Glen Eira Debates

Bayside City Council is attempting to protect and preserve its existing neighbourhood character via draft Amendment C140 which is now out for consultation. In short, the amendment proposes to:

• Limit subdivision to sites that are over 800 square metres thus creating a default subdivision size of 400 sqm per unit. In Glen Eira, there is no minimum subdivision size and permits have been granted for subdivisions of under 200 square metres.
• Increase permeability to 35%. In Glen Eira it is 25%
• Increase open space requirements to 75 square metres. Glen Eira has 60 square metres.

Add on the number of Design & Development Overlays that exist in Bayside, an updated Housing Strategy, plus tree protection clauses, and Bayside is streaks ahead of Glen Eira in strategic planning. Of course, this proposed amendment does not sit well with the development industry, real estate agents, and others.

Thus we have this publicity campaign by Takle Developments – who also happen to have an office in Centre Road. Clearly such a campaign is largely unnecessary in Glen Eira, since this council has bent over backwards to facilitate development via its inaction and sub-standard strategic planning.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (IMPROVED GOVERNANCE) BILL 2015

Introduction and first reading

Ms HUTCHINS (Minister for Local Government)—I move:

That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1989 to improve the governance standards of councils, amend arrangements for local government elections and provide for other matters, to amend the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to repeal part 4A of that act and to consequentially amend the City of Greater Geelong Act 1993, the City of Melbourne Act 2001, the Electoral Act 2002 and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and for other purposes.

Mr CLARK (Box Hill)—I ask the minister to provide a brief explanation of the bill, further to the long title.

Ms HUTCHINS (Minister for Local Government)—This bill will raise the standards of behaviour by councillors and generally improve——

Honourable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER—Order! I remind members to remain silent while the Chair is on his feet. That applies at all times during parliamentary proceedings. I request members to comply with that.

Ms HUTCHINS—The bill will raise standards of behaviour by councillors——

Mr R. Smith interjected.

The SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Warrandyte!

Ms HUTCHINS—It will generally improve council governance in Victoria and improve the conduct of the general council elections to be held in 2016.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

 ++++++

SouthernMetropolitan Region

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan)—My constituency question is to the Minister for Education, Mr Merlino. Recent reports have suggested that a local councillor is campaigning for a third secondary school in the Glen Eira area, very close to two existing secondary schools. The land which the Labor mayor of the City of Glen Eira, Cr Jim Magee, is campaigning for the government to acquire in order to build a secondary school is in Virginia Park. Virginia Park is only 500 metres from the existing Bentleigh Secondary College.

The shadow Minister for Education, Nick Wakeling, and I visited Bentleigh Secondary College only last week to meet with the newly appointed principal. Bentleigh Secondary College has an excellent reputation and we were both fortunate enough to meet the dedicated teachers and a number of students. It was confirmed to Mr Wakeling and myself that Bentleigh Secondary College has capacity for further student enrolments. Nearby McKinnon Secondary College also has additional capacity and the principals of both McKinnon and Bentleigh secondary colleges do not think a third secondary school in such close proximity is necessary.

Constituents are confused and concerned about comments from the mayor. Does the government support the campaign by Cr Magee and what is the government’s position on acquiring the land at Virginia Park, as suggested by Cr Magee?

NOTE: no response to this query from Minister Noonan (Minister for Police)

Caulfield Racecourse Reserve

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water. The action I seek is that the minister undertake an urgent review of the trust of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and the Melbourne Racing Club.

As we know, some 12 months ago there was an Auditor-General’s report on the review of the mechanics of the trust of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Unfortunately since that Auditor-General’s report came out there has been little activity. The trust has hardly met and the Melbourne Racing Club has continued on, and it is my understanding that a lease is still not in place in terms of the mechanics of the facility.

This is really important for the future of what is the largest open space in my electorate. It is an under-utilised space where there should be more sporting activity, which I have called for on numerous occasions. We have the lowest amount of open space anywhere in the city of Glen Eira. This is a great opportunity for the minister to work with me and others to ensure that we get a result. The Glen Eira council has been calling for some action for some time. I know that racing is fundamental to Caulfield and that we need to ensure there is a permanent site where racing has a home, but there is uncertainty with the lease and a lack of action, and this is a missed opportunity. The centre of the racecourse is hardly frequented or used by the people of Caulfield, and we really need some action.

