| Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee Meeting 28 April 2011 |
| Notice is given pursuant to Section 89(4) of the Local Government Act 1989 that a meeting of the Glen Eira City Council Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee will be held on Thursday 28 April 2011 in the Council Chambers, corner Hawthorn and Glen Eira Roads, Caulfield commencing at 7pm. The business to be transacted at this meeting will be: |
|
|
Glen Eira Debates 
April 15, 2011 at 5:09 PM
None of this is a surprise. This council deserves to be sacked and Newton exposed for what he has engineered. As for the councillors they are incompetent yes men, with the possible exception of only two. Their record will stand as the chief accomplices of the MRC and its exploitative nature. Yet it’s the community that will suffer from here on in.
Every important policy that has come up in Newton’s time is rammed through without the necessary information and without real consultation of the community. They are all a disgrace.
April 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM
I’d like to suggest two things as symbolic gestures for the night. People need to go to the racecourse and collect as much horse shit as they can. On the 28th, when this meeting is held, place the biggest pile possible where Lipshutz and his gang sit. An equal sized pile should be placed where Newton and Burke reside. The second thing that should occur is that the gallery bring along those horns used at the soccer world cup and never stop blasting for one second. Given that Lipshits can’t be heard anyway because he always mumbles from an unfortunate speech defect it seems, then it won’t matter. It should also make good copy for the Leader. Take photos, send them everywhere with the title: Council is horseshit!
April 15, 2011 at 7:07 PM
I’ll bring a horses head, a la the Godfather for special effect.
April 15, 2011 at 10:43 PM
we’ve received some further information regarding the yesterday’s planning meeting for the MRC land subdivision. According to these reports:
1. People who objected didn’t all receive notification that the meeting was on.
2. Advertising was non existent
Conclusion? Either sheer incompetence or deliberate ‘hush hush’. Either way, council is to be condemned for the way it operates such meetings!
April 16, 2011 at 6:45 AM
From Neil Pillings Blog with special comments from Hyams. Empty congratulations indeed!
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Caulfield Racecourse and public access- important progress
As many readers would be aware the issue of the racecourse and the lack of public access and usage has long been a difficult problem to resolve- the inequitable landswap proposed by the MRC had been the latest in this sorry saga.
The breakthrough as outlined by Sue Pennicuik from state parliament below is great news!-
Greens MP Sue Pennicuik moved an amendment in state parliament today to try to prevent the government from handing over valuable Crown land just north of the Caulfield Racecourse to the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC).
“The MRC has been making huge profits for decades from using the public land at Caulfield Racecourse solely as a racecourse despite it being set aside under the Crown as a public park, public recreation ground and racecourse. The community and Glen Eira Council have struggled for years to get the trustees to manage the land for all three purposes equally, but to no avail. Instead the trustees have delegated the management of the land to the MRC, whose only interest has been in promoting horse racing and making money from the onsite tabaret and other commercial ventures, Ms Pennicuik said.”
“Very little of these huge profits have made their way back to the community, which has been locked out of the public land for decades. Despite an agreement with the Glen Eira Council to facilitate greater access by the public to its public land on non- race days and to improve and install public amenities in the centre of the racecourse, virtually nothing has happened. “The state government was preparing to reward this non-action by exchanging a very, valuable parcel of Crown land, for commercial development by the MRC, for a much smaller, less valuable parcel of land on the edge of the racecourse for community use. The Glen Eira Council has opposed this land swap.”
“I was concerned that if the state government went ahead with this unfair land swap without conditions, then the commitments that the MRC had given regarding more public access and improved public amenities would never eventuate,” she said.
“I am pleased that at the eleventh hour, Minister Jennings has listened to the concerns I have raised on behalf of the community and has given an undertaking that conditions will be imposed on the MRC regarding public access and improvements and that there will be no financial loss to the Crown from the land exchange. “This is a breakthrough in the long-running saga around the use of the public land at Caulfield Racecourse. I will be closely watching what happens because despite the assurances of the Minister, the MRC has a poor a poor track record with regard to fulfilling its responsibilities to the public park and recreational aspects of the Crown deed, Ms Pennicuik concluded.”
Cr Jamie Hyams has summarized yesterday’s excellent news from the Victorian Parliament as follows:
-I understand that among the concessions given by Gavin Jennings are that the land is to be valued and any difference between the value of the two pieces of land is to go to the Crown, and that the land swap will not occur until the MRC has fulfilled its commitments in relation to the centre of the racecourse and signposting to better inform the public of the land’s availability. Further, according to Sue Pennicuik’s interpretation of Jenning’s remarks, the MRC will have to pay commercial rent for the areas it uses for training, and that rent is, according to Jennings, to “be available for the ongoing maintenance and development of the park or other Crown public land within the Glen Eira area.” He also flagged that he could see Council being the manager of the land in the middle of the racecourse that is to be a public park.
