MAGEE moved to accept. Delahunty seconded.

MAGEE: said that the document sets out council’s ‘reasonable expectations’ on the use of Crown Land. Went over the history and that the reserve was set aside for ‘racing, recreation’ and park. Stated that racing is ‘well and truly catered for’ and that recreation and park isn’t.

Didn’t think that trustees should be in control but a committee of management since it was gazetted in 1886 as a committee of management but this was abolished in the 1920’s. Went on to talk about the Guidelines put out by DSE on committees of management and that the trustees are seen as such a committee. But these trustees don’t produce an Annual report, nor a financial statement, nor publish their minutes. Members of the public are also excluded. Went on to explain composition – ie 6 members of the MRC, 6 government appointed members and 3 councillor representatives. Said that the 6 MRC members can basically ‘adjudicate’ on everything. Gave the example of the trustees ‘about to lease the racecourse to the MRC’. Said he wanted to clarify that the trustees are ‘very honourable’ people but that perceptions from the community are ‘hard to’ argue against when 6 trustees aren’t just members of the MRC, but on the ‘committee’ of the MRC. The Chair of the Trustees  is vice chair of the MRC and the Chair of the MRC is also a trustee (McDonald). Stated that there’s therefore the situation where the trustees are leasing land to themselves for $71,000 per year. ‘The court of public opinion is what matters here’. Magee said that he ‘raised a lot of these concerns’ last year and that conflict of interest is ‘something that’s very dear to us’ and that council has to abide by these rules. Said that he asked for 3 things: advice from Auditor General, valuer general and DSE. He wanted to know the ‘value of the racecourse and what we’re leasing’; also wanted legal advice on conflict of interest and solictor general’s advice ‘came back….you have a conflict of interest’ and the ‘trustees said No I don’t’.

People also raise issues about ‘business’ running on Crown Land. The trust leases this to the MRC ‘for about $10,000 per year’. That’s then leased to the Aquinita stables. The people who run these stables (Symonds etc.) are MRC people. So question people might ask is ‘is it right or is it wrong’? Wants Napthine to ‘answer these questions’. Said he’d written letters previously but got no answers. He thought that some of these people have ‘conflict of interest’ and people want this looked at.

DELAHUNTY: said that it’s important that ‘council speak in one voice’ and that she thought it is ‘the biggest issue’ that the council would have to ‘deal with’. Said that the current governance ‘arrangements’ are ‘an absolute insult to us as citizens’. The 3 purposes for the land (racing, park, recreation) ‘is paramount’ to ‘restoring supply issues’ (ie sport). Getting rid of training is important for this to occur. The creation of the synthetic training track ‘seems to be at odds with their statements of 2009’ where the position then was quite ‘collaborative’ – read bits from the statement especially the bit about the MRC providing council with an annual update. ‘Well I think we just got our update!’  ….’2.8 million dollars says that training is there to stay and that’s not good enough for the people of Glen Eira’. The money spent on the training track is ‘one million more than they managed to scrape together’ for the centre and that in their media release they ‘use a comparison to sporting grounds’ explaining to people ‘just how big this bloody track is’…’65 tennis courts they say….(this is their version of) ‘flicking the bird at the people of Glen Eira’.

Getting rid of parking is a necessity ‘because it’s a public park’. She agrees with the position but that’s irrelevant because when passed the resolution becomes ‘our position as councillors’ and ‘this is a position I will uuphold, even though it might be difficult’ (family functions). Said that whomever she speaks with that this will be ‘my position’ whether it’s speaking with local MPs or perhaps attending the fun run and ‘I know this might be difficult for some of my council colleagues’ but they understand that ‘they must uphold this position at every reasonable opportunity’. This puts ‘what the public’s position is’ and isn’t ‘asking for anything that’s unfair’. Saw this as a ‘rebalancing act’ which has been ‘tried in the past’. Mentioned Esakoff being here for 10 years and ‘putting up with these issues’ but with no ‘resolution’. Supports the motion and will support it fully at fun-runs and any liberal functions even though she doubts she’ll get an invite and if she didn’t fully advocate this position that she would have to ‘seriously consider’ her role as a councillor. Asserted that ‘to do her job properly as a councillor’ she’ll use all the ‘political influence I can muster’. Challenged other councillors to ‘do the same’. Said that unless all councillors were willing ‘to advance this position’ that they would not be ‘acting in the best interests’ of those people who elected them.

