We’ve received a set of correspondence between a resident and councillors in regard to the meeting scheduled for the 28th April. We also include a letter from Cr. Penhalluriack in response to this resident.
This first letter/email was address to Mr. Torres (planning dept) and cc’d to all councillors –
Dear Mr Torres,
Thank you for your undated letter received on the 20th April notifying us of the sitting of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee meeting on the 28th.
As you will have discerned from the attendance of over 130 people at the recent meeting at the Caulfield Park Community Centre, there is a very large interest in this matter. Although there is no provision to address the councillors at the proposed meeting, it may be expected that a large number of those people who attended the previous meeting will want to attend to observe the actual decision process. Consequently, the decision to schedule it at short notice in a week’s time at this time of year is most unfortunate.
This is the Easter/Passover period, when very many people are away enjoying the Easter break. For this reason alone, the date is inappropriate.
However, it also coincides with a forum (Phoenix Precinct Rising) regarding the very same topic on which councillors are making their decision. This forum includes the mayor of Glen Eira as a participant. This will mean that since the two items are both of crucial interest, and on largely overlapping matters, that even those who are not away will be split in which meeting to attend. Again, the scheduling is inappropriate.
Further, one might have thought that given the nature and focus of this forum, with several well-known and distinguished panellists, that the councillors on the committee would have wanted to maximise their knowledge, prior to making such an important decision. So again, unless they have no interest in gaining more input, the scheduling is inappropriate.
We are sure that you did not intend it, but to many, it will seem that this hasty scheduling is a attempt to avoid public attendance and observation at this most important meeting. It is said that justice not only needs to be done, it also needs to be seen to be done.
We suggest that you reschedule this meeting in order to allow all the above matters to be properly addressed, and so that people can be given adequate notice of the meeting so they can arrange to attend and observe.
Yours sincerely,
Michael and Bridget Cramphorn
Cr. Penhalluriack responded to this missive and cc’d his response to all councillors –
Dear Mr Cramphorn,
I empathize with you.
Councillors themselves have had only one brief meeting to discuss the C60 development. I don’t recall seeing any of the “Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee” members attending the C60 Panel Hearings. If any of them attended it was only briefly.
You have correctly observed that the C60 decision is being rushed. So too is the decision on the proposed public (car)-park and the seven-lot subdivision.
Council posted letters out inviting objectors to a “planning conference” for C60 AND the proposed public (car)-park – until somebody realized they were actually obliged to have a “public consultation” and not a “planning conference”. More letters went out correcting their error. Then the MRC pulled the plug on their “public (car)-park” planning permit application, realizing that they would be better off negotiating with selected Councillors and the CEO behind closed doors than facing an angry public meeting. The CEO promptly declared the negotiations “confidential”, and that was the end of any pretense that we Councillors care about public opinion.
The Council Meeting on the 27th April will now decide what happens with the proposed public (car)-park in the centre of the Reserve. The following night (28th) the Special Committee Meeting (Crs Esakoff, Hyams, Lipshutz and Pilling), will meet to railroad through C60 and the seven-lot sub-division. It is all so rushed that the obligatory advertisement in the Leader announcing that meeting was overlooked, and an advertisement had to be placed in the Age instead.
The team negotiating with the MRC have achieved virtually nothing by way of concessions towards a workable park in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. As already mentioned, the situation is exacerbated because the CEO slapped a gag on public discussion – although from noon today Council’s web-site should contain both agendas.
I can say, however, that only one of the seven important demands passed by Council at its meeting on the 15th March has been achieved. You will recall, at the meeting on the 4th April, how some Councillors were extolling the negotiating skills of the family-law lawyer, Cr Lipshutz – and at the same time denigrating Cr. Forge and me as “too emotional”. (I took that as a compliment. It means that, unlike some of my fellow Councillors, I care.) However it now seems those negotiating skills were phantasmal, and the MRC team was able to get just what it wanted.
You may get a better understanding of why this has been so rushed, and why your request to reschedule the meeting will fall on deaf ears, if you ask which Councillor is taking leave of absence from the 1st May.
Cr Frank Penhalluriack.
COMMENT: Mayor Esakoff will now NOT BE MODERATING NOR ATTENDING the community forum. The ‘excuse’ was that there is a Special Committee meeting at Council. We however note, that Esakoff’s attendance was requested for 9pm to moderate a discussion panel. Since we expect the C60 to be rubber stamped within minutes, she would have had plenty of time to drive the 5 minutes to Monash and make an appearance!! We can only assume that she did not receive ‘permission’ to attend from Newton and Lipshutz?
Glen Eira Debates 
April 21, 2011 at 9:59 PM
Well it looks like Glen Eira Council can expect another visit from the Inspector.
Frank’s extraordinary public attack on a fellow councillor indicates that this council is fast becoming unworkable.
And to think they were such buddies at the last election. Seems like Frank has finally woken up.
