PUBLIC OPEN SPACE STRATEGY
Moved Pilling, seconded Lipshutz
PILLING: strategy for new policy is ‘commencing’. Council ‘recognises how important’ this is especially in the face of new developments and the Dandenong Rd one could be ‘100 new apartments with no open space’. Another problem is that Carnegie ‘has very little open space’ and Glen Eira has least amount of open space in metropolitan Melbourne. Need to really ‘plan for the future’ since existing policy dates back to 1998 and ‘a lot’s changed since then’ so ‘it’s appropriate that we do outline a new strategy’ for next decade. Acknowledged that open space is an issue ‘out there in the community’ and was happy this was now about to take place’
LIPSHUTZ: agreed with Pilling and noted that Camden ward has the least amount of public open space – ‘take away Caulfield Park and there’s not much there’. Said that council wouldn’t ‘find it easy to buy land’ and that what’s ‘more important is how we use the parks’. He welcomed a new strategy and wanted to ‘hear from the community….hear what all residents have to say (old and young and) ‘they all have a say’….’well look at that, we’ll put it in the mix’
MAGEE: said that one of the recommendations would likely be that ‘you would need a hell of a lot more’ open space and that some of the recommendations might look at ‘how we can better use some of the pocket parks’. Claimed that the off leash review ‘gave us a better understanding of how parks were being used’….’great opportunity to have a fresh look’ at Racecourse and where that could be in 20, 30 or 40 years time. Said that at the start of the new councillor term there’s the opportunity for councillors to ‘set in concrete’ the vision for where council should be. ‘Well overdue’ and how ‘fresh eyes from outside Glen Eira’ look at the city.
PILLING: noted the $30,000 grant from the government and that council was ‘very happy’ to receive this. Lot of issues to look at includding ‘biodiversity, …planning….right mix between passive and active’ and ‘increased flooding’. Consultation is important and ‘we do want to bring people with us’
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
++++++++++++
CAULFIELD RACECOURSE TRUSTEES
Sounness moved the motion to nominate the following councillors as trustees and that their names be forwarded to the Minister – DELAHUNTY, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, LIPSHUTZ, LOBO, MAGEE, PILLING. Okotel seconded.
MAGEE: Hoped that the Minister would see fit to reappoint him as trustee. Said that the next 12 months would be important in finalising leases with the MRC and hoped that ‘those agreements aren’t finalised tomorrow’ since the MRC would ‘see a benefit’ in meeting before the 3 trustees were formalised. Thanked Forge and Tang for their past efforts and that every time he asked for their support he got it. Said that trustee meetings can be a ‘battle’ rather than a ‘meeting’ and it was good to have them alongside on the public park aspects and that the trustees needed ‘to review and maybe reacquaint themselves with’. Again reiterated that he hoped the Minister would reappoint him to continue the process that they’ve started over the last 3 years.
SOUNNESS: did not have anything further to say.
MAGEE: since he was trustee for 3 years he could give advice to any new trustees although he hoped that the Minister could ‘see some benefit’ in accepting him again as a trustee.
++++++++++++
GESAC COURT USAGE
PILLING: Said that the report was useful in seeing how things stood. Noted that the Warriors allocation was for 90 hours and that they were only using 79 at present but it is ‘encouraging’ that total use is higher. Lots of information in the report about how GESAC ‘is operating’ and numbers of members and ‘going very well’. Hoped that the basketball court cover ‘does increase’ and that he will be keeping ‘a close watch on how things do progress’ and with the contract negotiations that ‘we do have the best process in place’ for next year.
LIPSHUTZ: for all the ‘naysayers’ who said that GESAC ‘wouldn’t work, wouldn’t make a profit’ and that there’s a $1.6 million dollar profit. That’s partly a result of the Warriors at $45 per hour as opposed to the offer McKinnon and that’s ‘something that goes to the success of GESAC’. Said that people were saying the Warriors couldn’t field teams and ‘clearly they have made a success of it’ – listed the figures from the report (ie 800 members, etc). Did say ‘they are still 11 hours short’ but ‘encouraging’ that they are ‘improving’. Would like to see more but it’s ‘encouraging’ what the Warriors have done, ‘they are contributing, they are a success’ and that means a ‘success for council as well’.