PILLING: endorsed Magee’s ‘passion’ and acknowledged that the issue ‘has been around for a long time’. Thought that this position was better than previous ones because it’s ‘more defined’ and ‘appropriate’. Said that the issue was a result of both sides of politics not ‘addressing’ the issue and that the new council was committed to this. Removing horse training was a ‘key part’.

LOBO: Spoke about the lack of open space in Glen Eira and that population increase as predicted would put further stress on Glen Eira’s lack of open space. Said that ‘extensive developments’ had occured at the racecourse ‘resulting in the exclusion’ of residents to land that ‘have been legally accessible’ for ages. Said that much of the  2 billion dollars of land is now behind fences and people are excluded. ‘Even Berlin got their wall down 23 years ago’ but the MRC are just continuing to ‘put their walls up’. With high rise and increasing population the need for more open space is crucial. This means that people are turned away from sporting clubs. Called ‘upon the MRC to release the grounds to the rightful owners’. Said he hoped that the new councillor trustees would ‘put up a very passionate fight’. Stated that is the government wanted more people in Glen Eira that they should ‘stop shaking hands’ with the MRC management.

Went on to talk about the money the MRC makes from gambling and how this isn’t shared with the community.

OKOTEL: said it was ‘exciting’ to see council taking the issue on ‘so seriously’. It was ‘wonderful’ to see how ‘committed’ the council is to ‘advocate’ for the position put in the motion and how the views of residents are ‘being considered for the use of the land’. Asked a question about whether the stables are on crown land or freehold. Was told that the Aquinita was on crown land. Hyams said that she might have been thinking about the heritage stables and not Aquinita.

HYAMS: said as a new trustee he wrestled with the question of whether there’s a conflict of interest and ‘came down on the side’ that he doesn’t have a conflict of interest. Reason was that there’s a law about ‘conflicting duties’ which says that if you’re an officer that has a ‘direct interest’ then there’s an ‘indirect interest’. Said that ‘direct interest’ means that there’s a possibility of benefiting the opportunities (in this instance the Trust) ‘would be directly altered’ if decisions were made in a specific way. (Hyams cited the Local Government Act on all this). Said that he ‘would love it’ if circumstances could be altered by their decisions because then the trust would be doing ‘what it was meant to do’. But didn’t think that council taking this decision would have ‘a direct affect’ on the Trust and therefore he didn’t think that he’s got a conflict of interest.

Said that his position on the MRC is different because their job is to ‘promote racing’ and that’s what they’re doing. The ‘scandal’ is that the ‘MRC has been allowed to do this’ as a result of trustees ‘abrogating their duty’. The trust gave control to the MRC and that ‘should no longer’ go on. Said that he’d been ‘invited to speak at the opening’ but wasn’t sure whether ‘after tonight’ the invitation would still be there. Said that ‘there is a park in the middle of the racecourse’ and that’s a ‘good first step’ but that ‘people will expect more’.

Referred to Delahunty saying that this has been ‘going on for a long time’. He then mentioned the Select Committee hearing of 2008 and how council ‘articulated’ their position through Esakoff as Deputy Mayor. Said that that position was ‘very similar’ to this motion and even the Select Committee’s report ‘was very similar’. Said that when Magee asked all councillors to support that Hyams is sure that Magee ‘in no way intended to infer that this was not the position of all councillors’ nor that ‘any of us needed to be persuaded’.

Stated that the existence of racing is ‘accepted’ but that it’s time that ‘other uses had equal acceptance’ and that he wouldn’t have any problem putting this position forward as a trustee. Said that the trustees are an ‘anachronomism’ and would like to see a committee of management and the MRC charged a commercial rate.

MAGEE: started to ‘defend’ the MRC because ‘they do what they’re allowed to do’. The trustees haven’t got any ‘guidance’, ‘rules’ or ‘policies’. The only thing that’s in place is that the public are excluded from meetings, no annualj report, no minutes, etc. Said he asked for documentation on the ‘rules’ and was told by one trustee ‘think I saw a little red book once’! So a ‘2 billion dollar asset being run by a little red book’ that ‘may or may not exist’. Stated that he wanted the Caulfield Cup ‘run there for the next 100 years’ but he also wanted to see the place opened up.