I suggest that there be a complete review of the trust and that the minister look at working together with me as the local member to see what we can do to ensure that the Auditor-General’s report is implemented, that there is transparency going forward, that ultimately the people of Caulfield get the best possible facility and the best use of open space and that the future of racing is guaranteed.

Response

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Minister for Industry)—…..I thank the member for Caulfield for raising an issue about the Melbourne Racing Club and the trust arrangements that are in place for Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. He is correct in pointing out that the Auditor-General raised serious concerns in relation to the way that the structure of that trust was established and the potential for and real conflicts of interest that exist. I have had representation from the member for Caulfield and the member for Bentleigh, who is a former trust member, about some of those issues.

We have appointed new board members in order to get the trust up and functioning again. The trust and the Melbourne Racing Club are currently doing strategic land use plans for the park. That of course does not address the main issue. We have looked at a range of options for what we could do regarding the governance arrangement, and legislative changes are required. As I have indicated to the member for Caulfield, I am keen to work with him as the local member and also a representative from the opposition and people from outside on trying to get a long-term solution and a new governance arrangement for Caulfield.

Members raised a range of issues for a number of ministers, and I will pass those on to those ministers.

The latest announcement on the Caulfield Racecourse raises a myriad of questions:

• If the MRC is so very committed to comprehensive ‘public consultation’ then why is there no widespread advertising of this? A tiny paragraph was all that was in today’s Caulfield Leader and there is nothing up on Council’s website. In the past, Council has notified readers of Trustee Meetings. This time – nothing!
• The announcement states that the Trustees have appointed Patrick Pty Ltd. Thus, has there been a Trustee meeting to ratify this appointment? If so, where are the minutes?
• Was this appointment tendered?
• What are Patrick’s terms of reference? Who determined these?
• Who is paying John Patrick – the MRC, or the Trustees? How much are they paying?
• Is it sheer coincidence that the consultant just happens to be the same consultant who has worked extensively for Glen Eira City Council? (ie Caulfield Park pavilion, Centenary Park pavilion, Booran Road Reservoir, etc)
• What role, if any, will council have in the final decision making? Does a Land Management Plan require formal council approval as any development application might?
• Exactly what does “inner landscape portion” mean? And what is the SIZE of this ‘inner’ section? Does it assume the current size, where fences have persisted in their relentless encroachment onto public land?
• Will the mushrooming fences in the centre now be removed?
• Is the removal of training now a forgotten item?
• Is the creation of sporting fields in the centre dead and buried? Was it ever feasible and likely? Will we see one token soccer pitch and that’s it?
• What does ‘Strategic Land Management Plan’, really mean? Are we talking buildings? Does this cover freehold as well as crown land?
• Is it the MRC’s intent to finally ‘solve’ the ‘park issue’ at the top of Glen Eira Road by turning it into a multi level car park? Will this ‘plan’ indicate this?
• Is Monash Uni and Stonnington involved in this plan? If not, why not, given the intensity of proposed residential development in the area?

A year has now passed since the Auditor General delivered his report. The creation of the Land Management Plan was one of his recommendations. What of the others? What is happening regarding:

• Lease negotiations
• Governance
• Resolving conflicts of interest
• Regular Trustee meetings that adhere to governance practices
• Why has no parliamentarian (apart from Sue Pennicuik) raised these issues in parliament?
• Why have our council representatives also been silent?
• Given the failure to implement the vast majority of the Auditor General’s recommendations, why has the Minister not dissolved the trustees and appointed a Committee of Management?
• Why has the Department continually rubber stamped the MRC applications in agreeing to a 4 storey screen on crown land, a cinema and now 31 antennaes that will be over 15 metres high but deemed as not ‘visually obtrusive’?
• And why oh why have our councillor reps (Lipshutz, Hyams & Esakoff) been utterly silent on what is going on when it is council, on behalf of the MRC and John Patrick, who emailed sporting groups about the ‘consultation’. If Council knows and is acting as the ‘middle man’, then why haven’t our illustrious reps spoken out and informed their constituents of what they know. A fair question might also be – have they even bothered to inform their fellow councillors? Do all councillors know what is going on with the ‘consultation’ and council’s role?
• All of which leads to the even broader question of what proportion of resident and sporting group ‘suggestions’ will be taken up by the MRC? And what recourse do residents have if the hired help (Patrick) comes up with a ‘design’ that continues to exclude and ignore the ‘public park’ aspect of the racecourse but continues to allow the MRC to reap millions from Crown land?