According to Item 9.11 of the current agenda, Council has been offered $350,000 and $25,000 per annum in order to become the Committee of Management for the land at the top of Glen Eira/Booran Roads. This land featured in the notorious ‘land swap’ between the Government and the Melbourne Racing Club and was to be established as a ‘public park’. Council’s position has been that it will not accept the land because of its poor access, size, lack of adequate ‘surveillance’, etc. The land was returned to the government once council refused.
Now we find:
- That clearly some secret deal has been made between the Department, the MRC, and council – to the exclusion of the public
- Council is willing to renege on its previous position for the meagre sum of $350,000 – (far from the true value of the land)
The officer’s report contains these recommendations. That council –
authorises officers to meet with DELWP to negotiate favourable conditions for Council’s use of the land, including clarity on the type of recreation facilities that could be incorporated onto the site
Potential for the site to be rezoned in future for other uses, without a nett reduction in open space across the municipality;
Plus these paragraphs:
This reserve has previously been offered to, and refused by Council, with Council’s previous position on the land swap arrangement being that any land should be of equivalent value and made available for public use. In the original offer to Council, the (then) Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) had stipulated that the land had to be utilised as public open space.
The new offer from DELWP still states the condition that the reserve is to be used for public recreation purposes. However, officers understand that the current offer is potentially open for discussion on the restrictions, which enables other options for discussion on use of the land
Even more disconcerting is this paragraph –
A current offer has been made of the land of $350,000 to develop it and approximately $25,000 per annum to use to maintain it. This will be inadequate to deliver a quality open space. However, it will be enough to ensure that Council is notdisadvantaged by taking on the reserve in the short term, and will enable Council to implement some potential low cost temporary uses for the space.
Thus, we have the situation where ‘short term’ expediency trumps long term planning and the carrot of $350,000 is sufficient for council to sell its soul! Plus, we certainly do know that once council implements something, then it is almost impossible to change!
It is obvious that discussions have already occurred and will continue. This does not provide justification for a report that is so vague and so uninformative on an issue which has featured prominently for years and years.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 18, 2016 at 12:36 PM
In the end the land will have a block of flats built on it with the MRC getting the dough.
December 18, 2016 at 1:23 PM
Dead right
December 18, 2016 at 9:06 PM
“Potential for the site to be rezoned in future for other uses, without a nett reduction in open space across the municipality;”
This raises the possibility of council moving the depot from Caulfield Park to this allotment if DELWP consents. The $25,000 will be annual rent paid by the MRC for the 10 meter strip of land along the length of the southern boundary that they haven’t vacated, and likely won’t.
The 350,000 is not the value of the land but the sum of monies that was tied to the original swap to help balance the imbalance within the swap.
There are other blatant omission and selective framing of half truths presented as facts combining to paint a negative picture of the recreational possibilities of this allotment.
It could make a great site for a community garden, urban forest, or a mix of both, the mind boggles at the lack of imagination held by GE officers.
I also see people are already using this land for recreation, as it’s not restricted by operation hours like the racecourse is.
Let’s hope DELWP holds firm to their ideals of seeing this land being used as a public park.
One change is the the Officers through Item 9.1.1 are actually asking permission from our councillors to enter into negotiations with DELWP.
Let’s face it under Newton and Burke they would not have even bothered to bring this to our councillors they would have just done it in complete secrecy, then sprung it on council, relying on the Liberal Party gang plus Pilling to rubber stamp it through.
December 19, 2016 at 12:59 PM
Moving the depot was a no goer years ago. Council reckoned it would cost $3m. That was enough to get the no move motion through. They might suddenly find that it costs $350,000. Anyway the site is too small and who wants huge trucks and trailers going along there.
December 19, 2016 at 3:30 PM
Council has previously spent $3M+ on relocation of the depot, so there is a precedent for losing money. Insultingly the land now occupied by the depot in Caulfield Park is considered to be “public open space” despite the public being prohibited from it. Carparks are also considered to be public open space, as apparently are rail corridors. Next might be the road network.
December 19, 2016 at 5:33 PM
Dead right, the 2014 GE open space strategy included some of the rail verges as local open space, (Burgess Street Bentleigh was one example), called open space to plug or minimize the gap areas. This verge is now mostly gone due to road, rail upgrades..
