Submissions made to the VEAC inquiry are now available online. We’ve uploaded both the MRC submission (here) and the Glen Eira Council submission.
This is one paragraph from the MRC submission (page 2) – Through the provision of dedicated unrestricted public open space and the provision of access to the Centre of the Racecourse the Reserve contributes to the mental and physical health of the local and broader Melbourne community.
Here’s another – Glen Eira Council through their Planning Scheme and related permit controls, have required the Club to prepare a master plan for its freehold land holdings within thePhoenix Precinct. The proposed C60 Planning Scheme Amendment is the outcome of this master planning work. Through the Land Exchange, the Crown Land amenity is protected and enhanced while the C60 Amendment does not place additionalpressure on the pubic (sic!!!!!!!) space in the Centre of the Racecourse.
We urge all readers interested in the Caufield Racecourse issue, the C60 and the general Open Space issues to please read and compare the various submissions. We also urge residents to ‘review’ the Glen Eira council submission! Links to various Council and community group submissions are provided below.
Bayside – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6746-Bayside_City_Council.pdf
Port Phillip – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6839-Port_Phillip_Conservation_Council.pdf
Yarra – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6737-Yarra_City_Council.pdf
Boroondara – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6787-Boroondara_City_Council.pdf
Dept. Planning & Community Dev – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6801-Department_of_Planning_Community_Development.pdf
Friends of Caulfield Park – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6810-Friends_of_Caulfield_Park.pdf
Manningham – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6822-Manningham_City_Council.pdf
Monash – http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/submissions/published/6827-Monash_City_Council.pdf
Glen Eira Debates 
February 15, 2011 at 4:56 PM
Gleneira, thanks for putting up the links and submissions. I’ve just read the Glen Eira Council submission and can only find two words to adequately describe my reaction – anger and disgust.
I’m angry because this isn’t a submission in any shape or form. Take away the regurgitated council meeting resolution and you’re left with literally one paragraph. There has been no attempt made to actually respond to the issues raised by the discussion paper nor to provide any indepth analyses or argument.
I doubt very much whether Esakoff wrote it – more likely someone like Akehurst or Burke. My disgust is that we’re paying wages of over $210,000 pa. for these individuals to produce a document that literally a twelve year old could have worked up in half an hour. This is disgusting.
Even more than this, it certainly proves to me the community’s betrayel by this council and if anyone needed further convincing of the collusion between council and the MRC, this ‘submission’ provides it.
I just hope that everyone reads these documents and condemns the the pathetic inaction by this council.
February 15, 2011 at 7:29 PM
What a pathetic pathetic pathetic response from an overpaid pathetic Council. Have a look at submissions from people such as Cheryl Forge, Frank Penhalluriack and Gerald Sherry and hang your heads in shame (the link to other Glen Eira people such as Mary Healy was broken). They provided the sort of response that I had expected of Council. I too am so disappointed with Glen Eira Council. They have not only let down the community but themselves.
February 15, 2011 at 9:45 PM
Honestly does anyone from Glen Eira or for that matter Victoria really care what the MRC or Brian Discombe writes? It stinks more than the horses sh*t!
February 15, 2011 at 10:05 PM
I care what the MRC says – they lie and serve only themselves. They will, with the able assistance of Newton and his overpaid yes men, screw Glen Eira.
Incidentally, folks has anyone asked who paid for the MRC storm water collection system? I can’t get a reply from Council.
February 15, 2011 at 8:08 PM
I feel sorry for the Mayor having to sign off on such a poor response. All the other responses in the links provided were from a Senior Administrator and well crafted. The Glen Eira submission was, well lets be nice and just say most underwhelming.
February 15, 2011 at 9:41 PM
The Mayor does not have to do anything. The position is supposed to be the head of councillors who in theory are the boss of this council. The fact that all previous mayors will basically sign anything that is stuck under their noses, regardless of how misleading, and dishonest it is, they will invariably sign it. That is what is wrong with this council – compliant bunch of wimps and manipulative and unethical bureaucrats.
February 15, 2011 at 9:00 PM
I second Colin’s comments – Glen Eira’s contribution is a piece of cr*p – review the submissions of other councils and also the Penhallaurick/Forge submission previously discussed on this website.
That we are paying top dollar (supposedly to attract the right calibre) and yet get such substandard performance is intolerable.
As for collusion between Council and the MRC, refer to the MRC submission p65
“The Council Planning Officer Report likewise recommends adoption of the C60 Amendment.
Quote: Glen Eira Council Officer Report – “The land being the subject of Amendment C60 has involved the greatest policy focus and community consultation of any comparable land in the municipality of Glen Eira”.”
February 15, 2011 at 10:23 PM
Perhaps council should have just referred to the mrc submission rather than take the whole 5 minutes it must have taken to write that dribble. It seems that no only does council sponsor the mrc but the mrc also sponsors glen eira council. Remind me, when are the next elections to be held?
February 15, 2011 at 10:23 PM
Just read the Glen Eira submission.
I’m gobsmacked.
How do they expect to be taken seriously?
We have heard their bleatings about open space for years, yet when the opportunity arises to contribute to public discussion, we get this piece of drivel.