DELAHUNTY: Said that like Pilling and Lipshutz said this report is a ‘starting point’ to know what’s happening, especially with basketball. Agreed that GESAC is financially doing well but thought it was important for councillors to look at how well it was performing for the ‘community’. She asked whether the Warriors are actually ‘made up of local children’ and what about access. this is a ‘starting point’ but these are the sorts of things that councillors ‘need to keep an eye on’.
HYAMS: noted that the ‘warriors are exceeding their hours’ including ‘weekdays and holidays’ even though they didn’t apply for an allocation here. They’re also ‘filling in gaps’ that other sports aren’t filling. said that it was ‘his understanding’ that since the report was written the warriors have ‘further improved their performance on the weekend’….’far better result’ (than if council had) ‘gone with McKinnon both in terms of hours and financially’. Said that details of allocations were only confirmed in February so Warriors really only had 3 months and even then they didn’t know when it was going to be opened. Said that council had projected it would meet operating costs, ‘but in fact it’s meeting practically all its interest costs as well’.
PILLING: agreed with Delahunty that there’s more to consider than just financials. Said that they do want ‘the best outcome’…’for all people in the community’. Things are going well but need to ‘follow this closely’ so that the ‘best possible result’ can be achieved.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
November 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM
This has got to be the biggest joke of all – Lipshutz, Pilling, Esakoff and Hyams as trustees. I would think that the Minister is laughing his head off at this present. Why would he pick anyone else when these turncoats delivered him c60 and the racecourse.
November 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM
Whatever happened to the Caulfield Racecourse agreement signed by Lipshutz, Pilling, Esakoff and Hyams? Until something happens there and the agreement finally honoured, there is absolutely no way of these four could be a Trustee unless the State Government wants a riot on its hands.
November 15, 2012 at 2:04 PM
Agree the non action at the Racecourse is becoming extremely embarrassing for Council. Wish Delahunty, Lobo and Magee good luck because it is going to be a struggle with the current balance.
November 15, 2012 at 2:57 PM
Didn’t the Minister for Racing run his horse at Caulfield during the Carnival. How is that not a conflict of interest? Napthine pushed for C60. But a Councillor selling bags of mulch is? This state is going mad.
November 15, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Mary Delahunty is related to Napthine. Is this a conflict of interest too, if she’s picked as a trustee
November 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM
The answer is no. Naphine is not the Minister making appointments. That would be Ryan Smith. No conflict there. Do the research before you make make allegations.
November 15, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Naphine is minister for racing. Delahunty will be working with MRC and trustees who obviously have a lot of dealings with the minister. She’s related to him. To me that’s a conflict of interest. It’s not about who appoints her.
November 15, 2012 at 8:18 PM
How would the Minister’s horse have an advantage over the other horses? i cannot see the conflict. If the horse knew that its owner was the Minister that would be a different thing. I have been told that one of the Rules of racing is that the owners are not allowed to devulge their idenity to the horse. No laws broken here.
November 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM
The Racing Industry is running at a low on moral standards. Damien Oliver in effect admits placing bets on opposing horses (and winning) and the Racing industry does nothing. What crap. The MRC signs an contract to make improvements at Caulfield Racecourse by 27 April 2012 and does nothing with support of (MODERATORS: word deleted) Councillors and State member. More crap.
November 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Pats on the backs all round. A council that supports an outside club that can only field a domestic competition for 1 gender. keep up the great community spirit….as long as they pay huh?
November 15, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Warriors have a couple of girls representative teams but dont seem to have marketed themselves too well in getting a domestic comp going. The over 35 womens comp also seems to have disappeared.
November 15, 2012 at 5:02 PM
So, why is Hyams a Councillor? I thought he was meant to be in there to represent the interests of the community he has been elected to represent. Clearly this is NOT his objective.
