April 29, 2013
The Conservatory: 12 Years Of Neglect!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance[14] Comments
April 28, 2013
The Hon. Matthew Guy MLC
Minister for Planning
Level 7
1 Spring Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
Dear Minister,
I am writing to express my concerns about the administration of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and the lack of public recreation space available in the Glen Eira area.
According to the City of Glen Eira, despite the lack of public space in the municipality, there is large amount of unused public space available at the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.
You would be aware that the reserve is Crown Land and currently administered by the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust. The reserve was granted to the people of Caulfield for the provision of not just a racecourse but also for a public recreation ground and a public park. However, while the racecourse is well provided for by the Trust, the other purposes are not.
It is the responsibility of the Trust to ensure that the reserve is set aside for the public enjoyment and use of the people of Victoria, particularly those in the local area. However, the current structure of trust does not allow for good governance and accountability in administration of this public land. In particular, I am concerned that six of the positions on the Trust are filled by members of the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC), which is a tenant of the reserve, and that those trustees may experience a conflict of interest between their roles with the MRC and their duties as trustees.
Therefore, I ask that you take action to ensure the integrity of the Trust. Given that the Trust is responsible for approximately $2billion of public land, the Victorian Auditor General should be its Auditor. To ensure that the Trust is currently operating effectively, the Auditor General should conduct a performance audit immediately.
Furthermore, all bodies that manage Crown Land should comply with the Guidelines for Committees of Management of Crown Land, which are provided by the Department of Sustainability and Environment.
Crown Land is reserved to benefit all members of the public. However, the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is currently used for commercial purposes including a successful Tabaret. Nearly all income from the use of this public land accrues to a non-public body. The people of Caulfield and Elsternwick would be better served, in my view, if any non-core activities are charged a commercial rent and money reinvested into the provision of not just the racecourse, but also the other mandated purposes, a public recreation ground and public park.
I note that the Victorian Parliamentary Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Public Land Development in its final report in September 2008 found that, “The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve profits to the Melbourne Racing Club have been disproportionately directed to racing users, with inadequate provision for use of public park and recreation users as required by the original Grant,” and recommended, “That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees direct a substantial amount from the profits made by the Melbourne Racing Club over many decades to the provision of public park and recreational facilities, including promotion of the public use of these facilities as recompense to the community.”
The City of Glen Eira has the smallest amount of public open space per capita of all Melbourne municipalities. In addition to this, it is predicted that the MRC’s C60 Development, on its freehold land across Station Street from the Racecourse Reserve, is projected to include 1500 dwellings. More effective use of the existing public land at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve can assist alleviating the open space problem in Glen Eira for current and future residents. However, this is not possible until the current Trust structure is operating effectively, to ensure this an immediate performance audit will need to occur.
I would appreciate it if you would consider my concerns and get back to me at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Danby
Federal Member for Melbourne Ports
cc. The Hon. Ryan Smith MP
April 26, 2013
Business As Usual!
Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance[7] Comments
Some very, very interesting items on the agenda!
RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY
Once again it takes 3 council meetings for the Records of Assembly from early March to be placed in the public domain. A few things to note:
- On three separate occasions there was the notation that “the CEO left the Room.” Once concerned the CEO KPIs but the other two items stated: “Compliance with the Local Government Act.” What is going on? More lawyers? More expense? More witch hunts? And why is this not recorded as a declared potential ‘conflict of interest’? Surely officers are bound to also declare any potential conflict when certain items come up and that this be accurately reported in the minutes?
- On the Centre of the Racecourse, we get this:
“Advised that the invitation to the Mayor of Glen Eira to give a speech on the opening day function for the improvements to the centre of the racecourse had been withdrawn.
Advised that Racing Victoria and not the MRC had funded the MRC’s synthetic training track in the centre of the racecourse.
Cr Hyams further advised that he and Council’s other Trustees on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust were updated on Trust matters.”
BENTLEIGH DEVELOPMENT
Another recommendation to allow 3 storey development, even though the original permit was for 5 dwellings (2×2 bedrooms and 3×3 bedrooms), but this has now doubled to 10 as well as ALL being 2 bedroom! So much for ‘encouraging’ diversity! Notification also leaves a lot to desire – 5 properties notified, 8 notices sent and 47 objections!
CAULFIELD PARK CAFÉ
Back to the drawing boards on this one – or merely the typical council ploy of delaying expenditure until the place is so run down that the argument invariably becomes – demolish and build a café?
