SPEAKER 11 – an ex racing goer. Concerned about people living in high rise and the prospect of high unemployed people living there right next door to Tabaret. Professionals such as doctors, dentists who have surgeries there will also add to traffic.
When Lipshutz said that this speaker’s three minutes were up, speaker responded by saying that she had been to about 3 or 4 of such meetings and would finish what she had to say since Lipshutz had not shown up to any of the meetings – loud applause.
SPEAKER 12 – concerned about the power and the relationship of the MRC with State government when they can ‘reverse’ what was Crown land into private property. Reports in media that liveability reduced by high rise. Traffic congestion – have to wait ten minutes to get across railway line. Spoke about wind tunnels with high rise buildings. (loud applause)
SPEAKER 13 – Bayside resident who asked for a document which analyses ‘all issues impartially’ and that council should provide that sort of information. Amazed at the project, too much argument against high rise, but must look at the next 100 years. Got to come to grips with development. Developers should have obligation to provide car parking. Is there underground car parking with this? The obligation should be ‘to deal with the car parking’.
SPEAKER 14 – asked about process and what the next steps will be. Lipshutz replied that ‘at a date to be fixed’ the committee will ‘debate’ and make their decision. ‘the four of us’ have to make the decision. One woman then asked ‘what about the other councillors?’
PENHALLURIACK then answered the woman’s question stating that in his election campaign highlighted the issue and in the past 15 years the MRC has ‘stealthily’ taken over the park. It’s a non for profit organisation. (laughter). The upper house report stated that the profit should be shared with the community and ‘not one cent has come back’. Instead they’ve bought up surrounding land and ‘taken over crown land’ for training. They’ve also moved the training tracks ‘in and in and in’. What’s left is going to be a public park ‘except when they want to use it for car parking’. Also important that people know part is crown land and impossible to get access to. The MRC has made it difficult for people to use what is supposed to be their park. I was elected by cambden ward ‘I should be sitting over there’ (loud applause). Reason that I’m not is ‘because I want the racecourse’ opened. Southwick also campaigned and he was also elected on that platform and he can vote, but Forge and I can’t vote.
Lipshutz restated that the centre of the racecourse is not on the agenda and that ‘we are charged with making a decision on C60’. Interjections and lipshutz stated ‘if you interject I’ll close this meeting down’ (again interjections). Centre of the racecourse not the purpose of this meeting. We’ve already heard about the centre and carparking – ‘keep it on topic’.
SPEAKER 15 – who appointed you to the committee? What’s happened to the money that MRC is making?
LIPSHUTZ: we’re not trustees. Explained about advisory committees and special committees. ‘We are in fact the council when it comes to making a decision about the C60’. Hyams then spoke about the importance of ‘neutrality’ because the MRC could appeal in court.
SPEAKER 16 – the MRC presentation made it seem as if they’re magnanimous in paying for roads and infrastructure. So they should – it shouldn’t come out of ratepayers pockets. There’s also development levy on development where it’s stated that council will get about $3 to $5 million. They should be paying ten times that amount for land that is worth millions. The MRC withdrew its planning application for the centre of the racecourse, why can’t council delay consideration of the C60 until the MRC finally submit their application? Obligation of council is to look after residents and not to sell out for a ‘piffling’ $5 million. (loud applause)
SPEAKER 17 – totally disappointed with what’s been suggested. Important for students, but ‘doesn’t think John Monash’ would be pleased.
SPEAKER 18 – before 9 o’clock there is no way to get through – ‘please go there at half past 8 and stand there on the corner’. Placed 10 dollars on table inviting councillors to go to Dan Murphy’s have a beer and watch the cars that are piled up. ‘it’s madness’. (very loud applause)
SPEAKER 19 – the centre of the racecourse is relevant to all the people here. ‘to us it is ludicrous’ that this can be considered in isolation. Development will be inevitable, but tragic waste of opportunity to fill up with apartments, office space instead of looking at the whole picture that includes Monash. ‘This could be fantastic’ with proper planning for students. ‘Need to think of this land in a broader context’. Issue should be referred to State government. This ‘isn’t adequate’. No open space ‘just ridiculous’.
SPEAKER 20 – wanted further explanation on extent of committees powers. How can they limit the proposal and what conditions can they put on it? What are the next steps? Torres (planning manager) talked about the panel report which he claimed that only a certain area ‘could be adjudicated on’. Committee can accept, adapt, or reject the amendment. Should they reject then ‘it may not be the end of the matter’ Minister could get involved and call it in.