I guess we should be thankful for the other Councillors in Pilling and Delahunty for redirecting the focus to the community.
There is no way I’d support my children participating in the Oakleigh run basketball competition at the expense of the McKinnon league run by and for members of our local community.
Hyam’s ward incorporates McKinnon and yet he’s slating them.
Who on earth voted for him? Seriously, the community needs to be better informed in the lead up to council elections. Too many of the old and inept crew are back in.
November 21, 2012 at 8:43 PM
McKinnon has members from outside Glen Eira. In fact a greater percentage of the Warrior members would come from Glen Eira.
But keep supporting an Association who:
Took NO action on a complaint about a vile anti-semitic attack.
Undermined and removed the founders of the club in a pathetic campagin that would have the NSW right of the Labour party blushing.
Kicked out 120 families and a founding club to perserve their own hides from any challenge.
Have installed a closed shop executive that cannot be challenged by it’s own members after changing it’s constitution in the proverbial dead of night..
Are paying ridiculous wages to a priveleged few instead of improving the Association and the lot of it’s members.
Have massive conflict of interest issues within it’s executive and employee structure.
Have acted disgracefully throughout the whole EOI process, with unfounded and defamatory accusations against the Warriors and their people.
Yes a quality club and management deserving of your support!
Go Warriors!
November 22, 2012 at 9:42 AM
And this probably from a Life member of McKinnon. Bitter.
November 15, 2012 at 1:58 PM
I get The Age every single day and on Wednesdays and Saturdays make it a point to look up local government tenders. I do not have any recollection of Glen Eira advertising for the open space tender. This makes me think that there has not been a public and open tender process. What has probably occurred are a few phone calls to one, two or three “favourites” and the suggestion that they put in a quote.
A post a few days back commented on the fact that the officer’s report didn’t call this a tender but instead a “submission”. This only confirms my suspicions. The community is about to be hoodwinked again. It will not be an “independent” consultation but something that has already, or will shortly be, determined as to findings and outcomes.
November 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Off the topic, but is this MP Miller delivering, or the Libs becoming a mite desperate in Bentleigh and hence spluring money on local pavilions, playgrounds, etc? From the Age –
Libs quiz voters in sandbelt marginal seats
Date
November 15, 2012 – 10:01AM
62 reading now
Henrietta Cook
The state Liberal Party has run focus groups about the marginal sandbelt seats of Bentleigh and Mordialloc, quizzing voters about local members and whether the state’s finances could be used as an excuse for not investing in infrastructure.
About 16 people attended focus groups in St Kilda last week and were asked if they could name the members for Bentleigh and Mordialloc and whether the state had stagnated.
The focus groups come as the Baillieu government gears up for its two-year anniversary with a glossy promotional booklet titled Planning. Building. Delivering, which outlines the Coalition’s immediate and long-term plans.
Last month Frankston residents were polled about their support for embattled MP Geoff Shaw, although the Coalition and Labor Party deny any involvement in the poll.
Advertisement
A woman who attended one of last week’s two focus groups, who did not want to be named, said most participants were female and lived in Bentleigh. She said the group was questioned about hospitals, TAFEs, aged care and whether Victorian teachers were paid enough.
“They also asked us about the Liberal Party and how they were progressing. They said the previous Labor government had left them in a financial mess and asked whether that was a reason why the Baillieu government had not invested in infrastructure.”
Mordialloc has been held by Liberal Lorraine Wreford since 2010 by a margin of 2.1 per cent, while Bentleigh is held by Liberal Elizabeth Miller by an even narrower margin of 0.8 per cent.
Ms Wreford said she would run at the next state election but would not comment on research, saying it was a matter for the party.
Ms Miller did not respond to questions before deadline.
Premier Ted Baillieu said he was delighted with the government’s progress and it was common for political parties to conduct focus groups.
