July 21, 2011

Council Meeting: Audit Committee Charter

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[10] Comments 

Motion to Accept: Lipshutz/Magee

LIPSHUTZ:  ‘One of the issues (looked at) is risk management….made very clear in the preamble that all councillors can attend meetings and not just members of the committee….risk management…..has taken up a great deal of time at committee level ….because that’s something that’s very important. (If a disaster happened then it’s important that) this council could be up and running very quickly (and Audit Committee looks at this and makes sure it happens)….Fraud prevention (is also important because council is big business) and deals with many millions of dollars and so many people on staff. Given that there is always the possibility of fraud …..happily this council hasn’t had that….(due to prevention)….and honesty of our employees….but you only need one to make it big….(the Audit committee thus provides) oversight….(Other changes to the charter)…. enhance the role of the Audit Committee and make it clearer (as to what the committee does)….’

Magee declined to speak. Motion passed unanimously. Readers will of course note that many of the issues we’ve highlighted in the past (such as the ‘permanent’ membership of Lipshutz, Gibbs and McLean) did not get a mention. Reading this morning’s Age, one article by Barry Jones struck us as spot on in relation to the level of debate/discussion in this council. The last section of the article is included below:

“Despite the exponential increases in public education and access to information in the past century, the quality of political debate appears to have become increasingly unsophisticated, appealing to the lowest common denominator of understanding.

In 1860, in New York Abraham Lincoln began his campaign for the presidency with a very complex speech about slavery at the Cooper Union, 7500 words long, complex and nuanced. All four New York newspapers published the full text, which was sent by telegraph across the nation, widely read and discussed. In 1860 the technology was primitive but the ideas were profound and sophisticated. In 2011 technology is sophisticated but the ideas uttered by presidential aspirants are embarrassing in their banality, ignorance and naivety.

It is instructive to compare the debate in the Victorian Parliament in 1872 on the Education Act and the debate in 2006 for the Education and Training Reform Act, a consolidation of legislation passed in the previous 134 years. Which debate was of higher quality? In 1872 MPs were discussing ideas – especially ”free, secular and compulsory” education, while in 2006 all the speeches were about management and training as a factor in job creation. In 2006 I suggested that it might be time to actually define ”Education”, something omitted in the draft bill, and to explore its role in personal and community life, but this was rejected as too ambitious.

In 1872 the minister, J. Wilberforce Stephen, quoted the poet and educational reformer Matthew Arnold eight times in his speech and expressed the hope that the legislation would ”set an example to our progenitors in England”. There was no comparable ambition in 2006. No ideas on education were mentioned and it is doubtful how many MPs in 2006 would have recognised Arnold’s name, even as the author of Dover Beach.”

 

July 20, 2011

Racecourse & 7 Lot Subdivision

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
[6] Comments 

From Melbourne Bayside Weekly –

Caulfield racecourse plans not quite bolting ahead

19 Jul, 2011 08:49 PM
A CAULFIELD resident will try to block the subdivision of former public parkland near Caulfield Racecourse to protect it from further development. Mary Healy filed a case with VCAT against the Melbourne Racing Club because she said their intentions were unclear.Earlier this year, Glen Eira Council agreed  to swap the land, bounded by Station Street, Kambrook and Booran roads, with space at the centre of the racecourse, which is to be converted into public parkland.

The club has also appealed against two conditions the council put on the subdivision approval. The conditions relate to easements and access to the entrance of a tunnel leading to the centre of the racecourse. Both issues will be heard at the same VCAT hearing. Mediation and hearing dates have yet to be set. The club declined to comment on why it had appealed.

When the subdivision application was lodged, three public objections were received. Concerns included increased traffic, tree removal and inadequate consultation about the proposal. Residents were also worried about what the club would build on the land.

The subdivision is separate from the $1 billion residential development at Caulfield Village, which Planning Minister Matthew Guy approved last month.

Ms Healy, who lives about 100 metres from the racecourse, said she was disgusted with the Caulfield Village proposal and the land swap. She claimed Caulfield had less public space than anywhere in the state and that places where people could walk and play needed to be protected.

 

July 19, 2011

Council Meeting: Oh, To Be In The Bitumen/Concrete Business!

