We’ve uploaded the Planning Scheme Review Discussion Paper HERE.
Please peruse and we welcome your (initial) views.
April 1, 2016
The ‘Discussion Paper’ – #1
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[13] Comments
Glen Eira Debates 
April 1, 2016 at 2:33 PM
How auspicious for GECC to release on April Fools’ Day, conventionally celebrated by playing practical jokes and spreading hoaxes.
April 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM
This time last year the battle raged over the retention of heritage worthy Frogmore House. Frogmore was lost forever in July 2015, despite huge community support for retention, support from the National Trust and a Council commissioned independent heritage advisors report (Jan 2015) which clearly outlined the heritage significance of the house and recommended Municipal Level Heritage Protection.
Frogmore was lost because Council Officers and Councillors blatantly ignored the heritage related clauses in the Municipal Strategy Statement, the Planning Scheme and the Environment and Planning Act. In addition they ignored the Council commissioned Jan 2015 heritage report and the community and the National Trust.
Quite frankly, I find it repugnant that those guilty of the Frogmore malfeasance now have the unmitigated gall to put themselves in charge of a review of the rules which they themselves have not followed because of the involvement of a vested interest group.
And Frogmore is only one of the many examples of just how atrociously Officers and Councillors have, and are continuing to undertake their respective roles.
April 1, 2016 at 6:29 PM
yes you’re right, it will be of a cover-up, than a review
April 1, 2016 at 5:34 PM
interesting the website they refer to does not exist. that will throw us off for awhile.
Question asked by:
Ms
Pennicuik
Directed to:
Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water
Asked on:
25
February 2016
ANSWER:
The Melbourne Racing Club engaged a consultant to assess fencing along the Queens Avenue boundary.
The
consultant’s report found that the fence plays a vital role in ensuring the safety and security of those involved in the
racing industry, visitors and surrounding residents. For this reason, the fencing will be retained.
Use and development of the rem
ainder of the Caulfield Racecourse will be addressed through the preparation of a
Strategic Land Management Plan (SLMP). The SLMP will assist the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust to
identify land to be utilised as public open space and as well as land r
equired for racing purposes in the future. The
SLMP process is well advanced with public consultation taking place during 2015. The community will be invited
to provide feedback on the draft SLMP, which will be uploaded on the Trust website: http://www.CRRTruste
es.com.au
April 1, 2016 at 6:16 PM
If there was proper governance for the racecourse precinct, it wouldn’t be MRC’s decision what the fencing was along Queens Av. The current fence was only a temporary measure, erected by the army during WWII. It is clapped out [see photos at https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/the-mrc-juggernaut-with-a-little-help-from-my-friends%5D. Substantial stretches have lost their capping, leaving exposed a sharp metal edge.
If MRC truly cared about safety, it wouldn’t have artifically raised the ground level so close to the boundary. The MRC has had the temerity to demand that GECC leave the vegetation in place on council land along Queens Av. Andrew Newton obliged, but that particular roadblock has now left, so a proper footpath and new fencing can be installed. If MRC wishes, it could provide more trees on the racecourse side of the fenceline. Wonder if they even have a lease.
April 1, 2016 at 8:49 PM
Now now folks don’t leap to conclusions – if the fencing is to become open pallisade fencing (as previously proposed) or open cyclone fencing (as per Royal Randwick along busy 4 laned Allison road) then you may be jumping the gun.
However, if the fencing is to be solid then it’s a crock of shit.
Of all the various arguments put up by the MRC (and there have been some rippers over the years) none of them stack up and can be easily shot down.
The reason the MRC trots them out (and hides behind a consultant report) is to hide the fact that solid fencing presents a huge psychological and physical barrier to the public entry. If the public could see the huge track of land that is designated public parkland and that the MRC takes for without legal entitlement or payment (check the AG’s report) a huge public outcry would ensue. And so it should.
April 2, 2016 at 9:02 AM
Today’s (Saturday) Age – http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/racetrack-bosses-under-fire-for-plans-to-double-job-tenure-20160401-gnw5dp.html
April 2, 2016 at 9:44 AM
“Victoria’s Racing Minister Martin Pakula declined to comment.” He wasn’t so reticent when criticizing GECC for attempting to implement the Agreement that MRC reneged on. Directors of companies making money out of the Crown land aren’t appropriate Trustees either.
April 1, 2016 at 10:14 PM
Memories of Frogmore is surely alive and thanks to O’Kotell, peeling and Esakoff who sold the residents. The three Carnegie councillors should never be voted again. It is ridiculous to read that O’Kotell is standing for a position in the Senate when she has no idea how the council works and votes blindly with liberals to please them it USA pay back for voting with her three musketeers similar to Peeling 2x puppet Mayor. Maggie was not a puppet but erratic and loves to appear on TV and fighting with MRC a lost cause.
April 1, 2016 at 11:34 PM
Okotel wanted maximum exposure for minimum effort, and she got it.
(MODERATORS: sentence deleted)
Lets hope she fails.
Then she will have to test her minimum talent in the real world.
Or if the Fed election is before the council election she may well run again in Rosstown, 20 grand for just following the leader is better than a kick in the pants.
Never under estimate the charm a pile of easy money has some people or most people in fact.
April 2, 2016 at 8:51 AM
We need residents to make comments on relevant web page and attend where possible. Let’s attempt to keep them honest!
April 2, 2016 at 9:33 AM
It’s worth reading the accompanying officer report in the Meeting Agenda to get a sense of how distorted Council’s view of the world is. It talks about community building and engagement yet Council went out of its way to exclude the public, denying us a say about the new Residential Zones.
The report claims the Scheme must be regularly reviewed, but that is demonstrably not true given council staff have repeatedly requested exemptions from conducting reviews, possibly on behalf of Council. The reasons given are specious. As a result of failing to consult regularly, council staff have made a submission to MRDAC that fails to reflect the views of the community, and arguably, doesn’t even reflect the views of Council.
The report inaccurately describes what the purposes of the review are. The Act is explicit about the objective of a review, which is to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the planning scheme.
My personal view is that the scheme doesn’t set out effectively the policy objectives for use and development of land, and doesn’t make effective use of State and local provisions to give effect to planning policy objectives. The many many decisions at VCAT that set aside Council’s decisions attest to that. It is NOT sustainable. It is not fair. According to Council, the outcomes aren’t even affordable.
I’m disappointed the “Discussion Paper” doesn’t summarise the Objectives of planning in Victoria as listed in the Act. It doesn’t identify clearly the relevant clauses of the Scheme that Council are responsible for. It doesn’t list all the policies that have been allowed to rot yet remain reference documents. It doesn’t list what went wrong with the last review, where the report was completed internally regardless of community feedback and most of the actions weren’t subsequently implemented anyway.
Councillors have hidden behind their Local Law, making decisions in secret in Assemblies of Councillors. They have gone out of their way to avoid scrutiny, accountability, transparency. They don’t deserve to remain councillors if they consider that behaviour acceptable.
April 2, 2016 at 12:28 PM
Well said. Even guns in Caulfield park were approved in closed doors until Dela-hunting revealed the facts on radio. Guns, destruction of our beloved Frogmore, building zones, bulldozing Conservative of friends of Caulfield park etc. residents ready to pounce on the Councillors in public consultation this month. Bring it on!!!!!!!!!!!