use of the racecourse…they are issues which raise passions but don’t relate to whether we approve c60 or not. So when you do speak to us I want to hear what people have to say about this particular planning issue
PILLING: quite prudent for such a huge development to take the time to consider …I would like better clarifications of the displacement of car parking….and clarification about the height of the development….
ESAKOFF: Apologised for not being able to attend the original planning meeting but said ‘that it would be very helpful to us to hear directly’ from the people
LIPSHUTZ: ‘everyone’s heard loud and clear the view of the committee’. Lipshutz then stated he would stop people if their points were repeated…’it has as much weight if you say it once as if you say it ten times’….There are many good aspects of the’ amendment….
So Dear Readers, the decision is yours! Do we believe these councillors when they say they really and truly want to hear what people have to say? Do we believe that anything will be achieved by twenty or thirty people voicing the same objections that they put in writing a few months back? Do we believe that this delay has anything to do with ‘democracy’ at Glen Eira, or more to the point, a change of government and the limbo that has thus been created? And what does this say about council’s claims of having already conducted ‘extensive consultation’ on this issue? Sincere, or just plenty more weasel words? Over to you folks!
Glen Eira Debates 
December 13, 2010 at 9:17 PM
Where was Newton? Off sulking or planning the next step.
December 13, 2010 at 10:04 PM
Newton was absent. Note: no ‘conflict of interest’ declaration from anyone.
December 13, 2010 at 10:01 PM
I am really Cutious to know who is fooling whom?
Delay is a good thing to have if a positive, improved outcome can result. In defense of those 4 Councillors on the Special Committee they are there to make a decision. They made one so that there is more time for people to deliberate and provide valid arguments. I wish that there would be more facts and figures than words, which need to be interpreted, re-interpreted and argued with “professionsls”. In the end we end up just arguing for arguing sake. This is not planning.
Here is one fact, which sticks out like a sore thumb. The Caulfield Village (Amendment C60) deals with 10 hectares. The middle of the Racecourse parking issue, which is tangentially related to the Caaulfield Village development is part of over 60 hectares. Add to that Monash Uni area development, other parts of Phoenix Precinct, East Cauilfield and its neighbouring lands with Caulfield Station transport hub makes for over 100 hectares of Prime and Crown land. This is huge and should be properly planned and considered as part of Council’s role as a Planning Authority.
Instead, we are presented with ‘Building and Works’ projects like the Grandstand and Car Park, or private land, where there is no need for strategic planning or consultation! MRC together with the Officers deliberately reduce the whole issue to just Private Developers concern. Reason, Glen Eira Council does not do any planning as a Planning Authority as it is required to do, but simply adjudicates individual Planning Applications as a Responsible Authority. This is very, very clever stuff to ensure that concerned residents and ratepayers have very little chance to influence decision makers, be they Officers or Councillors.
I pity Councillors their total impotence to actually make a difference for the community they represent, when dealing with such clever Officers . They are clearly powerless. They can change the ‘minutae’, but not the direction.
December 13, 2010 at 10:45 PM
Your comments Curious, have really got me thinking about the difference between a Planning Authority and a Responsible Authority. I’ve subsequently gone to the MAV website and located this interpretation –
“The Planning and Environment Act 1987, (the Act) is the legislative basis of Victoria’s planning system.
Local government’s role in carrying out its functions, as council has two roles:
As the ‘planning authority’, a council sets strategic policy framework for its municipality and initiates change to the planning scheme
As the responsible authority, a council administers the planning scheme for its municipality and makes decisions on individual applications for a planning permit”.
Council did not officially initiate anything with C60. It was at the request of the MRC. Nor does there appear to be a strategic plan that is worthy of this name for any of the racecourse land, or Monash uni sites. Curious is 100% correct in his assessment. Glen Eira, and its councillors, function merely as ‘responsible authority’ – looking after kids playgrounds in the centre of the racecourse, and fitness equipment. It’s a ludicrous situation, especially when upon re-reading the C60 officers report I came across these incredible paragraph:
“Council as Planning Authority
It is important to note that consideration of this report has two distinct aspects namely,
• Council’s role as a Planning Authority to consider the merits of Amendment C60;
and
• Council’s role as a Local Government in advocating on community issues such as the use of the centre of the Racecourse as public open space.
Council is the Planning Authority for the predominately freehold MRC land which is the subject of Amendment C60. Council has a clear and legitimate role in ensuring
appropriate zoning and future land uses for the Amendment C60 site.