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[12] Comments 

GESAC car park

Lipshutz moved a motion that the $450,000 extension to the existing car park be approved. Seconded by Magee. In favour of the motion were: Lipshutz, Magee, Hyams, Esakoff, Forge. Against: Pilling and Tang. Lobo and Penhalluriack were absent. The ‘arguments’ were:

LIPSHUTZ: ‘GESAC has been a success’ beyond our dreams….’at this stage there are 1,200 members, GESAC website has 80,000 hits per week,….given that one can say there is going to be a huge demand for GESAC….One of the things we didn’t envisage (at the start) was the carparking’. Originally there was planned 43 spaces ‘it’s clear that is not going to be sufficient….it is clear that GESAC will be very heavily used and there is the need for extra car parking….(I asked for a report from officers and whether underground parking would be feasible) ‘and it is clearly not the way to go ….would only add 60 (spaces and cost a lot) whereas the proposal that I have proposed would add 75 car spaces. (The drawback is that) it does take away sections of the park at the rear but (need to look at the big picture of the park as well as GESAC) ….what we don’t want to have is the car parking all over the streets ….and we want to ensure that GESAC is a success….so it’s important to have car parking …..(this proposal brings) carparking to 118 spaces.’

MAGEE: ‘It’s never easy to give up open space especially in a really nice park like Bailey Reserve…..(there’s a rotunda, playground) …..one thing that offsets that is …the northern end of GESAC …used to be a big car park which has now been turned into open space….so we’re not actually losing ….we have pciked up a large area of car park that has been converted back into grassland or open space…..GESAC….is going to be so successful….and we do have to cater for parking….the last thing we need is people driving into GESAC ….driving around and not being able to park ….we want everyone, not just in Glen Eira but outside of Glen Eira to come and enjoy GESAC with the rest of us….we do have to make sacrifices along the way….(not happy about losing parks) but we have actually taken back …….in the long term we will see if for instance the car park isn’t used (we can turn it back into parkland)….

PILLING: Has ‘problems with this item…..(everyone wants GESAC to succeed especially when you spend so much money but there are problems with the process) ….’it hasn’t even opened yet and we’re already taking open space away on a hunch….several years ago (car parking) was worked out by the architect and that was deemed to be appropriate….what we face now is an 11th hour ad hoc, knee jerk reaction….a couple of statistics. The proposed car park extension is 1400 square metres, two houseblocks, (land prices make this worth 1.5 million) …in Packer Park we bought two houses to convert back to public open space and now we want to take it away….(listed statistics about amount of public open space in Glen Eira compared to other councils)…we haven’t got that much and to be actually giving it away in such an ad hoc manner …..I’ve a few other issues with it….this to me defines why we do need a new open space strategy…..if this was a football field or a designated sports ground, I doubt we would be doing this….it’s a playground, it’s a passive area it seems to be up for grabs …..this is not valued….(that’s why we need a strategy in place….I don’t see (this) as a win….Maybe one of the reasons why Glen Eira does have such a low amount of open space is because of ad hoc decisions like this…..(APPLAUSE FROM GALLERY)

TANG: Wholeheartedly agreed with Pilling….’I don’t think councillors are going out of their way to take public open space away….we’ve got an item on the agenda tonight (naming a new reserve – Nina reserve)….I think council should think about naming a new reserve, the one to the north of the carpark because you’ll have two separate parks (as a result of this carpark)….we’ve taken sensible approach (looked at Duncan McKinnon and others) whether it would add to the park and the overall utility of the park and we’ve come to the conclusion that (there) it would…..but in this instance I just don’t see how we as a council could (see this) as adding to the park in any way….and breaking up two separate (areas)…..I don’t think you’re (going to enjoy the park) unless you play organised sport and I don’t think that that’s all that Bailey Reserve is there for….We’re proposing  to spend $450,000 at a time when (at the budget discussions people were worried) rate rises weren’t as much as they would have liked, concerned that council needed to tighten its belt ……and now we’re proposing to spend another $450,000 just to get a few more car parks…after the budget’s passed, after the SRPs passed…. proposing to spend another $450,000 to break up a really good park….do we really want to do this?…..Magee (talked about turning the carpark back into parkland if it didn’t work out)…maybe council can look at turning the park into car park later on if it really feels it still needs to later on….(Asked an officer a question about construction time. Answer 6 to 8 weeks)

FORGE asked a question about the plans and the provision for buses and disabled car parks. Was answered that buses would be accommodated at the main car park and disabled car parking was also there.