Published opinion polls show the Baillieu government is trailing Labor, which holds a 55 per cent to 45 per cent two-party-preferred lead, generating anxiety within Coalition ranks given the government’s tenuous one-seat majority in Parliament.
Liberal Party state director Damien Mantach said it was no secret that political parties conducted research but also said no specific research had been conducted about Bentleigh or Mordialloc.
“There are two hardworking local members there who are delivering for their electorate and I’d suspect they’d both be renominating.”
Shadow attorney-general Martin Pakula, who released the focus group questions on Wednesday, said the government was more preoccupied with testing its message than governing.
“I would have thought a government two years into their first term would be off and running delivery. Instead, they’re just spending all of their time and all of their effort and all of their money working out who to blame and what alibis work.”
Focus group participants were also asked about Mr Baillieu’s leadership abilities, attributes and qualities and whether the state government deserved more time to achieve its plans.
They were handed copies of the Coalition’s glossy promotional booklet and asked what they thought of it.
How would you answer the government questions asked of focus group participants?
• Could they name the members for Bentleigh and Mordialloc?
• Could they name Liberal ministers?
• Could they name the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow ministers
• Other questions focused on Ted Baillieu’s leadership abilities, attributes and qualities.
• Did the group feel that the Government would achieve what it promised at the last election?
• Did they think the government deserved more time to deliver its promises?
• Would they vote Liberal again to give them more time to achieve their plans?
• Did they think the state has stagnated under this government?
• Were they reluctant to vote Labor back in 2002 when the government had only one term to achieve its aims?
• Who were their federal members of Parliament?
• They were asked for their opinion on the best way for the government to communicate with them.
• They were asked about whether the state of Victoria’s finances when the Liberals came into government could be put forward as a reason why they could not invest in infrastructure and services.
• Respondents were then asked to take away the brochure, advise if they would read it and asked their opinions on it.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/libs-quiz-voters-in-sandbelt-marginal-seats-20121115-29dih.html#ixzz2CG2XjAH6
November 15, 2012 at 8:09 PM
I would keep an eye on the Opposition. Some of the ambitious ones that supported Daniel Andrews as leader always thought he would be used to take a hammering then they would knock him off when things got fair dinkum. Things have come on a bit early for Holding and Allen. Going to hard to stay unified over the next 2 years.
November 15, 2012 at 8:59 PM
Elizabeth Miller is inept and unable to deal with the community in a an appropriate manner. In short, she, like many of the GE Councillors, are not able to adequately represent the community she was elected to represent.
November 15, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Here’s today’s questions from Hansard to the Minister –
Planning: zoning reform
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan)—My
question is to the Minister for Planning, Mr Guy.
Yesterday in response to my question about the missing
submissions to the minister’s planning zone review, the
minister said that those submissions were under peer
review. Peer review normally refers to someone who
has prepared an academic publication and then has that
reviewed, whereas in this case it is really the minister’s
work that is being reviewed by the committee in the
form of submissions. Can the minister explain to me
what this peer review process consists of and what
outcomes it is meant to deliver?
Hon.M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning)—I do not
want to get into academic debate with the Australian
Greens about the terminology of peer review. Suffice to
say, what we want the peer review group to do and to
find is well explained in the terms of reference. The
government has asked for the submissions, however
many there may be, to be peer reviewed in line with the
terms of reference and for those involved to come back
to us with a recommendation.
Supplementary question
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan)—Do I take
it from that that until they make their recommendation
to the Minister for Planning, no-one will see these
hundreds and possibly thousands of submissions, some
of which may be very critical of the minister’s planning
zones approach?
Hon.M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning)—I think
this is exactly the same question the member asked me
yesterday. I am not sure it is in order to ask exactly the
same question, but I think it was answered when he
asked me the same supplementary yesterday.
November 15, 2012 at 2:34 PM
Christ startin’ to be the Pilling/Lipshutz, or Lipshutz/Pilling show. Stick ya head in Neil and if ya got somethin’ to say then make sure it makes sense. How could ya second the motion for the 12 storey application, speak for it and then vote against the motion. Don’t please use the bullshit that the arguments were so good that ya changed ya mind at the last minute. That bull won’t wash.