QUARTERLY REPORTING
We remind readers that a public question was asked at the council meeting of February 6th, 2013. It read:
“Currently there is no public reporting of the results of DPC meetings which do not involve appeals to VCAT. In the interests of transparency and full accountability will councillors ensure that the results of all DPC meetings, including property address, planning proposal, and decision, are included in every Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda and Minutes?” (Minutes of Feb 6th 2013)
Council’s response, included in part the following: “The Quarterly Services Report for 31 March 2013 will contain information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee according to number of dwellings, number of storeys and number of objections.”
It is clear that the gulf between what is stated and what is done are miles apart. The Quarterly Report DOES NOT include ‘information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee’. All it does is present data on those applications which end up at VCAT. Hence, the community still has no idea of how many applications are granted by DPC, their nature, nor the refusal in a format that is clear, accessible, and comprehensive! So much for transparency and accountability.
FINANCIAL REPORT
- Not a single word this time about ‘liquidated damages’. Compared to the tedious repetition of the past months this might be seen as an ‘improvement’.
- The delaying of various projects (some until 2014/15 budget) – regrassing of ovals, etc.
April 23, 2013
Short Changed – Again & Again!
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[36] Comments
Newton, Southwick, and the notorious Special Racecourse Committee should hang their heads in shame or better still, resign! The so-called ‘negotiating’ team has been a total disaster in terms of what they have delivered to the Glen Eira community. The Centre of the Racecourse and the so called ‘agreements’ are not worth a cracker. We maintain that:
- This is not a ‘park’ and never will be as long as fences continue to mushroom everywhere
- Access remains limited
- Terms of the ‘agreement’ are not being met
- Playground is NOT a playground
- Landscaping is appalling
- People would need a GPS system to find their way through all the fences and of course, no signage or directions anywhere
- Concrete paths are cracking every 2 to 3 metres
- No shade over barbecue tables
- Signage on ‘entrance’ points is contradictory (and again not in accordance with the ‘agreement’)
- One would need to be a mountain goat to scale the Queen’s Rd., entrance – plus no disability access through this entrance whatsoever.
- If this token ‘development’ really cost $1.8 million, then someone has been ripped off big time. It fails on all criteria of aesthetic, environmental, and open space design.
We will let our photos do the talking. But, how on earth any of this was ‘negotiated’ and how this council can continue to let the MRC get away with blue murder is unforgiveable. Lipshutz, Hyams, Newton, Esakoff, Pilling and Southwick are fully to blame for their monumental sellout of a potentially great community asset.
Here are a few photos and then a slideshow. Please read carefully the nonsense that the MRC has been allowed to post at the entrances. Special attention should be paid to: the statement about ‘restricted areas’; times of opening; and the totally inaccurate maps.
For the historical record here’s what was said by residents and these councillors when the application came up for approval. The relevant URLs are:
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/mrc-planning-conference-the-farce-continues/
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/mrc-planning-conference-part-2/
https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/2594/
And some of the most pertinent comments are highlighted, especially ESKAOFF’s –
SPEAKER #11: Asked if playground was part of application – was told ‘yes’. No detail provided about the playground; Tangalakis then asked if the speaker was an original objector and if so she would have seen the drawings. Speaker responded that what she’d seen were ‘board games’ and “I think that is a silly idea’. Stated that she has young children and couldn’t imagine anyone bothering to go over to a board game if that’s all that was going to be offered. Kids need better designed playgrounds. ..’.waste of money to put a board game there’. Suggested that unless decent scale is erected then it would remain ‘isolated’ and ‘neglected’. Queried the location adjacent to a lake – safety. Needs fencing and will be cold. Looked at plans, ‘i tried but I could not work out the scale so had no idea’ of anything. In support of developing centre, but if the plan goes ahead it will simply be a ‘lost opportunity’ to do something worthwhile. Concerned that this is all MRC work and that council should ‘independently assess’ merits. Objects to fence, and ‘why it’s necessary’ since access is denied until training over, so why need it? Access point for family not officially recognised so makes it difficult for people to get to facilities. Needs to be ‘equitable access’ to these facilities.
ESAKOFF: Concurred with both Hyams and Pilling. The post and rail fence becomes ‘something more acceptable….we will be pursuing further (playground) equipment….other than that I’m happy with this approval…
-
- Disability access?