Talked about the land swap and how the role of the trustees was to protect the land and they decided that it was no longer needed and the MRC bought it and last year the Minister ‘announced a 1 billion dollar development on that land’ and that the developer is the MRC. They are now ‘one of the largest commercial developers in Victoria’. Also that the Minister ‘decided that I’m not worthy of being a trustee anymore’ and that it could have ‘something to do with the letter’ he wrote to Baillieu. The MRC is classified as ‘non-profit’ but here they are as a major developer. They own 11 hotels, 3 racecourses, tabarets and are ‘into gambling’….’all we want is some land in the centre of the racecourse which is ours’. Said that at the trustee meetings he argued against the landswap because the trustees ‘were getting nothing’ because ‘the land never came back to the trust. It belongs to the DSE’. Said their, the trustee’s  land is now 8,500 metres smaller and the trustees themselves did this. They did this because there isn’t any documented policy. Wanted to know how the trustees ‘could give this land to the MRC….not knowing that there is conflict of interest’ and how could the 6 MRC members buy the land and then ‘announce a development of 1 billion’ without seeing this conflict of interest. This happened because ‘there are no rules’. The result is that residents are locked out and that whenever something is on they need the land for parking so people are again losing out.

HYAMS PUT THE MOTION. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

PS: THE LEADER VIEW!

Champion mare Black Caviar with strapper Vanessa Bartlett at Caulfield. Picture: Michael Klein Herald Sun

Councillors voted unanimously to adopt a 10-point position statement that commits all councillors to advocating for horse training to be phased out so the Crown land is open for more public use.

Should the reserve be used for different purposes? Have your say below.

The nine-point statement demands massive change, including phasing out all racehorse training.

Other key demands:

• Equal land for community sport and racetracks;
• Leases or licences put in place for each of the reserve’s three main uses;
• Horse training to be phased out;
• Public use to take precedence over car parking;
• Commercial rent charged for all commercial activities; and
• Governance by committee of management.

Glen Eira has the smallest amount of public open space of any Melbourne council.

Here’s a very brief rundown on tonight’s council meeting. A full report will be forthcoming – we’re just highlighting the decisions. As predicted, and after much huffing and puffing by certain councillors, it was decided:

• The Special Racecourse Committee is now defunct – unanimous
• The council ‘position’ on the racecourse is affirmed – unanimous
• The planning application went through after the motion to refuse was defeated.
• Plenty of public questions on Ajax footy club, Gardener’s Rd incursion into public open space. As usual, pathetic non-answers to the vast majority!
• Hyams declared that he does not have a conflict of interest as a Trustee. Tried his usual little Dorothy Dixer to Newton to score a point against the Labor Party but was called on a point of order by Delahunty.
• Lipshutz was absent but well ‘deputised’ by Pilling!

All in all a fascinating evening of selective memory, chest beating, and playing to the gallery and posterity.

Below are some extracts from the minutes of the February Audit Committee Meeting. We think they speak for themselves!

“Mr McLean requested that the Audit Committee be kept updated with respect to the dispute resolution process between Council and Hansen and Yuncken”.

“Financial Sustainability Risk matrix

The meeting was advised that on the basis of the Council’s existing accounting policies for Aged Care Bonds, Council’s liquidity ratio is projected to exceed 100%. If accounting policies were changed, ratios could be impacted. The Chairman asked that management review Council’s options around the liquidity ratio, including deferral of payments of the Defined Benefits Superannuation Fund liability shortfall.

Mr McLean raised the question for follow up as to whether any liquidity covenants existed around the borrowings for GESAC”.

Cr Jim Magee is hoping there will be support for the statement on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.  Picture: Jason Sammon Leader

The nine-point statement will push for massive change, including phasing out all racehorse training.

It comes just a week before the reserve’s governing body the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust is due to meet.

The State Government has appointed three new Glen Eira councillors to the trust. Mayor Jamie Hyams, Cr Michael Lipshutz and Cr Margaret Esakoff’s appointments were gazetted last Wednesday. Former trustee chairman Cr Jim Magee was not reappointed.