Glen Eira Debates 
April 5, 2011 at 4:09 PM
These notes of the meeting are wonderful. From my point of view they reveal two important things. (1) that people are angry and (2) that people are not idiots or mere NIMBY’s. From the sounds of it most people did a lot of homework and came prepared with well reasoned arguments that were backed up by legislation and other considerations. They therefore deserve to be taken seriously and not dismissed as a vocal minority. When over a 100 people cram into a building and they haven’t really been given much notice it shows how important this issue is.
I think that the following now needs to happen. Council should delay deciding on the C60 until after the Centre of the Racecourse planning application goes through. Secondly what must happen is the creation of a Steering Committee that has community representation on it. It should also call upon the expertise of diverse interests – such as Prof. Currie from Monash on traffic, environmentalists, town planners with real understanding of sustainable design and so on. The MRC and Monash should also be represented. Local residents must be on the committee as well. Only in this way will the outcome be based on what’s the best for the community now and into the future. Leaving it to councillors (and only 4 of them) is a total waste of time. They are totally out of their depth as someone said.
The other thing that I hope last night proved was that councillors need to take real stock of whom they are meant to represent. Either the community is their first priority or it isn’t. To pass the C60, or to impose minor superficial changes, is not the answer. If Lipshutz can see beyond his ego, then I’m sure he would agree with what I’m suggesting. Set up a Panel, take the time necessary to really work out all the issues, and only then decide what is to be done. There is absolutely no excuse for rushing something like this through. That only plays into the hands of the greedy MRC.
April 5, 2011 at 4:49 PM
More high rise issues. From front page – today’s Caulfield Leader.
Moving storeys in Elsternwick
Council5 Apr 11 @ 07:01am by Jenny Ling
Glen Eira Council approved an eight storey, 95 apartment complex for Ripon Grove in September, which will be able to be seen from Glenhuntly Rd, Elsternwick.
A FOCUS on high-density living in Elsternwick is changing the face of the suburb and driving long-term residents out.
The latest development in a string of towering multi-storey blocks planned for Elsternwick has convinced resident Kirsten Wright to move from the area.
She said she was “appalled” at plans for a 14-storey building comprising three shops and 109 units at 221-229 Glenhuntly Rd, recently lodged with Glen Eira Council.
“I’m appalled that they’ve got the guts to put a 14-storey building right next to a 10-storey building,” Ms Wright said.
“The charm of Elsternwick is its strip shops and community feel. These massive blocks are going to destroy that.”
Last year, Ms Wright set up a blog rallying residents to oppose a three to 10-storey building with seven shops and 130 apartments at the junction of Glenhuntly Rd and Ripon Grove.
The council approved eight storeys and 95 apartments in September.
At the other end of Elsternwick a six-storey building with 99 units and a new Coles supermarket was approved by VCAT on March 16.
Ms Wright and her husband have sold their Elsternwick apartment and will move to Woodend.
Council spokesman Paul Burke said there had been no objections to the latest plan and neither a planning conference nor a council meeting date had been set.
“Elsternwick is one of the areas council is keen to see high-density development,” Mr Burke said.
“It’s a major activity centre … council would like to see more intensive development occurring in activity centres but not traditional suburbs.”
Applicant Aurecon Australia would not comment.
April 8, 2011 at 2:13 PM
Paul Burke either hasn’t read his own Planning Scheme or is deliberately misleading the public. There is only *one* area in GEPS that Council states it wants high density development, and that’s in Chestnut and Blackwood Streets Carnegie. Even there, the policy actually calls for “medium to high density development”. What he probably meant to say is that Council Officer policy is for high density development. Since officers have supported a 23-storey tower for Phoenix precinct as part of C60, and since GEPS places Urban Villages and Phoenix precinct on the *same* level in terms of scale of development, its pretty clear what they have in mind for Carnegie, Bentleigh, Elsternwick–minus the open space of course.
Paul also needs reminding that Carnegie, Bentleigh, Elsternwick are traditional suburbs. Its the boundaries that have been fiddled with for political purposes.
April 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM
This is getting bigger than Ben Hur:
Last night Glen Eira Council’s Special Committee meeting was held.to consider developments by the MRC (Melbourne Racing Club), at the Caulfield racecourse. Some 80 – 100 people were present, There was standing room only. Local MP David Southwick was one of many who addressed the meeting. By some skulduggery of legalistic process, Glen Eira Councillor Frank Penhalluriack was not allowed to sit on the panel. He was however, allowed to (briefly) address the meeting.