The tide has turned remarkably- special thanks to Sue Pennicuik for her efforts , Gavin Jennings for acknowledging and acting on the inequities and those in the community and council who have campaigned long and hard on this issue
April 16, 2011 at 8:42 AM
There will certainly be egg on Sue Pennicuik’s face if Pilling votes in C60 when, after 2 years, there is less access to the centre of racecourse with it being taken over by more training tracks and car parking. Similarly if Hyams votes for C60, then there will be egg on his own face!
April 16, 2011 at 9:15 AM
Just in case people missed the TV reports about the April 4th meeting, then check out the news from all channels (and this includes the Moonee Valley proposed development) at:
http://australianpoliticstv.org/2011/04/08/kelvin-thomson-mp-moonee-valley-racecourse-development/
April 16, 2011 at 2:05 PM
I’ve tried and tried to come up with some answers as to why Newton, and the gang of four appear to be so willing to do the MRC’s bidding and why the rush to get everything through. I’d like some other people’s opinions on this as well. The way I see it Glen Eira as a municipality will not be better off in any shape or form if the C60 gets through. So what’s in it for Newton and the rest? The council will get a small payout, but that isn’t even enough to cover proper drainage renewal. Lipshutz in doing Newton’s dirty work will also get something no doubt – but I don’t know what. Hyams I guess needs Liphsutz’s influence to get what he wants – perhaps being a Mayor and getting over $70,000 per annum. Pilling is the real conundrum. He’s failed twice now to get into state politics so what’s in it for him at local level? He must realise that he’s letting down heaps of people with this stupid alliance with Lipshutz. So again I have to question what’s in it for him? Maybe his carbon neutral policies rely on favours from Tang and Lipshutz so this is the payback. The riddles are endless. I don’t even think it’s worth discussing Esakoff. She’s basically a non-entity in my opinion, but a damn good ribbon cutter and looks okay as well. It would be nice to for once just see her take a position on something and oppose the others with clear argument. That’s a forlorn hope I think.
April 16, 2011 at 8:40 PM
Esakoff got what she wanted in Lipshutz support of the amendment to her heritage listed properites. Hyams will get the mayor next term as he has pined for ever since he was duped by Erlich. Newton and Lipshutz get each other. Pilling will be the one who misses out altogether and gets dumped by the greens. You can see it all a mile off…oh and the MRC, they get the lot without having to do anything and dictate terms against Glen Eira council once again…what a lot of losers we have in Council.
April 17, 2011 at 11:23 AM
8.Anonymous Says:
Hyams did not have the support of the majority of councillors in the ballot.
He suggested that Esakoff run to try and take votes away from Berry.
The plan came unstuck when the group noticed that Esakoff, after standing and giving a great speech about how she really wanted to become Mayor, did not even vote for her self. She received no votes at all. Hymes had five, Berry had four. NO votes for Esakoff, not even her own. The others smelled a rat and its name was Esakoff, with co conspirator Hyams. This is called electoral fraud. This started the complete down fall of the council and ended in the sacking in 05.
Nothing has changed except it looks like Pilling is the new Rat.
Given he had nominated the last two Mayors, Tang and Easkoff, he needs them, and they need him. Hymes will become Mayor and the group will get red of Newton, Job done.
Ex-insider.
April 17, 2011 at 12:04 PM
Given that Ex Insider is correct then why say “he was duped by Erlich”.Council Minutes clearly tell us that the late Bob Bury was elected Mayor 5 votes to 4 for Hyams in an open for all to see Council Meeting.
April 17, 2011 at 12:21 PM
Ex-insider is 100% correct in occurrences which lead to Bob Bury’s election as Mayor.I for one would like to know why someone would stand up before their collegues and ask for their support for the Mayoralty and then not vote for themselves?Maybe it has to do with integrety?
April 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM
I’m afraid that if you really are ex-councillor Erlich, then you must take a large proportion of the blame for what occurred in 2005. According to various reports, you reneged on an earlier promise. But that’s past history. The same interference (Newton) is still there, still manipulating, still turning one councillor against the other. I’m not saying that our current crop of good – far from it – but this council would be a lot better off if it got rid of Newton and all the other directors. If you’re talking about integrity and ethics, then the executive is devoid of this in spades.
April 17, 2011 at 2:56 PM
Agree totally but please include Incompetent audit committee members, Gibbs and Mclean.