MRC envisaged development on the Amendment C60 site is extensive. So extensive,that the proposed development will have off-site consequences on needed infrastructure
treatments. These needed infrastructure requirements can legitimately be managed by use of a Section 173 agreement. Such an agreement is the correct way of ensuring the
MRC properly fund future necessary infrastructure off the Amendment C60 site and not the ratepayers of Glen Eira.
The Racecourse has been linked by some parties through the amendment process to Amendment C60 itself. The Racecourse offers off-street car parking for possible “displaced” car parking from the Amendment C60 site. Similarly (when not being used for car parking) the Racecourse offers opportunities for public open space.
From a town planning perspective the issue of “displaced” car parking does have relevance. It is apparent that the centre of the Racecourse can lawfully cater for displaced car parking. It is not a town planning issue whether or not the centre of the Racecourse is Crown land and whether or not this will adversely impact the community’s
use of the land for open space purposes. These may be issues for Council from a point of view of Council promoting community interests but not for Council in its role as the Planning Authority”.
Reading this, I’m really concerned at the deliberate attempt to obfuscate the difference between the roles of planning authority and responsible authority. If correct strategic planning was in place, then there would not be any concern about ‘off site’ consequences – the MRC plan would have legitimately been rejected on responsible authority grounds. The other point I’m making is the distinct impression, as Curious states, that everything, from go to woe has been carefully orchestrated, directed, and manipulated to reach this state.
December 13, 2010 at 10:48 PM
curious, there is a solution. Sack Newton, sack Akehurst, and sack Burke. Then get down to real planning. Rescind the current planning scheme, remodel, rehash, redo (with direct community input). This takes nous, and courage which doesn’t seem in abundant supply amonst our councillors – especially the gang of four!
December 13, 2010 at 11:04 PM
What will be fascinating tomorrow night is to see what happens with the Station St. application for the 5 storey development. The officers’ report (apart from the inherent contradictions regarding ResCode applicability) is founded almost 100% on the C60 being passed. Since this is still in abeyance, then it is incomprehensible to us how this application can even be considered. It also must be delayed/deferred if this council is consistent and follows logic. That could be asking a lot however!!
December 13, 2010 at 11:15 PM
Both Penhalluriack and Forge deserve some credit here. Without their intensive lobbying, I’m sure that the C60 and the Racecourse would have been voted in by now. Maybe it’s only forestalled what will happen in february or March, but at least they’ve shown that they can’t be ridden roughshod over. It’s just a great pity that the other councillors have to be dragged screaming to this point of view. This little episode is only the opening skirmish. The war has yet to be won and it won’t be won until councillors decide that they are in charge and not Newton and Burke
December 14, 2010 at 12:04 AM
You’ve read my mind gedebates. Sitting there, all I could think of is why aren’t we being told the truth. Honestly, do councillors really think we’re all so stupid as to believe their snivelling and grovelling to the gallery is genuine? I would have been much more impressed if at least someone got up and told the truth; that no-one knows what’s going to happen with the new Minister, or with Soutwick who has already declared his opposition. That would have been honest and gone down heaps better than this sudden concern with giving the people a voice. Baloney! And Lipshutz looked like the cat with the cream – loving being up in the mayor’s chair looking down on everyone. Yuk!! But he and Hyams just couldn’t help themselves. The little warnings to how people should address council. Talk about pre-empting discussion. People should say what they damn well think – not what councillors want them to say. Arrogance once again and shows how little this mob really understands about the people they’re meant to represent. The only good bit was that we didn’t have to listen to the verbal diarrhea of Tang!
December 14, 2010 at 7:49 AM
well, well, well, how true it is. ‘businesses do not plan to fail, they fail to plan’. to paraphrase that ‘glen eira does not plan to fail (plenty of awards demonstrate that), glen eira just fails to plan’. to ensure long term and strategic planning is the primary function of councillors. actual long term and strategic planning must be carried out by the top managers and the ceo. so, who is to blame?! very clear now: the longest serving directors and ceo and longest serving councillors. they are, in terms of their longevity of service: top officers andrew newton, jeff akehurst, paul burke, peter jones, and councillors’ margaret esakoff, michael lipshutz, steven tang, jamie hyams. the officers ensured that everything is presented for decision making as a responsible authority with community input as per legislative arrangements for such considerations. the councillors mentioned are quite content with such arrangements as they do not know, understand or care about longer term effects. after all they won’t be there beyond the next term and if items come up that affect their own little patch or interest they make sure they can get what they or their friends want!
December 14, 2010 at 9:17 AM
If the quotes are accurate then they are particularly damning of these councillors and administration.