There was virtually unanimous concern over traffic, excessive scale of the proposal, the huge size of the towers (one at least, proposed to be 23 storeys high),.lack of proper car parking. Many residents wanted to complain about the racing club usurping the Crown park and recreation land, but were not allowed to do so. It appears the centre of the racecourse (supposed to be public parkland) will be mostly for car parking.
Channel Nine arrived, got some shots for the News last night. They ran the story in conjunction with the Moonee Valley story. Like a Greek tragedy, the plot unfolded, to reveal to all, that the fate of this unique piece of MRC and Crown land in Melbourne’s heartland is now, quite ridiculously, to be decided by a small Council committee of just four people. They were the only four (out of nine councillors) who had not declared a supposed conflict of interest. Just four people to decide the fate of Melbourne premier recreation land.
So much for sham democracy, so much for local government elections. Why have elected councillors if they can’t do their job and protect the public interest?
It is time the dishonest Local Government Act was cleaned up after years of Yes Minister, and huff and puff about supposed conflicts of interest. After the Windsor Hotel affair we all know where the real conflicts of interest lay. Its certainly not with our local councillors.
April 5, 2011 at 8:41 PM
I was there last night and totally impressed with the turnout but didn’t end up speaking as I feel the message had been send loud and clear to Council, i.e. if you vote for the racecourse development, we vote you out. Simple as that really.
April 5, 2011 at 10:37 PM
I have just noticed that my collection of documents re C60 has reached 67MB. So were entrusting 4 individuals to read, digest, absorb, understand, critique and respond to more than the collected wisdom of the Bible, Koran, Torah, Bhaghavad, Mahayana and Book Of The Dead. Fat chance. They need help, and they’re not going to get it from those who have a vested interest in C60 being adopted.
Something that emerged from last night’s meeting is that few people could possibly know what C60 *is*, including its proponents, and certainly not Council. Council officers haven’t decided what it is yet. In effect, C60 is the planning equivalent of a blank cheque. “Sign here and trust us”. C60 removes third party appeal rights from people so that the MRC can implement something that might or might not look like what its suggesting in one of the incarnations of the Incorporated Plan. Even that is only half true. What matters (if it was to be enforced) is the Development Plan, which doesn’t exist. Theoretically the Development Plan should be in “general accordance” with the Incorporated Plan, but that’s up to the responsible authority, which really means Council officers.
As for the Incorporated Plan, it too is in a state of flux. The Panel strongly urged (demanded) multiple changes be made, but we don’t know which changes Council will insist upon if they choose to adopt C60. Despite Cr Lipschutz’ insistence that the racecourse itself is outside C60, the Incorporated Plan contains a prominent photo of the racecourse replete with 2000 cars parked in the Public Reserve in the centre. Hmmm.
At the meeting the MRC representative did tell the meeting that the development would meet all its parking needs from within the development, a total of 2000 parking spaces. Maybe. Yet the draft changes to the Planning Scheme that Council has published clearly show a requirement of 0 spaces for retail shops other than a supermarket [PDZ Schedule 2 8.0]. Flood victims denied an insurance payout would be aware that these things matter.
What is the building envelope that adoption of C60 would authorize? We don’t know–the public hasn’t seen the final draft of the Incorporated Plan. [I’m assuming this because the Panel wanted lots of changes.] At the current rate of growth (about 1 storey a month) the focal point of the development will become Australia’s tallest building.
One of the myths of planning is that proposals are assessed on their merits. That is so wrong its unfunny. First you decide what you want, then you seek the policy elements that support your decision. That’s what the Panel Report did, and they’re experts at it. There are some tricks to this. Use weasel words. Avoid if possible quantifying anything. Emphasize the policy elements that support your view. Don’t mention the others. If you have to mention them, then downplay, such as “not considered fatal to the proposal” or “can be managed at the Development Plan stage” or “an unreasonable constraint given the circumstances”. Reemphasize “strong policy support”. Ignore residential amenity.
Planners ultimately rely on public ignorance, so its in our interests to be better informed than they are. Amongst the Objectives contained in the Planning And Evironment Act 1987 is to provide for “the fair…and sustainable use…of land” and “to secure a pleasant…and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians”. It didn’t say “shaft 20% of a municipality so the other 80% can have their amenity fully protected”. That’s an invention of our Council, subsequently ratified by that most odious of public undemocratic institutions, the Planning and Environment List of VCAT.
C60 ultimately is what Council wanted, and now its got it.