April 17, 2011 at 4:36 PM
Really Noel. The community showed what it thought of you and Esakoff as councillors in the next election when
you ran in the same ward and she got over 3000 votes and you got 800. I know a huge blow like that can leave you bitter and twisted and likely to spread lies but isn’t it about time you got over it?
April 17, 2011 at 5:46 PM
Yes the public got it right and I am an axe murderer but my question has not been answered.
April 18, 2011 at 11:57 AM
This is not about Noel, it is about Easkoff and Hymes. Did they or did they not mislead the council?
April 18, 2011 at 11:45 AM
If Council has all the information it needs to make a decision, then it should make a decision. In that sense its not indecent haste. I seriously doubt though that Council *does* have the information it needs, and I further doubt the Special Committee has mastered the detail.
Regardless of the merits of C60, it is appalling that Council has failed to provide an up-to-date Incorporated Plan for residents to inspect. The members of the Special Committee have a moral obligation to ensure the documents being published under their imprimatur are kept current, especially before the recent meeting that ostensibly was to listen to the community. Those who attended might still not be aware that what is being proposed doesn’t match the published Incorporated Plan (dated 2008). [The Panel commented on this.]
I’ve explained before why this matters, but as a reminder, C60 removes third-party rights except in very narrowly defined circumstances involving the Incorporated Plan. The Explanatory Report, published under the aegis of Council, reveals why. Its to help the developer make more money (thats the reference to “facilitate”).
There is no compelling need to make the area a Priority Development Zone (PDZ), despite the claims of the Explanatory Report. The proposal is primarily for residential development in a Residential Zone (R1Z) and mixed development in a Mixed Use Zone (MUZ). It does however seek to obtain Crown land and change its zone to build MRC’s beloved tower. Additionally it seeks closure of some inconvenient roads. This can all be done without a PDZ.
Loss of third-party rights is something *every* non-developer resident of Glen Eira should be concerned about. Council has already argued, successfully, at VCAT that standards designed to protect residential amenity should be waived when it involves multi-unit development. While most attempts to insist on compliance with the Planning Scheme are doomed, nevertheless third-party appeal rights keeps pressure on Council to have to explain itself. Its a sad fact that Council rarely explains itself until it appears before VCAT.
At both the recent C60 community meeting and planning conference re an MRC 8-lot subdivision, Cr Lipschutz has attempted to intimidate attendees. This is unacceptable. Far from helping people understand the process and listing all the matters that the Responsible Authority *must* and *may* consider, he has provided his own, and I would argue erroneous, interpretation of the Planning and Environment Act. This has extended to mentioning VCAT explicitly in his assessment of planning permit applications in Council. Somebody as aggressive and clumsy when dealing with the public on controversial topics is not an ideal choice for chairing such a Committee.
There is a curious double-standard used by Planners (spelt with a capital P), whereby they cling to anything that supports what they want, and ignore anything that contra-indicates support. So it is that Cr Lipschutz (without apparent consultation with his Committee colleagues) has decided narrowly what matters the committee will consider, regardless of the considerable powers PAEA confers. It was the MRC that thought it appropriate to include photos of a few thousand cars parked in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse And Public Reserve. In a submission from their partner, Monash University, parking in the centre of the racecourse was explicitly mentioned. Further, both Council and VCAT disagree that a Use of land should meet its own parking needs. That’s why non-compliance with parking requirements as specified in the Planning Scheme are so universally waived for developers. Creating traffic and parking problems is a de facto Council policy in and around Activity Centres.
The Panel probably correctly identified the interface with existing residential areas as the most sensitive interface. The published Incorporated Plan as far as I can tell seeks to build 4 storeys closer to existing single-storey dwellings than the Standards (guidelines if you’re VCAT) specify. If increased traffic isn’t an issue (the Panel doesn’t think it is), and proximity of 4 storeys to existing single-storey dwellings isn’t an issue (Council doesn’t think it is), then its time to scrap the Minimal Change Area policy as being manifestly unfair (fairness is a key Objective of Victoria’s Planning Provisions).
There is something really really odd when so many documents that Council has published re C60 have “Supporting_document” as part of their name. Its almost as if the matter has been prejudged.
I repeat that nobody knows what the development that C60 is designed to facilitate will look like. Not Council, not its officers, not the MRC, not the Panel, not successive State Governments. There is a rough concept, which has met considerable community resistance. The powers that have aligned behind the proposal desperately wish to silence critics up front, secure their funding and valuable crown land, and move on with the development, safe in the knowledge they cannot be scrutinized by people whose amenity they are impacting.