Cr Magee will call on all councillors to support the statement.

“It’s one of the most significant statements council has ever made regarding the racecourse,” he said.

If the statement is adopted, the council will be committed to advocate for:

• Equal land for community sport and racetracks
•  Leases or licences put in place for each of the reserve’s three main uses
•  Horse training to be phased out
• Public use to take precedence over car parking
• Commercial rent charged for all commercial activities
• Governance by committee of management

View the full statement at gleneira.vic.gov.au.

Read next week’s Caulfield Glen Eira Leader for the council’s decision and the community’s reaction or email andrea.kellett@news.com.au with your thoughts.

Two items of interest feature in the upcoming council meeting –

• The demise of the Racecourse Special Committee
• Council’s belated ‘position statement’ on the centre of the racecourse

The demise of the Racecourse Special Committee comes as no surprise given that it has already performed its ‘dirty deeds’ and we now have Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz as MRC Trustees. The committee has served its purpose!

The second item, whilst most welcome, is also very belated and ironic in that it reiterates many of the points that Penhalluriack was insisting upon years ago. The tragedy is, that this position is AFTER THE FACT and should have been ‘non-negotiable’ right from the start. Writing to a bunch of Ministers and parliamentarians after the horse has literally bolted rings hollow indeed.

A few points are worth pointing out in this Newton drafted pitch for posterity –

• ‘recreation’ has morphed into ‘sporting grounds’ whereas the original ‘agreement’ forbade ‘ball games’
• It’s also quite amusing to read ‘The area allocated for community sports grounds should be no less than the area allocated for race tracks’. Given that it was Council which passed the Centre of the Racecourse permit and allowed leggo land fencing to encroach more and more on OUR land, then these words are nothing more than another public relations exercise.
• Lipservice is also paid to the major bone of contention –‘training should be phased out’ – but with no set time line, etc.
• One positive note that echoes Penhalluriack and Magee is the notation that commercial rates should be paid for this Crown Land.
• Access is of course mentioned, but not a word about why fences are still up, nor hours of access.

We reiterate. This statement is welcomed but far, far too late. The failure of the Special Committee and Newton to insist on these right from the start should never be forgotten. As for ‘outcomes’ from this? Well, we’re not holding our breath given history and certain letters from the DSE, plus Premier Napthine’s love of racing.

 A public question was asked at the 5^th February Council Meeting. It read:

“Glen Eira Council is reported as having made a submission to the Ministerial Advisory Committee investigating Development Contributions under the Planning and Environment Act. Will Council make this submission public and accessible to all? When was this issue discussed with councillors?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “In September 2012 Councils were asked a standard list of specific technical questions relating to the DPCD position paper entitled Standard Development Contributions Paper – A Preferred Way Forward.

Council officers provided answers to these technical questions in October 2012.

Councillors were informed of this during that time.

It is understood that Councils and members of the public will be given opportunities in the future to make further submissions.”

Since then there has been no public disclosure, and no further mention of this important issue. Even worse, the fact that councillors were ‘informed’ does not feature anywhere in the Records of Assembly for this period. Conclusion? Either the Records of Assembly are a total (censored) joke, the ‘informing’ was a brief verbal aside, or perhaps did not even take place?

We’re getting mightily sick of revealing how often this council is out of step with the majority of its neighbours. This is not the first time that submissions to various committees or government have not been ratified by council resolution first off (as done in other municipalities) much less made public. Residents have no idea as to how this council votes at MAV conferences; what positions will be taken, or much about anything. We even wonder if councillors get a look in, or have a say on anything. Yet they do nothing!  They allow residents to be treated like mushrooms and the disease of inaccurate reporting and secrecy continues unabated.

The development contributions is a vital issue for any municipality that is experiencing the unprecedented growth that Glen Eira is. Given that this council has REMOVED the contributions from its planning scheme it becomes even more important that residents know what council’s position is. Will Newton and his cohorts meekly accept the pro-development agenda, or will there be some insistence that ratepayers stop subsidising greed?

Below are the views of our neighbours – all made public and above board – not like Glen Eira City Council!