HYAMS: ‘ I am in favour of this’….’important to emphasise (that this is going to cater for all users of the park and there are lots of users apart from GESAC visitors)….’who will find themselves displaced from the park’ ( because their car parking spots will be taken up)…’We don’t want GESAC to displace these people in their parks….this is far less disruptive to the park (than to wait for GESAC to be built and in operation)…’this could be said to be enhancing public open space….what we’re doing here is actually helping people enjoy the public open space….you may feel it’s not worth it….if we were putting in a tennis court or something like that there might be less objections….this is to help the use of the park…..there is no doubt that we will need more parking than we originally held. I think that was always a concern….it’s better that we get it right later rather than later later….

ESAKOFF: ‘I’m going to support this….I’m not a supporter of loss of open space by any means….but we are spending a lot of money….we are going to be providing facilities in GESAC for every sector of our community….I do not want to see those people having to park as far away as North Rd or Centre Rd or way down East Boudnary Rd because there’s nowhere to park close to the facility…..(families, babies and aged) would not manage under those circumstances….we need to provide places for them to park within a fairly reasonable proximity….

LIPSHUTZ: Stated that in any major development there are always ‘variations’ ….that happens because as you build it you find things that need to be done or you haven’t anticipated or whatever….this is one 9variatiion)….we anticipated there would be x number of car spaces….now we believe (we need more car spaces)….we’re not taking away the playground we’re relocating the playground….the bigger picture here is that we’re building a development that is (the biggest this council has ever done…(it’s costing a lot and if we wait until it’s finished we’ll find) ‘that you do need more space’….far better to do it now….and be opened properly….If it’s popular people will come to it and GESAC will be popular….and now even before it’s finished we’ve got 1000 members….place (will be chocka block once it’s finished and in summer)….let’s do it right.’

TANG CALLED FOR A DIVISION

 

July 19, 2011

Childcare Outcry – Too Little, Too Late!

Posted by gleneira under GE Kindergartens/Childcare
[13] Comments 
  • Caulfield Glen Eira Leader
  • Jenny Ling

Parents’ rising anger

Council childcare will be costly affair

AN INCREASE in fees at councilrun childcare centres has angered a Caulfield North father. Tasman Tudor said he would have to find alternative childcare for his two young children after receiving a letter from Glen Eira Council about rising costs.

Tasman and Brigid Tudor (with Maddison and Jasper) are concerned over the rise of childcare  costs.Under standard annual council increases effective this month, fees for three to five-year-olds will increase from $79 to $85 a day. For children aged up to three years of age, charges will rise from $85 to $91 a day.

And from next January, state government changes to child/staff ratios for under three-year-olds mean fees will increase a further $25 a day, from $91 to $116.

Ratios will change from one staff member for every five children to one for every four children in a bid to improve quality childcare.

Mr Tudor, whose two-year-old son is enrolled at Carnegie children’s centre, wants to enrol his one-year-old daughter next year for two days a week. ‘‘That’s $120 a week more,’’ Mr Tudor said. ‘‘The figures don’t add up as to why such an increase is justified.’’

Council spokesman Paul Burke said the rules ‘‘aim to improve quality care for children under three and require a substantially larger and more highly qualified workforce’’. ‘‘The consequence of these changes is that the cost to care for children under three is now significantly higher than caring for children in the three-to-five age group,’’ Mr Burke said.

Cr Neil Pilling said he was disappointed the council adopted the full price rise. ‘‘I understand the ratios have to change and there’s a need for a rise . . . but something less would have been a better outcome,’’ Cr Pilling said.

 

July 18, 2011

State Planning Review

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
1 Comment 

Call for Submissions

The Advisory Committee is consulting with the community and industry to consider all parts of the planning system.  This is the chance for all Victorians to make their views known about what works and what does not work with the system and how it should be shaped for the future.