I can’t believe that this is all down to the officers – this is clear evidence of the incompetency and laziness of our elected councillors.
I also note the reference to council’s attempts to gain public usage of school playgrounds – which is simply another example of their failure to address the problem and try to get others to solve it for them rather than take responsibility themselves.
February 15, 2011 at 10:51 PM
Time lines are interesting here. The ‘discussion’ about putting in a submission didn’t rear its ugly head until the Dec. 14th council meeting – officially that is. The letter (for it ain’t a submission!) signed by Esakoff is dated the 17th. So, did anyone apart from Burke, Newton, Akehurst and Esakoff, see this so-called submission. Did councillors have a say? If they didn’t, then it’s their own bloody fault!!!! They are running the show supposedly.
Other councils such as Bayside had open discussions on a draft as reported some time back on this blog. Why didn’t this happen in Glen Eira?
Honestly, this is a totally pathetic council that has to be fully investigated by the state government. All of them should be hauled before the courts for incompetence at the very least. If I was Newton and Esakoff I would be ashamed to either put my name to such a document that goes out to the whole world. But there is no shame in these people – only arrogance and a belief in might is right.
February 15, 2011 at 10:39 PM
For those who simply wish the ‘highlights’ we’ve copied a few paragraphs from both the BAYSIDE and YARRA CITY submissions. Please note the issues that both these councils raise – and which has been completely ignored by GLEN EIRA – and their commitment to real change in their recommendations to the inquiry.
Forgive the length of this – but we believe it’s important to highlight the ineptitude of Glen Eira in comparison to the efforts of other councils –
Bayside – The discussion paper suggests a number of positive improvements aimed to enhance the
contribution Crown and public land can make to Melbourne’s liveability, in particular the
future use or sale of surplus Crown or Public land.
While these suggestions are positive, it is considered that they do not go far enough. Ideally,
the investigation should pursue an all of government approach, including the property
departments of all public authorities and agencies, to specifically and proactively include
councils in the Crown and Public land disposal process. There is a need for the investigation
to take a more ambitious approach to moving towards an all of government approach to
Crown and public land with a longer term, intergenerational view of resource use and
management. Greater opportunities for councils to be involved as a key stakeholder in the
disposal process should also be strongly pursued.
Any temptation to apply econometric considerations to the use of these lands must be
resisted. There will be instances where this is entirely appropriate. But in the case of
Bayside, and we suspect many other communities, relying on econometric considerations
alone will not result in outcomes supporting and enhancing the liveability of Melbourne. The
use of triple or quadruple bottom line considerations is essential.
A paradigm shift is required by the State Government and its public authorities to view the
lands entrusted to them from an intergenerational perspective and as a community wide
resource, and not one which is available for singular, specific purposes only. Whilst there
may be costs associated with some initiatives, it is reasonable that incurring them is a
legitimate consideration where greater overall benefit to the community can be generated.
We as a society must be prepared to be more comprehensive and creative with our public
lands, rather than jealously guarding the historical prerogatives of specific land managers.
YARRA –
Council supports initiatives that assist in mitigating and adapting to climate change. The City of Yarra encourages urban agriculture projects and seeks opportunities for vegetation planning and to convert paved areas into parkland. Council is also currently developing a proposal for an ‘urban forest’ policy and it would be helpful to have more discussion and recommendation on this use of public land in the report. These initiatives are believed to enchance, rather than just protect open space, and have broader benefits than just mitigating the impacts of climate change.
Council supports the concept of facilitating the use of surplus public land to enhance liveability. Council does not expect public land to be sold off unless there is strong consultation and a definite community benefit with the end result, not necessarily one that returns the greatest financial return.
In regards to environmental sustainability, the terms of reference allow for recommendations to include ‘the principles of ecologically sustainable development’. This is not reflected in the recommendations regarding faciltities on public land (community use areas, services and utilities areas). Council suggest that VEAC include reference to development on public land, with respect to requiring water and energy efficiency in design, construction and operation of buildings and assets.
February 15, 2011 at 11:11 PM
I’d like to endorse everything that’s been said by other commentators here. The Glen Eira submission is a disgrace. But it goes even deeper than this I suspect.
The previous post on the planning scheme and the MSS has really focused attention on where the problems with this council lies. It is unashamedly pro development with no thought for the ‘social, economic and environmental’ impact of rampant over-development. The Planning Scheme is the spring board to everything. It has opened the flood gates to the C60 and allowed the MRC to do exactly as it wants. We, the residents, have always been excluded.
The recent Planning Scheme Review didn’t change anything. It simply endorsed the existing policy and promised more of the same. Once people start realising this then all hell should break loose. C60 is only the start. The entire planning scheme should be scrapped and rewritten. This is a job for the State Government. I will be sending off a letter to both the Ombudsman and the Minister for Planning demanding that this council and its senior executives be fully investigated and removed.
After 3 Municipal Investigations, this council must really be on the nose, so another one by an ombudsman should not be too hard to get!
February 16, 2011 at 12:57 AM
looks like all hell has broken loose. there’s a post up on the Caulfield Leader site which claims that $500,000 (not $50,000) has been raised by residents to fight the Regent st. proposal. Have to laugh though. Smack in the middle of the photo is non other than that hero of sensible development in Whiteside!