1. PORT PHILLIP EXTRACTS

http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/Report_3_-_Submission_to_Standard_Development_Contributions_Advisory_Committee.pdf

There remains a bias in the design of the proposed development contributions framework towards the establishment of development contributions in growth areas. This translates into some gaps in the frameworks application in established areas where project delivery can be much more complex and expensive that broad acre green field development. These gaps include:

• Assumptions about spare capacity in existing infrastructure to cope with development.

• The suggestion that a “25% discount” be applied to standard leviesin established areas compared to growth areas.

• Failure to recognise the complexities and additional costs associated with development in established urban areas.

• The significant land cost component in the provision of new infrastructure in established areas.

Project contingencies cost allowance set at 10% of project cost. A contingency set at a standard 10 % is very low for projects, particularly in inner urban areas. This should be scaled across a range in accordance with industry best practice and be project specific.

There is no recognition in the proposed framework that additional growth in established urban areas can create “tipping points”, exceeding infrastructure capacity and rendering some types of existing infrastructure redundant. This in turn will necessitate complete replacement in order to upgrade the capacity.

The framework proposes that historical capital works expenditure and population growth over time be used as a basis to set the contribution for new development. This approach is not supported as it:

• has no direct relationship to actual need for infrastructure generated by additional growth relies on historical spending that may not be an accurate indication of either infrastructure cost or infrastructure need

• takes no account of the nature of the population increases and subsequent infrastructure needs

• does not allow for consideration of current standards and costs of infrastructure provision

• is contrary to the basic tests of need and nexus that have long been established in setting development contributions.

2. BAYSIDE

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/5_March_2013_Councillor_Briefing.pdf

in the councillor briefing notes under – ‘proposed submission’

3. STONNINGTON (uploaded in full here)

• The application of the Development Levy Scheme (DLS) to only large scale Strategic Redevelopment Areas lacks the flexibility needed to respond to the various levels of development occurring and infrastructure needs across metropolitan Melbourne. The needs in the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre are not considered.

• That the DLS decision making process should include a Social Impact Assessment

Bayside has a very interesting item set down for decision at its March 19^th council meeting. A major development on Bay St. has been given the go-ahead by VCAT. Concerned about potential ‘rat-runs’ and other traffic problems for neighbouring streets as a consequence of this development, Bayside queried the developers’ Traffic Management Plan and did its own research and consultation. We’ve uploaded the full officers’ report, (minus photographs and diagrams) but wish to highlight here the extent that the community has been involved in shaping the outcomes for their neighbourhoods. Of course, nothing like this ever happens in Glen Eira!

Please note the extent of the following consultation –

We’ve reported ad nauseum on the failure of this administration to provide accurate, comprehensive, and timely information to both residents and councillors. This post focuses on the regular ‘VCAT Watch’ that appears in every council meeting agenda. We’ve already commented on the fact that there is no complete record of DPC decision making in contrast to what other councils provide their communities. The Glen Eira version of reporting on VCAT cases is equally deficient and misleading.

Every agenda item is entitled ‘VCAT WATCH – (monthly) Decisions’ – where the current month’s name is inserted. Any reasonable person would then expect that what is contained in this watch does in fact represent the decisions made by VCAT for that particular month. As we will show, nothing could be further from the truth! But first, here’s how some other councils do it –

Boroondara provides regular tables outlining results according to ward. These are comprehensive, so that residents know the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of each appearance at VCAT plus whether the decision to grant or deny the permit was made by council or under delegation. (Click to enlarge).

Bayside also includes a list, and then a full report on each decision where residents can again see the tabulated form of success or failure.

Glen Eira in contrast relies on its ‘VCAT WATCH’ where often very selective editing accompanies the ‘summary’ of the VCAT decision. We’ve taken the trouble to go through all ‘VCAT WATCHES’ FROM February 2012 to February 2013. The results are fascinating in that:

• Not one single judgement has occurred when it is stated it did occur. Once a decision has been made the applicant, council, and objectors are notified that day by email. There is absolutely no excuse that a judgement which was handed down in say November 2012, does not feature until February 2013 – even though the tag line for the February agenda item states ‘February Decisions’. Let’s have a little honesty shall we, and simply label this as ‘past VCAT decisions’!
  