-
- Weeds, Weeds, Weeds…..
-
- Park or weeds?
-
- Rubbish dump!
-
- 9.45????????
-
- Great workmanship!
-
- More superb care taken!
-
- So imaginative!
-
- Sitting on a plug hole!
-
- Any gardener’s available?
-
- Help – gardener’s desperately wanted!
-
- More weeds!
-
- Dead in 3 months?
-
- Fences, fences, fences
-
- Soccer for the littlies!
-
- More fences
-
- Mom, I’m bored!
-
- Crack after crack
-
- Tunnel of love?
-
- Highway to heaven?
-
- Oh, the smell!
-
- More dung!
-
- Any mountain goats out there?
April 23, 2013
Rail plan threatens homes
- Date: April 23, 2013
Homes and business premises in Melbourne’s south-east could be wiped off the map to make way for extra tracks along the Dandenong railway line to carry freight trains from the Port of Hastings.
The plan to build ”an additional track or tracks” along the heavily congested rail line is contained in a briefing to Premier Denis Napthine and Transport Minister Terry Mulder, which was obtained by Fairfax Media through freedom of information.
The plan revives elements of the former Bracks government’s doomed $1 billion Dandenong triplication project. If that project had proceeded, a large number of houses and commercial premises along the rail line – particularly between Caulfield and Oakleigh stations – would have been acquired.
Illustration: Ron Tandberg.
The Napthine government plan, tentatively dubbed the ”Eastern Regional Rail Link”, would involve widening the Dandenong rail corridor to lay dedicated track for freight trains and V/Line trains from Gippsland. It also includes provision for a new line along the Western Port Highway from the Port of Hastings to Lyndhurst on the Cranbourne line, which connects with the Dandenong line.
A spokesman for the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure confirmed the plan but said it was too early to say whether properties would be acquired.
”That said, should any property acquisition be required, we will ensure full and proper consultation as we are required to under various acts,” he said.
The plan, outlined in a September 2012 briefing by department deputy secretary Gillian Miles, predicts the existing two tracks in the corridor between Caulfield and Dandenong will cope with freight train traffic for the next decade.
”Nearly all freight is presently carried by trucks on the M1, Dingley and other arterial roads,” the briefing says, adding that the M1 and the Princes Highway ”are already at capacity”.
By contrast, just nine freight trains currently use the Dandenong line each week, plus two trains a day on the Frankston line from Hastings that join the Dandenong line at Caulfield.
”Beyond 10 years, commissioning of new container capacity at the Port of Hastings is likely to result in a steep change in freight demand,” Ms Miles wrote.
She warned that with the advent of Hastings as Melbourne’s second major port, ”demand will outgrow the existing infrastructure and additional tracks will be needed”.
Tony Morton, of the Public Transport Users Association, said there was an argument for extra tracks to cater for more freight and regional trains, but not at the expense of private properties.
”There are ways to accommodate more trains, especially if we improve the signalling on the Dandenong line and get rid of the level crossings,” he said.
Labor’s spokesman for ports, freight and logistics, Natalie Hutchins, said the government should drop its plan for a second port at Hastings and build it in Melbourne’s west, arguing it would cost half as much and be much closer to the city’s industrial areas.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/rail-plan-threatens-homes-20130422-2iasd.html#ixzz2RF9wsJyx
April 22, 2013
Oooh Calcutta!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[11] Comments
The government has released the figures on the planning activity audit for 2011/12. We’ve commented previously on the highly dubious figures submitted by Glen Eira (see: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/a-mountain-of-clerical-errors/) so it would not surprise us if this year’s data is equally suspect. However, even given these figures, the trends are alarming and the future is writ large once comparisons are made with surrounding councils. With over 1000 subdivisions and 1000 planning permits granted in 2011/12 Glen Eira is paving the way for more and more (over) development. Further, the much vaunted ‘safeguarding’ of Minimal Change Areas is also becoming exposed for what it is – a myth!
Below are some maps detailing permits for all the areas. Please note the distribution in Glen Eira for both permits and subdivisions. Under Newton and Akehurst, Glen Eira is fast becoming what Lobo would call ‘Calcutta’!
April 21, 2013
From David Southwick’s website – http://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/fun-run.html
Over the past 6 years, the Melbourne Racing Club has sought to expand the accessibility of the Caulfield Racecourse for the community. Through community consultation, and discussions with local government and David Southwick MP, the MRC have funded a $1.8 million upgrade to the public facilities therein.