(1) Councillors have always had the option of moving a motion that ensured that officers’ reports on the c60 went out to the public long before an actual meeting. If Hyams was so concerned about it, then he could have ensured this would happen.
(2) Apologising for not attending a meeting and therefore not hearing directly from ‘the people’ is a pathetic excuse. What about the written objections – all 60 odd of them. Weren’t they read?
(3) How dare these weaklings dictate to the community what they should say and what they shouldn’t say. we’re still living in a so called democracy that has laws which guarantee freedom of speech. People should express themselves anyway they like. If councillors cop the flack then so be it – they deserve it.
(4) If Pilling wants clarification then send the damn report back to officers. Insist that everything is spelt out fully not the crap that is often given out.
(5) If we were in a society that really wanted to inform then all the objections and comments would have been published along with this agenda. Let everyone read what people think.
(6)One minor point is what’s going to happen. Is there going to be 20 people speaking for three minutes and at the same meeting councillors then decide to pass this. That will really be giving consideration to the communities comments. As glen eira said, listen then ignore, but all in the space of the two hours this will take.
(7) Anyone with a bit of sense has to now wonder what it cost for this gang of four to delay the c60. This will become obvious on wednesday night when the new mayor is probably voted in unapposed. If I was a betting man my money would be on esakoff. Deals, deals, and more deals. Disgusting stuff.
December 14, 2010 at 4:14 PM
With typical inefficiency or deviousness, the announcement for yesterday’s special committee meeting has JUST GONE UP ON COUNCIL’S WEBSITE under public notices! Funny how it couldn’t make it in time to really advise people that this meeting was on. You’re such a pathetic, pathetic lot! 1000 staff and nothing ever gets done properly.
December 14, 2010 at 6:08 PM
I think some of the comments on this blog are unfair and unwarrented, particularly to MRC. MRC was asked to produce a Zoning Plan and it did so. MRC was aked to produce a Structure Plan and it did so! MRC was asked to produce an Incorporated Plan and it did so. Many of those Plans should have been done by the Council, who is the custodian of Public Land, whether it owns it or not. So, if I were MRC I would be really cross with anyone that tells me that after all that work I should be waiting for something or fear that a change of Government may change the situation. A property owner has rights in this country and I think that it would be right and proper for the MRC to take any Government to Court even to the High Court. At the minimum I would ask for compensation worth the value of the proposed development of $750,000.
December 14, 2010 at 7:02 PM
Curious there are no rights to develop a property, just as there are no rights to drive a car. Each comes with responsibilities to the public.
The Caulfield Racecourse should have also been operating as a public park and has not – as a resident of almost 50 years, I put the loss I have suffered at 20k pa, so can the High Court send me an even million?
December 15, 2010 at 6:04 AM
I do not know what you are talking about Curious. Please explain in plain English what is a Zoning Plan, a Structure Plan and an Incorporated ‘mumbo jumbo’ Plan. I think we are being planned out of this planet by bureaucrats, you included.
December 15, 2010 at 7:52 AM
Good questions Anon. I’ll try my best to answer your questions by comparing it to purchasing your own family home.
The first thing you would do is ask for a site and floor plan of the family home you want to occupy and live in. In broad terms the area divides into major uses of: garden, driveways, garage, bedrooms, kitchen, lounge room, corridors, verandas etc. In Town Planning terms this is a Zoning Plan, which tells users and developers what is needed for the development and use of the area by both current and future residents and users.
Once you are really happy with this general outline of such a family home, you would want to know how structurally sound is the Property and House? You would want to know the height and shape of the house, the structures and materials (brick, wood, plaster) to access light, and protect from noise, wind, rain, heat, earthquake and other environmental effects. What infrastructure it has coming to the property like gas, electricity, water, phone etc? In Town Planning terms this is a Structure Plan to ensure that all structures needed for the area utilised by the Public is there for both current and future residents and users.
Then you would examine how the family home space is utilised. Where is the fridge, washing machine, tables, beds, cupboards, desks, computers, furnishings, furniture, pantry etc? You get then an appreciation of the utility of the home for your particular family. In Town Planning terms that is an Incorporated Plan that provides details of facilities and features by the Public to use for both current and future residents and users.
What I said was that MRC has done ALL the Plans as requested in a step by step way with each step being negotiated and voted in by the Council, recommended by the Planning Panel and urged on by the State Government to do. I think having complied with ALL requirements they are entitled to proceed and derive the benefit of the effort they have put into it.
Oh, the Project Construction cost is estimated to be $750,000,000 (3 zeros missed last time). I hope that explains your query Anon and answers Anonymous assertion that somehow there are no rights here. All the Plans and Process has been approved by the Council.