April 21, 2011 at 10:05 PM
I’d like to sincerely thank Cr. Penhalluriack for finally exposing the blatant manipulation and lack of ethical behaviour that is rampant in this council. No wonder Lipshutz and Newton and Hyams are so concerned about ‘no surprises’ and ‘confidentiality’. It allows them to get away with everything. Newton must be sacked and so must the vast majority of these councillors. Either they have all been bought off, or are simply too stupid to see that the community has had a gut full of their complicity in Newton’s meglomania. Or if not entirely stupid, then so easily bluffed, that again, they do not deserve to hold the office of councillor. It is not coincidence that there have been 3 investigations of this council. The catalyst is, and has always been Newton with his Machiavellian tactics.
April 21, 2011 at 10:21 PM
Something’s definitely not kosher here. The centre of the racecourse was originally going to be a Special Committee job set for the April 4th meeting – that is until the MRC pulled it. So how come it’s now council that is to accept the agreement and not the Special committee? it’s still about the racecourse! Wonder what they’re cooking up here.
There’s also some funny business going on with Inkerman Rd. and the Section 173 agreement!! hey, Lipshutz, what have you got to say about all this since that’s why Whiteside got so upset with you? What little skullduggery is perhaps going on here? Also funny that the applicant has lodged an appeal with VCAT when it hasn’t supposedly yet been decided upon by council (if I’m reading stuff correctly) and it should go to the minister and not vcat. Questions, questions, questions. Kinda fun how all this stuff is just continually slipped through almost subliminally into agendas. Betya most councillors don’t even know what the hell is going on, but that Newton and Lipshutz sure do and their buddies.
The name of the game is to befuddle everyone. Pad out the reports, then pad some more, and the really important stuff is only a sentence or two which you need a microscope to discover and then to make sense of. If anyone complains later, then the answer always is ‘council resolved to pass it’. These mugs don’t even know what they’re passing, especially Pilling. Newton ties them up in knots and it’s like lambs to the slaughter. That’s how he gets what he wants with the able hatchet man Burke at his side. Tweedle dum and tweedle dee and Lipshutz along for the ride. What a sicko council!
April 21, 2011 at 10:38 PM
The CEO is obligated under the Local Government Act to declare clearly defined matters as ‘confidential’. He has no choice in these matters, and not to do so would cotravene the LG Act.It is obvious that these Councillors are in disaray and controlling this Item, and acting contrary to Officer advice. Andrew Newton is too smart to allow a situation like this to evolve. This is Councillor driven and I agree that an Inspector should be called in. Also look at who was Mayor in 2005 and now. She is no leader.
April 21, 2011 at 11:11 PM
What an absolute load of drivel Anon! The confidentiality clauses (Section 89)2) of the LGA) apply only to council meetings, special committee meetings and the CEO discretion at those meetings. So, the ‘negotiations’ are not officially a special committee, nor are they a council meeting. They are simply a ‘negotiating team’ that happens to include Newton by the skin of his teeth and with the collusion of Lipshutz and Hyams who suddenly forgot the ‘no surprises’ policy when they bushwacked Penhalluriack. But be that as it may, Newton can declare something as ‘confidential’ if it falls under these categories –
A Council or special committee may resolve that the meeting be closed to
members of the public if the meeting is discussing any of the following-
(a) personnel matters;
(b) the personal hardship of any resident or ratepayer;
(c) industrial matters;
(d) contractual matters;
(e) proposed developments;
(f) legal advice;
(g) matters affecting the security of Council property;
(h) any other matter which the Council or special committee considers
would prejudice the Council or any person;
(i) a resolution to close the meeting to members of the public.
I’d love to see this go to court because the centre of the racecourse is not ‘contractual’ – it’s an ‘agreement’; it doesn’t involve ‘proposed developments’ by council, and nor does it involve a decision by the special committee/council which would prejudice anyone. So what’s the basis for declaring it ‘confidential’? Absolutely none. Bluff and more bluff. Besides, anything that Newton declares as ‘confidential’ is only confidential for 50 days. After that it’s open slather, and I can’t wait for the shit over this to really hit the fan once we learn all the underhanded double takes that have been going on.
April 21, 2011 at 11:32 PM
At least there are 2 councillors with an ounce of integrity – Penhalluriack and Forge. They have remained committed to their election promises unlike the Pillings, Esakoff, and all the others. I find it incredible that in Glen Eira the architects of everything are not elected councillors (be they good or bad) but a set of overpaid bean counters and pen pushers whose only task appears to be to maintain the veneer of a well functioning council. Nothing could be further from the truth it appears.