• Not all VCAT decisions are reported. Why not, if this is meant to be genuine and honest feedback to councillors and residents? For example: in August 2012 there are 9 VCAT decisions listed on the VCAT website. Council only reported on 4 of these decisions. What happened to the other five? Why weren’t these included and reported upon? This trend is also evident for the following months – April 2012 – Glen Eira reported on 3 out of 7; November 2012 – 4 out of 5; October – 6 out of 7.
• Nowhere does Glen Eira report on its ‘success rate’ at VCAT. Residents do not know the total figures, as they do with other councils, nor how many decisions are upheld, set aside, varied.

Below is our table of the VCAT WATCH from council minutes. The first column lists the applicant (or objector); the second column the date the decision was handed down and the last column lists the date that Council reported the decision. In practically every case there was at least one council meeting in the intervening period when the result could have been reported upon. It shouldn’t take 3 months to get something onto the agenda and then pretend it is current!

What all this leads to are two possible conclusions – either there is vast incompetence or the failure to provide complete information is deliberate. Readers can make up their own minds. What is certain is that the processes and practices within Glen Eira’s reporting framework is well and truly below par and cannot be relied upon by anyone.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Waiting for bus service

I remember our mayor and local member promising a bus along East Boundary to run directly to GESAC at the last election.

A regular bus service would reduce the need for the council to build more car parking spaces with ratepayers picking up the tab. It would mean more people could use GESAC. I hope the mayor is lobbying Ms Miller to honour her promises and a bus service will be travelling to GESAC very soon.

Be fair to the retailers

When I was a councillor for the City of Moorabbin (1984 to 1990), I introduced a council policy that council buildings not be allowed to be used/hired for the purpose of becoming retail outlets.

I did this because it is not fair on the ratepaying retailers, who put in all year, to have blow-ins come into your area at prime times, such as Christmas, set up shop in a non-retail building, thus taking away potential customers from the local retailers.

It would seem to me that Glen Eira Council needs to introduce a similar policy. How such places as Caulfield Race Course are allowed to become retail outlets from time to time is beyond me and in fairness to all genuine retailers in Glen Eira, it should not be allowed.

I counted 13 empty shops in Centre Rd, Bentleigh, from Wheatley Rd, to Jasper Rd. Of course, the Bentleigh Sunday Market has a huge impact on the viability of retail shop/businesses in the local area. Many of the “professional” retailers at the Bentleigh Market every Sunday do not come from Glen Eira. So what input do they have to our community? They take but give nothing back. Caulfield Race Course, seems to want to be “all things, to all people”. It is a racecourse on crown land.

Woman of fine principles

Last week I had the great privilege of attending the state funeral for the Honourable Joan Child AO. Ms Child was the first female member of the ALP to be elected to the House of Representatives and later served as Australia’s first female speaker of the House.

A long-time residents of Glen Eira, Ms Child raised five children largely as a single parent after being widowed at 42. Her much discussed campaign headquarters in Grange Rd serves as a reminder of the important role our area has played in progressive political activism.

May favourite saying of hers is “everybody counts or nobody counts” because it is a simple phrase of lofty principles which I hope to uphold in my role as a local councillor. It is why we must accept petitions, seek consultation on important issues and support strong community groups because everybody counts or nobody counts.

Vale Joan Child, life lived in pursuit of fairness.

Cr Mary Delahunty

“How many years does it take for a building to be constructed?  How many times can a planning permit be issued or revised.  Why can’t the planning permit for this property be found on councils planning register? How long does a public footpath have to be unsafe before council does anything?

The multi-storey building in Koornang road which includes 26 units and shops has been under construction for years and years and years.  How can this be?  Surely building permits and planning permits must expire.  There has been so little movement with this development over so many years.

Who owns this property and why are they not forced to finish it and tidy up the site and repair the damage to the footpath?  Has anyone from council ever looked at this site? Does it comply with public safety requirements?

Should we be suspicious about this never ending construction process?  Does the owner have some special privileges that put the site outside public safety compliance?   Questions I can’t answer but maybe someone else knows what is going on and can explain why Carnegie has been blighted by an unfinished construction site for so many years and residents have had to put up with the unsightly mess and the very unsafe footpath.”