The Advisory Committee will consider the whole planning system including the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and how it works; the State and local policy provisions; the operation of zones and overlays; the use of  rezoning requests are dealt with.

The Advisory Committee is seeking your views. Tell us:

  1. What’s good about the system?
  2. What works well and what doesn’t?
  3. What are the ways to fix the problems and improve the system?
  4. How can the planning system be more effective and efficient?
  5. How can the planning system be made easier to access and understand?
  6. Is the present planning system right for Victoria?
  7. Are the respective roles of the State and Local Government in the planning
    system still appropriate?

Submissions are due by 31 August 2011

How do I make a submission?

  1. Download a submission coversheet
  2. Attach your comments to the completed coversheet and send your submission
    to: Email (preferred): advisorycommittee@dpcd.vic.gov.au
  3. Mail: The Chairperson Victorian Planning System
    Ministerial Advisory Committee
    c/- Statutory Planning Systems Reform
    Department of Planning and Community Development
    GPO Box 2392
    Melbourne VIC 3001

*    Please ensure your submission is received by 31 August 2011

If you require an interpreter or other help in making a submission please call Information Victoria on 1300 366 356 (local call cost) or TTY +61 3 9603 8806 (8.30am – 5.00pm Monday to Friday).

If you have any further enquiries, please contact us by email at advisorycommittee@dpcd.vic.gov.au

Important note about publication of submissions

Unless you clearly request confidentiality, submissions are public documents and may be accessed by any member of the public and may be published on the Department of Planning and Community Development’s website which is accessible worldwide. If you would like your submission to not be published, or you would like to request anonymity, you must clearly request this in your submission. Only individuals may request confidentiality, not organisations.

(Source: http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/panelsandcommittees/current-planning-panels-and-committees/victoria-planning-provisions-and-planning-schemes-review)

 

July 16, 2011

Agenda Items: Weasel Words & Gobbledygook

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s)
[4] Comments 

True to form, agenda items for the upcoming Council Meeting are characterised by nothing more than weasel words and gobbledygook. Many Officers’ Reports are bereft of detail, argument, and logical analyses. We highlight some of these.

GESAC Car Park

Cr. Pilling on his blog site rightly accuses this report as containing the ‘trojan horse’ ruse. That is, propose one option that will cost $1.5 million dollars (multi level car park) and then squeeze in another option that will only cost $450,000 in the hope that this will be passed. There is no information, nor discussion on the following crucial points –

  • How much open space will be lost by either a multi level car park or the extension of the existing car park?
  • How many additional car parking spots are considered necessary and what is the evidence for this? (Note: Option 2 cites an additional 75 spaces but with no justification for this number, or no statement as to whether this would be sufficient).
  • Why wasn’t this considered at the initial planning stage for GESAC?
  • Where will the money come from?

Delegations

In December 2010, delegations were reconsidered. Seven months later, here we go again. The same criticisms we made last time are still evident – namely, the ceding of major power to officers via the delegations to the Planning and Environment Act.

  • The CEO’s powers are to remain intact – since “(n)o changes are required to the delegation from Council to the CEO.”
  • No official ‘call in’ for councillors on individual planning applications
  • Power to grant an application is only if NO objections; the application is “generally in compliance with existing policy or guidelines”
  • A permit with conditions can be granted when the “application has not been referred to the Council or the Delegated Planning Committee (DPC) for determination”
  • Car parking waiver on “an application involving a reduction of more than ten car spaces may only be determined by DCD, MStatP or MTP.”

Again, this is contrary to numerous other councils. In Glen Eira decisions on planning are almost entirely in the hands of officers and the very criteria for referring on to council remain subjective and thus open to interpretation BY OFFICERS ONLY.

AUDIT COMMITTEE CHARTER

There are some very interesting deletions and new inclusions in this latest version of the audit committee charter. For example, “Monitoring and controlling of community and commercial risk” has been removed, as has this sentence: “An annual assessment of the Internal Auditor’s performance”. The latter has been replaced with the far more obtuse version of – “As part of the
audit committee’s annual assessment of performance, determine level of satisfaction with internal audit function”. We ask, what does ‘level of satisfaction’ actually mean? Isn’t it a far more narrow interpretation than overall ‘assessment’? Why has this been done?