Millions upon millions of dollars are spent to placate various individuals and millions upon millions are wasted on extravagances and poor workmanship. Lobo and Penhalluriack have both called for proper inventories and cost benefit analyses of programs, contracts, and proper oversight. From what I see, none of this exists. Roads are repaved time and time again, drains keep flooding, and trees in our parks remain unpruned and unwatered for decades. Yet we get this insult of a document parading in part as a community plan. It is not a plan built on community desires and expectations. It is a plan designed and conconcted by an administration that is entirely out of touch with the community. Have the guts at least to ask people what they really want. Let people say if they think that roughly 3 million spent each year on drains that keep flooding is enough. How many residents are in favour of spending 7 million on a grandstand and pavilion and how many are in favour of multi millions spent on resurfacing ovals? These are the questions that people should have a say in – but they must be given the correct and full information. This has never happened in Glen Eira. All has been hidden, secret, and decided behind those famous closed doors. Penhalluriack’s letter has at least ensured that those doors have opened ever so slightly and that some light is finally been shone into all those dark and dingy corners of bureaucracy.
Glen Eira definitely needs a clean sweep. The top executives (Newton, Waite, Burke, Torres, Swabey, Akehurst) have done their dash. We couldn’t do any worse than replace them, and chances are we’d do a hell of a lot better.
April 21, 2011 at 11:41 PM
This is another email we’ve received from a resident who has emailed all councillors –
Subject: THE RUSH DECISION TO RUIN CAULFIELD FOREVER
The Mayor and Councillors,
The choice of time is unbelievable as a community we have just celebrated the
Passover and the Glen Eira’s transfer of Anzac day and now another large part of
the community(the majority) is readying itself to commemorate our sacred time of
Easter and to respectfully attend Anzac Day commemorations on the correct day
25April. This gives us one day to come to realisation of how your chosen
minority of Councillors could possibly do anything but put the decision off for
the time being…. why is there such haste? The decisions to be made have
implications for the area round here to an unbelievable extent and our
representatives are just in such a hurry it is criminal behaviour? Does someone think they are about to die or are they rushing to take yet another holiday?
Why be concerned about the racing club until they carry out orders which were
made against them in 2002 VCAT decision. And besides why are our council staff
never available to speak to ratepayers anymore?
We as residents will be calling for yet another investigation if this plan goes
through without serious amendments on 28th April…….You must postpone for the
time being.
The seriousness of this decision has far reaching implications. The whole plan
needs refining and considering in much more depth.
You realise that none of those who are making the decisioon will bear any
inconvenience…… the whole of our area will becoming a parking lot.
For instance I visited the city yesterday and noted dozens of bicyles and motor
bikes parked all over footpaths on the space which you plan to allocate as
footpath (the onlyopen space) for the ten thousand persons who use/visit/live in the area daily.
April 22, 2011 at 10:16 AM
There have been two miniscule proposed changes to the C60. We quote:
a. The whole of the area of C60 is recommended to have height limits. The residentialand mixed use precincts already have proposed height limits. In the case of the Smith St precinct, which the panel considered ought to have no height limit, the following submission recommends a limit of not more than 20 storeys.
b. If student housing is proposed at some point in the future anywhere in the area of
C60, the proposal would require a separate full planning application process
including advertising and appeal rights.
We’re back in familiar territory it seems. Instead of 23 storeys we’ll allow 20. Same old argument as used by council for the Glen Huntly Rd fiasco (ie not 10 storeys but 8) only to have the VCAT member ask ‘what’s the difference between 8 and 10?
More blank cheques (especially since the Incorporated Plan is the most vague document in existence) – “Notes that Amendment C60 rezones land and does not, by itself, authorise development. Any future development cannot proceed until Council resolves to approve a Development Plan. (The development plan must be in accordance with the Incorporated Plan). Any development inconsistent with the approved
development plan requires separate town planning permission, which includes public
notice and appeal rights for all parties.”
Car parking
The ‘sell out’ is no more evident than in the failure to address the most crucial issue – what happens to the thousand or so cars on race days/event days?
The original comments: “Whilst the intensive development of the site north of Station Street is encouraged under policy, the ultimate adoption and approval of Amendment C60 should be subject to the MRC committing to a plan to manage displaced parking on the Racecourse.”
The ‘agreement’! – “For all medium and major events MRC will provide Traffic and Car Parking Management Plans in liaison with the appropriate Traffic Management Authority and Emergency Services.
4. With the creation of the Boardwalk, public play areas and BBQ, an area will be reserved around the Western portion of the lake to allow for secure and safe public access and amenity during all major events held by the MRC. Given the practical issues related to pay for use car parking, security and traffic management on these days all vehicles accessing the centre will be required to comply with these arrangements. The Club reserves the right to review these accommodations based on practical considerations of safety and event management.
Council’s response? – “The undertaking given by the MRC in their letter, whilst falling short of the certainty of the draft agreement, goes some way towards addressing the issues of displaced cars onto the Racecourse/residential streets and future
community use of open space.
AND THEN THERE’S THIS IN THE SECTION 173 ‘AGREEMENT’ –
‘the additional Infrastructure Projects may benefit other land owners in the vicinity of the subject land and that it may be fair, just and equitable for contributions for the provision of infrastructure to be provided by other persons in addition to the owner’. Does this mean only ‘commercial interests’, or will the burden also fall on residential neighbours?