So within barely a few years since the Open Space Strategy swindle was handed down from on high, we have less public open space and more gap areas have appeared.
The 2014 Open Space Strategy was sorely inadequate from day one, it was a highly politicised document re-written by Newton and Burke to cover their arses.
We need another OS Strategy ASAP hopefully free from bureaucratic perversion, and with the whole community’s interest and environmental issues taken into account. And importantly more free from the loud shrills of the rednecks sporting minority who think they own the majority of our public open space areas and expect everyone else to pay for their ball chasing obsessions.
December 19, 2016 at 7:37 PM
From day 1 everything to do with the mrc has been a complete disaster for residents. I want to thank Lipshutz Esakoff Hyams and Pilling for what they’ve done to make sure that residents get nothing and the mrc gets everything it wants. How anyone could vote for two of them again is beyond me.
December 19, 2016 at 10:37 PM
75% of residents consider local elections as a non event. Only 25% of those who are retired know what is going on and cannot be swayed otherwise. The above 4 Councillors have messed up our municipality who need to be investigated for too many wrong doings.
December 19, 2016 at 11:25 PM
Who do you reckon have voted them in?
December 20, 2016 at 2:37 PM
News on the skyrail supreme court challenge – http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sky-rail-supreme-court-dismisses-residents-bid-to-derail-project-20161220-gtepu5.html
December 20, 2016 at 6:59 PM
Unfortunately the Planning and Environment Act is pathetically weak and the Supreme Court decision confirms it. The Minister doesn’t have to consult, and doesn’t have to comply with anything in a Planning Scheme. The whole system is open to abuse and has been abused by Richard Wynne and cronies. Developers don’t have to comply with planning rules by making “facilitation payments” in the form of vaguely-specified public benefits. LXRA is an invention of government, and the Ormond tower proposal is a reminder that the government is giving itself the equivalent of a planning permit for something more than twice as tall as Council claims it wants for the precinct.
In the case of Skyrail, LXRA has refused to publish their design, so many of us don’t know how tall the structure is going to be or how close to our secluded private open space. The vague “answers” LXRA have provided are somewhere around 11.5m and 0.5m. The government acknowledges such a design doesn’t comply with ResCode but refuses to compensate those affected. On top of that, there is the specious claim that the design [assuming one actually exists] can accomodate an extra 2 tracks in the future. It can’t, not if it is to comply with current PTC standards as per drawing 133/95.
Anybody associated with the preparation of Amendment GC37 should be compelled to resign, and I include Steve Dimopoulos in that. The Greens should explain why they were prepared to sign the planning equivalent of a blank cheque in which the Planning Minister can do what they like without any accountability. According to Hansard not one MP who spoke for or against GC37 in Parliament made reference to planning principles or the objectives of planning as listed in the Act.
And what has our Council done on our behalf? According to LXRA their only concern was who would pay for maintenance of the land underneath the concrete structures.
December 20, 2016 at 11:18 PM
Just like you council was powerless to amend or influence
December 21, 2016 at 8:52 AM
Council is NOT powerless to influence. It could have stated publicly its opposition to something that fails to comply with ResCode without compensation or even a published design. It well knows what anybody else is required to provide in support of a Planning Permit application, and which LXRA/Government has refused to publish. Government has retrospectively published their “Urban Design Guidelines” and then failed to show how Skyrail complies.
Nobody has demonstrated how the decision complies with the Decision Guidelines in the Planning Scheme. I think the Supreme Court challenge was misguided as consultation is not required, but even omnipotent Ministers are expected to comply with the Act. That means considering everything that they must consider, and in a liberal democracy, demonstrating that they have done so. They failed, and Council has remained mute.
December 21, 2016 at 11:48 AM
You are absolutely correct the Minister should comply with the law.
However we do have a crises with democracy at all levels of government, inevitably leading to a lack of respect in law. We see the ramifications of this shunting down the track to both criminal and civil law, and its disregard. This is largely fueled the the apathy of the majority of people. We need to solve this apathy before we can even hope to get back even the basics of respect for law.