Another interesting insertion is: “Consider the adequacy of actions taken to ensure that the material business risks have been dealt with in a timely manner to mitigate exposures to Council”. We can only wonder whether this is a direct result of the mulch heap
affair and the tardiness of the Audit Committee in acting upon the potential health risks?

Of more significance however, is the paragraph setting out the terms of reappointment of the external members – 3 years. Many other councils (ie Port Phillip) have a reappointment schedule of two years. However, we now have the situation where both Gibbs and McLean will be in their positions for 16 or 17 years straight. Again, we questions the probity of this.

The charter continues to maintain that the CEO and Chief financial officer be present at each meeting of the Committee. Is this appropriate given that the external and internal auditor’s job is also to keep a check on the administration? We highlight once again that other councils do not include such strictures in their charter. CEO’s are present only at the ‘invitation’ of the
committee – not as a de facto member sitting in on each full meeting.

It’s also ironic that the charter states that minutes must be presented to the NEXT council meeting. The audit committee minutes are from 10th June 2011. Hence, they should have been included in the agenda items for the LAST COUNCIL MEETING of June 28th 2011. They weren’t of course. But after all, it’s only a charter and not legally binding, so not worth the paper it’s written on!!!!!!

Councillors must question the continual reappointment of Gibbs, McLean and Lipshutz in this role. Questions also need to be asked as to why the Finance Committee has not existed for going on 3 years – especially when this was such a bone of contention in the Whelan Report.

AUDIT COMMITTEE MINUTES

Looks like there has been movement at the station – finally – and the Audit Committee is at last attempting to run a tighter ship! We quote:

“Mr Agnoletto then presented the assurance map which identified Council’s top 10 risks. He stated that only partial assurance was given and a high level approach had been taken.

The Chairman requested that the Council’s top 20 risks be identified and that going forward, a sample of those risks were to be reviewed together with the relevant manager in attendance at the Audit Committee meeting.

Mr McLean also suggested that Council’s short term (acute) risks be identified and listed and the mitigation strategies in place to address these risks.

With regards to GESAC, the Chairman requested a high level assurance map be produced with mitigating controls”.

All very well – after the horse could well and truly have bolted!!!

EMPRESS ROAD APPLICATION

Here is gobbledygook par excellence. We challenge all readers to make head or tail out of this application to remove a condition and introduce a subdivision. Heaps of questions need asking:

  • Has council failed to flog some land because its asking price was too high?
  • Is council now ceding this land for nothing?
  • Who is paying for the subdivision?
  • Has this anything to do with a fairly large school in the vicinity?

Other applications continue the general trend. The more objections registered, then the fewer notifications to residents and owners.

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS

The minutes of these meetings represent a new Newton tactic. Previously only the subjects of meetings were basically highlighted with very little additional information as to what went on in these assemblies. Now, all of a sudden, we are getting far more expansive ‘minutes’ as well as the NAME OF THE COUNCILLOR associated with that issue. For example; Hyams is directly linked with public questions and the issue of harassment; Magee with pavilions, graffiti and of course the GESAC basketball courts. Since Newton is a total stickler for the letter of the law, we can only speculate as to the motive behind this change. It’s also worthy of noting that the ol’ gang are basically linked with fairly innocuous items such as Xmas trees. According to these minutes, they (apart from Hyams) must be practically mute in these meetings! Hard to believe isn’t it?

COMMENTS:

These agenda items provide the opportunity to really assess the 8 councillors (Penhalluriack is still on leave) and their duty to take charge of this council. Delegations, car parking at GESAC, and many of the officers’ reports should be challenged and questioned and ultimately rejected. We will be watching closely on how the voting goes and more importantly who resorts to weasel words and gobbledygook to justify their voting pattern.

 

 

July 15, 2011

GESAC: Who Really Runs Council?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments 

This blog site has been inundated with comments on the GESAC basketball “allocations”. The moderators have decided not to put up some of these comments as a result of their inflammatory and personal nature. However, the issue itself we believe is crucial to the good governance of this council. It should focus the community’s attention on two crucial questions:

  • Is it councillors who run this council, or is it Newton and Burke?
  • Exactly what were councillors told about the ‘expression of interest’ or tender processes? Exactly what did they know? Is there any official “policy’ that has been ratified by council?
  • Were councillors derelict in their overseeing duties on this process?
  • Has Burke acted unilaterally in making the offer? Is this acceptable to the community?