April 19, 2013
The Community Voice Does Matter
Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[12] Comments
We’ve been following with great interest the Orrong Rd challenge to the LendLease application. Stonnington Council appealed the planning panel’s decision to the Supreme Court which is now underway. Below are two items – the Mayor’s statement and the Orrong Group summary of the first day’s proceedings.
590 Orrong Road Update
18 Apr 2013The City of Stonnington will continue to push for a positive outcome for residents living near a controversial Armadale development site, Mayor Cr Matthew Koce says.
Council this week presented its case at the Supreme Court, arguing that an ‘error of law’ was made by VCAT in its decision to approve Lend Lease’s permit application for 590 Orrong Road. The Supreme Court has reserved its decision.
Council received more than 600 objections to the development, which proposes 466 units at a height of up to 13 storeys.
“Our appeal was principally based on the tribunal’s statement that the number of objections to the proposed development was an irrelevant consideration,” Cr Koce said.
“There is a lot of community concern over VCAT’s handling of the case to date, including whether all statements of grounds were considered by the Tribunal.
“These residents have a right to speak up and be heard about what’s being built next door to them, especially when they’ll be living in the shadow of such a large overdevelopment of a key site.
“We are, of course, hoping for a positive outcome from this appeal, one that respects the opinions of our residents and one that will protect the rights of residents everywhere.”
Cr Koce has called on the State Government to make a timely decision on a Planning Scheme Amendment, which will place stricter planning controls on the significant Armadale block.
“We have been working on planning controls for this site since 2010, before we received a planning permit application for it,” he said.
“Most recently, the Government said it would not make a decision on the Amendment until the Supreme Court made its judgment. This made no sense, as they are totally separate matters.”
The Amendment includes
- mandatory maximum height controls of 17 metres (six storeys)
- maximum density of 50 per cent of the 2.5 hectare site to allow for open space
- a maximum site yield of 250 units
- set-backs of six metres around the entire site.
For the latest information on Planning Scheme Amendment C153, including the Panel Report, please click here.
For the latest information on Planning Application 0725/11, please click here.
+++++++++
There was a great community turn-out to the Supreme Court hearing, with “standing room” only for the first morning. More than 85 people were present to hear Stonnington Council challenge VCAT’s ruling. Even the ‘jury box’ had to be made available to accommodate the crowd.
Justice Karin Emerton presided over the hearing. Stuart Morris QC acted for Stonnington Council and Chris Canavan QC for Lend Lease and Larkfield. Both held the same positions at last year’s VCAT appeal.
Stuart Morris led the Council’s case stating that more than three quarters of the 450 submissions to VCAT from residents were “simply ignored”.
Mr Morris suggested that VCAT had diverged from “established practice” and its decision could be in breach of the Planning Act and in “breach of its own charter”. He stated that this case was important as it went towards “the administration of planning law in Victoria”.
Council argued a second important “error of law”: VCAT’s interpretation of Stonnington Council‘s “‘Large Site Policy” and whether account had been given to the need for developments to reflect the surrounding neighbourhood character.
If the Court rules that the case be referred back to VCAT, Council called for it to be heard before a newly constituted VCAT panel.
The Judge reserved her decision. We will notify you as soon as we hear, which will probably be in the next 2 to 6 weeks.
Our impression of the Supreme Court hearing is far more positive than previous planning hearings. We share the Mayor’s hopes for a positive outcome and “one that respects the opinions of our residents and one that will protect the rights of residents everywhere”. He said “the residents have a right to speak up and be heard”. There is more from the Mayor on the Council web site.
We believe that this will be a test case and perhaps a ‘watershed’ case for planning law in Victoria. Listening to all the arguments and issues raised over the last two days we have a picture of a planning scheme that could be described as a minefield for the community to navigate. It should not be like this and hopefully this case will give a strong message to Government.
Source: http://orronggroup.wordpress.com
April 17, 2013
Moonscaping
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[7] Comments
Drive or walk anywhere throughout Glen Eira and you’ll find block after block waiting to be developed, or in various stages of development. What they all have in common (with some very rare exceptions) is that they are treeless and that every remnant of vegetation has been ripped out in order to cram bigger or higher density development onto the land. Moonscaping is definitely a most appropriate name for all this.
