Pilling moved an alternate motion – (a) council recognises heritage value of the conservatory; (b) expressions of interest not go ahead and (c) council funds restoration in 2012/13 budget. Penhalluriack seconded.
PILLING: Stated that this has been a ‘long saga….(and time that) council acknowledged the heritage…(worried about the precedents that would be set with a commercial enterprise) and ‘commercialisation of public parks’…(wondered about other things that would be needed such as car parking) ‘more concrete, open space taken up’…’sooner we get back to restoring the facility the cheaper it will be’…
PENHALLURIACK: Stated that he had changed his mind about the motion. At first had supported it and ‘still think it would be a good idea to add more life and activity to the park’…(referred to ex councillors in the gallery (Robilliard) and) ‘they probably remember that this was tried before and nobody stood up'(and showed any interest)…’we’re going to spend $10,000….which we really can’t afford to waste….I would like to see that money spent….on bulding itself (ensuring it’s in good condition)…’it’s a beautiful conservatory…way past it’s prime (inside and out)…’we need to look as a council at our responsibilities …to make sure this building (is retained).
LIPSHUTZ: didn’t think that what Pilling and Penhalluriack said was ‘accurate’….(ie previous EOI process and ‘no-one was interested’) …’My recollection is that the EOI was never done before’….’last occasion there was a …consultation as to whether there was interest in developing….57% of people who responded said they were in favour of it….(Talked about commercialisation and parks elsewhere in the world and how they have ‘coffee houses’, ‘tea houses’)…(many people go to Caulfield Park but for coffee they have to) ‘go across the road out of the park’…..(issue is) ‘trying to enhance the park’….(EOI will look after Pilling’s concerns about heritage since this is only checking whether)’ anyone will be prepared to come out and develop’ …’and keep the conservatory and maintain the conservatory’…..(There’s an ampitheatre in that section of the park which is) ‘absolutely useless’…’white elephant’…’that whole area can be developed’ (so instead of ) ‘losing public open space probably get more open space by getting rid of the ampitheatre’…(if no EOIs then nothing lost)….(original motion is about) ‘keeping the conservatory….enhancing the park…(cost will be around $300,000 – $400,000 and EOI will only cost $10,000) ….’do the thing for us’ (ie developers)….(so not good economy to spend all that money when someone else can do it)…’that area would be very very much enhanced by having a little tea house there’….’The more cafes you have there the more people come to the area’….’enhances business’….
HYAMS: Wants to ‘see what the options are really’ ….(talked about when council ‘consulted’ and majority were in favour and those against) ‘weren’t concerned about what was going on in the park’ (they were concerned about the coffee houses in the area) …’might suggest a concerted campaign by some of the (cafes) in the area’ …’concerned about their business’….(report is only to )’examine the possibilities’…(further consultation, minister’s approval before anything happens)…(if there is a cafeteria then it) ‘won’t detract from open public space, it will enhance it’ (because people won’t have to leave the park to get a drink)…’would contribute more to the conservatory than just restoring it’…(nothing much has been happening there anyway)…
TANG; Gave background. Agreed with Lipshutz that there hadn’t been any EOI before and agreed with Pilling and Penhalluriack that ‘this is an issue of twists and turns’….(admitted that in 2006 he supported cafe but now changed his mind after community consultation)…’whilst there was some support’ (it wasn’t overwhelming support)…‘I can’t see demonstrated community support at a level (necessary)….times may have changed (that means another consultation)….(Pilling’s motion is ‘fair’ and that we can look at it in 2012/2013 budget and that the cost of $150,000 – $200,000 has been named as costs for building works)….(wanted to look at other ways) ‘to bring the community back into the conservatory’ (instead of just a cafe).
MAGEE: Spoke about how coffee shops ‘don’t make money’ and how ‘coffee shops go broke’….’change hands yearly’ (and now talking about) ‘putting a coffe shop into one of our parks…inconsistent….(was in favour until issue of coffee shop in East Bentleigh and that it doesn’t succeed). Didn’t want council to be ‘in position where…we have to look for a new tenant for the coffee shop’ (every few months)
ESAKOFF: Agreed with Tang. didn’t ‘support this when we were dealing with this several years ago’…(not enough) ‘community support for it’…’in percentage terms may have been over that edge’…..
PILLING: ‘we’re coming from a negative aspect’…(we want someone else to pay for all this) ‘we’re not doing it to enhance the park…we’re trying to get someone else to pay for it….that’s not a great way to start….(need to accept that this is like any other facility ie. sport)’ and just get on and fix it’…
7 IN FAVOUR OF PILLING’S MOTION. LIPSHUTZ AND HYAMS VOTED AGAINST.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 12, 2011 at 1:43 PM
Well done Cr. Pilling and Penhalluriack and the others on getting this through. It would just be nice for once if we could have some real consistency in the drivel that is spoken in these council meetings. I’m sure residents are happy to learn that for things to go ahead there has to be a “substantial majority” in favour and that 57% doesn’t shape up. Funnily enough no such argument was used when the designs for Packer park came in, much less the C60 and the centre of the racecourse and many other consultations. Personally I’m insulted by the flip flop rubbish that is used to get something through whenever it happens to suit. Some of these councillors must have really short memories or think that people are plain stupid. Either public opinion is important and you listen to this all the time or it isn’t. But please don’t keep coming up with this rubbish. My last comment relates to Hyams attack on local businesses. It’s again a low and unnecessary comment that just shows what kind of a person he is. Businesses are also ratepayers and they’ve got every right to try and protect their interests. I would have thought that it’s also council’s job to try and protect local businesses. But obviously I’m wrong on that score. I’m glad there won’t be a commercial business in the middle of a beautiful park but for god’s sake let’s have some honesty in debate and some fair dinkum consistency.
October 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Hey guys I’m confused with all these figures. Tang reckons about 200,000 and Lippy doubles this. Would the truth please stand up? Love the way these guys make decisions on shonky figures.
October 12, 2011 at 5:42 PM
thank goodness this proposal was canned, I can image what the area would have looked like after Newton had yellow concreted the surrounding half kilometre of parkland to make the business a success, just to save his bottom. (Moderators: two sentences deleted)
I think Cr Phillings comments and concerns about coming from a negative position, by trying to get someone else to pay for years of Newtons neglect was true.
Why on earth did Lipshutz bring up the amphitheatre, honestly that bloke sounds like an absolute windbag. I noticed his sidekick voted with him, both sucking-up to Newton, I wonder what they want in return for all this brow-nosing.
October 14, 2011 at 4:50 AM
A good idea would be to sell coffee from the big building in the centre of the park as there is already millions of dollars worth of infrastructure – a road, car parking and pedestrian crossings for the coffee lounge drinkers to cross from the west side of the park onto the east just for a short time to have their latee. The main benefit of this would be to keep this special green treed peaceful area free of commercialisation and therefore the need for more roadway, a new set of toilets and in other words the destruction of more of the park. THE HIDDEN COST WOULD BE YET ANOTHER LAND GRAB FOR THE NEED TO COMPLY WITH INFRASTRUCTURE RULES WHICH WOULD CALL FOR THE OVERTAKING OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PARKLAND. YES UPDATING THE CONSERVATORY IS A MUCH BETTER IDEA.