November 15, 2012 at 3:57 PM
There is no way the Minister will reappoint Magee as a trustee.
Southwick will see to it that Lipshutz, Esakoff and Hyams get the trustees spots.
November 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM
Great Southwick is another one who signed off on the Caulfield Racecourse agreement who now has egg on his face.
November 15, 2012 at 8:12 PM
They all got returned with quite large votes. You would have to say that they have the confidence of the voters. Esakoff got a pretty high vote. very popular people.
November 15, 2012 at 8:54 PM
On the question of open space, some of the comments from Council are disingenuous. Cr Lipshutz claims that Camden ward has the least amount of public open space, ignoring of course all the land contained within the racecourse precinct. Its just that that land has been abysmally managed. It has also approved C60 in Camden ward, knocked back an opportunity involving the Alma Club, and disposed of land that the Administration thought of as “surplus”. Cr Pilling makes reference to 100 new dwellings on Dandenong Road with no open space, which is a serious understatement. Although we don’t know how many dwellings will finally appear at 1056-1060 Dandenong Rd, Council has effectively established a new policy for the precinct, which is likely to result in more than 1000 new apartments without screening from their neighbours, little employment, lack of dwelling diversity, increased traffic accident rates [its sandwiched between the two most dangerous intersections in the municipality], add to the acknowledged traffic congestion problem in Koornang Rd, and *no open space*. In previous decisions, Council didn’t even utter a murmur when council officers stated that the Carnegie Urban Village is “well-served” by open space, and now Council is claiming they’re concerned. Well saying one thing and doing another is incongruent behaviour.
November 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Glen Eira’s residential development is already known to be between 500 to 600 dwellings per year till 2023. Have a look at the forecast produced at http://forecast2.id.com.au/Default.aspx?id=133&pg=5230. If you are interested in your suburb just click on the suburb name. The figures were probably provided by the Council Admin. So the data for planning is there. But, what is the impact of such developments to the issues you mentioned: open space, traffic congestion, supporting amenities etc.? There is also the issue of increasing revenue on a cumulative basis. Why is it that we seem to be increasing rates and service charges? How much do we spend on Admin? All Governments are talking about austerity measures, but in Glen Eira we are expanding the bureaucracy it seems.
November 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM
looking accross Caulfield Racecourse today all I can see is grass. I can only assume zilch is done. I say put the signatories of the agreement on the committee as they should fall on their own swords. Cant wait for the MRC stooge to comment and say how fantastic it is in the middle!
November 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM
Spring carnival is over and Councillors don’t seem to care. No wonder the MRC is not bothering about the agreement.
November 20, 2012 at 12:35 AM
Apart from little being done tEEEEEEhere is a fence in the horse smelling tunnel to protect walkers who are treaversing the tunnel. The notices are still on the gates saying when the area is to be locked at sunset and people are being locked in in the evening as the gates are frequenly locked well before sunset!!!!!!!! IT SEEMS THAT THEONLY PART OF THE MRC WAS INTERESTED IN WAS THE PART TO SUITE THEM.
Take a look At THE swap parK
November 20, 2012 at 3:36 PM
A complaint to Council was met with the response, its not our problem – you need to talk to the MRC. The MRC then said they have completed the Park (debateable) and it is Council to complete other parts of the agreement – you need to talk to them. What a great outcome! CAN SOMEONE TAKE SOME OWNERSHIP ON THIS CRUCIAL MATTER AND LETS GET THE CAULFIELD RACECOURSE AGREEMENT BACK ON TRACK (BOOM BOOM)!!!
November 20, 2012 at 7:39 PM
Surely you must be talking of another Council than Glen Eira – the recent survey undertaken by Newton and Burke recorded that 120% of Glen Eira residents were satisfied. Seriously, same thing happened to me. They hope you keep ringing each other to find answers until you run out of puff. Only in Glen Eira….