Yet, when it comes to tree registers and their protection on private property, the arguments put up by some councillors are that the current planning scheme and the application process ensures that moonscaping doesn’t happen. Esakoff even complains that there is no need to make people ‘jump through more hoops’ – that the rigours of the planning scheme are sufficient. Nothing could be further from the truth. We just wonder:
- Of the 1200 planning applications that come in each year, how many trees have been ‘protected’ on these properties?
- How many applicants have been fined for removing said trees?
- How many prosecutions have actually taken place?
Glen Eira is supposed to be ‘green’ – a city that values its trees, vegetation, and ‘garden’ atmosphere. These photos all taken in the space of half an hour, are just a glimpse into how little this council does to ensure that the environment is just as important as multi-unit development. Please note: there are many more photos we could have put up.
PS: A FEW MORE!
April 16, 2013
What’s The Real Agenda?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[6] Comments
A very recent VCAT decision highlights once again how residents are personae non gratis when it comes to this council’s planning department and the sycophantic councillors who allow Newton and Akehurst to literally do as they please. Here’s a little bit of history.
On the 30th August 2011 councillors voted unanimously to pass the following motion – “Seeks authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C90 which proposes to alter the Housing Diversity Area Policy and Urban Village Policy to include prescriptive guidance for development at the interface of Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas”.
Nearly a year later we find out in the fine print of the Quarterly Reports that HERE IS A COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT HAS NEVER BEEN CARRIED OUT. Nor has there been any motion to withdraw, rescind, put on hold, etc. The amendment has never been advertised, never had submissions called and been allowed to disappear into the ether. No public announcement has been made as to the reasons why officers have failed to carry out a council resolution. All that we know is that there suddenly appeared the minimalist sentence ‘Amendment will be withdrawn. The issue of transition will be addressed through the New Zones’. Who made this decision? When was it made? And how can a council resolution suddenly be overturned in secret?
That’s only half of the story because whilst countless other councils are passing amendment after amendment in the attempt to shore up as many safety precautions as possible for when the planning zone reforms come in, Glen Eira is sitting on its hands and doing bugger all. The ramifications of this inaction was evident in a recent vcat appeal and decision.
The VCAT hearing involved an application for a 3 storey building, multiple dwellings and reduced car parking. The site was Glen Huntly Rd (housing diversity/tram lines) and abutted Minimal Change. Hence the proposed amendment would have been extremely important here in protecting residential amenity. Here are the lamentable arguments put up by council and relevant extracts from the final decision. (See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/381.html for the full decision)
Council advised that these setback distances were recommended in its proposed amendment C90 to manage the interface between housing diversity and minimal change areas, and as a response to Clause 22.07 to reduce the visibility of additional levels when the proposal is higher than the prevailing height of an area.
Council noted that it did not impose the minimum setback of 4 metres on the ground level as recommended in the amendment, acknowledging that there are currently out buildings in the rear yards of 6 Emma Street and 4 Lonsdale Street. Conceding that Amendment C90 has yet been exhibited, Council still wished to pursue the desired setback as a reflection of its thinking of interface management.
Council has imposed permit conditions to require the first and second floor to be further recessed to manage the change from a housing diversity area to a minimal change area, as recommended by its Amendment C90, which will result in the loss of dwellings.
As Mr. Bissett pointed out (for developer), Amendment C90 is not a seriously entertained planning proposal. It has not been on exhibition and it is premature to implement the setbacks recommended in this amendment. The approach should be one of the particular set of circumstances and the context of the site: that is whether the proposed setbacks of the various floors an acceptable interface with.6 Emma Street and 4 Lonsdale Street.
Given all this, questions have to be asked:
- Why has a council resolution not been carried out?
- Who made the decision to withdraw or abandon? When was it made? and most importantly – WHY was it made?
- What is the real agenda behind all this?
- Why are councillors allowing employees to rule the roost?
- Why aren’t residents afforded the full protection as originally intended?
- Why after two years has nothing happened? What aren’t residents being told?
- Why didn’t this development come to a full council meeting in the first place? What is the precise criteria that determines whether an application remains in the hands of the hired help?
- When will councillors start exercising their mandated duties and INSIST that proper transparency and governance occurs in this council?
- When will councillors finally get off their backsides and insist that ALL of the outcomes of the 2010 Planning Scheme Review are carried out. 3 years of deferment, inaction, and silence is not good enough.
- When will they stop being accomplices to the continued failure of good governance in Glen Eira?
Glen Eira Debates 