The formal letter of ‘rejection’ signed by Burke to the McKinnon Basketball Association has already been put up as a comment. We reprint it here TOGETHER WITH THE ASSOCIATION’S RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER. We further believe that it behoves all residents to carefully consider the Association’s letter and compare this with the statements signed by Burke. We also maintain that it is in the public interest that such information is out in the public domain.

BURKE’S LETTER

“Thank you for your response to Council’s public Expression of Interest (EOI) process for the use of the facilities at the soon to be completed Glen Eira Sports  and Aquatic Centre (GESAC). The facility is on target to open in late 2011.

We regret to inform you that your application for use has been unsuccessful. This decision has been based on an evaluation process based on three criteria in order of importance and weighting:
1. Community Benefit
2. Price
3. Capacity

In terms of feedback on your application, the following should be noted:
– GESAC is a major community facility and Council wishes to see maximum community use.  The McKinnon Basketball Association (MBA) proposed 2,160 hours of community basketball per annum and Council has accepted a proposal which will see 3,675 hours per annum of community basketball.  This use will be available to any person and any Club which plays with the GESAC-based Association.
– The allocated group offered a wider range of programs for the community.
– The allocated group offered a much more comprehensive marketing program to ensure its success.
– The allocated group offered payment at the level already in place in many similar centres around Melbourne and which will contribute to the Council providing and maintaining the facility without cost to ratepayers.  The McKinnon Basketball Association indicated that it gave a relatively lower financial priority to court hire and a higher weighting to other organisational priorities.

The evaluation process included Council contacting your Association on a number of occasions to encourage the MBA to submit a more competitive EOI.  I acknowledge the time and effort which your Committee put into that process to ensure that your bid represented the considered position of the MBA, taking all factors into account.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Burke
Director Community Relations”

McKINNON BASKETBALL RESPONSE

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your letter of May 24, 2011 (attached) informing me that the McKinnon Basketball Association (MBA) has been unsuccessful in its bid to utilise basketball stadium space in the Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC), currently under construction.

Whilst the several thousand MBA members, many of whom are Glen Eira rate payers, will be extremely disappointed by Council’s decision, ultimately we respect that decision.

However, I feel it is necessary to point out some inaccuracies in your letter.

We understand that Council have accepted a proposal from an Association known as the Oakleigh Warriors.

Your letter states that Council’s “decision has been based on an evaluation process based on three criteria in order of importance and weighting:

1. Community Benefit

2. Price

3. Capacity”

Taking each point in turn:

1. Community Benefit. There are a number of problems with this position as follows:

a. The MBA is the largest community based sporting association in the Glen Eira City Council’s catchment area, so it is hard to comprehend how the selection of a much smaller group from outside the area represents a superior community benefit for the residents of Glen Eira;

b. The MBA offers the broadest range of community based programs of any Association locally, and indeed was recently recognised by Basketball Victoria with their inaugural Inclusiveness Award in recognition of our All Abilities program;

c. The fact that you list “Community Benefit” as the number one selection criteria is particularly interesting in light of the fact that you specifically told us in our meeting that Council was not interested in our community credentials, in fact you went so far as to suggest that we should run our All Abilities program in one of our existing cheaper facilities as a means to help find the funds to pay the rental you required.

2. Price. I accept that price was always a sticking point; in fact it was made clear to us on numerous occasions that obtaining the best price was in fact the principle objective of Council. There are a number of facts which are worth reiterating for the record:

a. The MBA is a not for profit organisation, which prides itself on being professionally operated and administered; this professionalism would prevent us from making a financial commitment which we could not afford. This can be borne out by references which we offered to make available, indeed our application was endorsed by Basketball Victoria and Bendigo Bank. It would be in Council’s best interest to ensure that appropriate due diligence is undertaken on the successful applicant’s ability to pay;

b. The price we offered was $32.50/hour; this represents a substantial increase on our current rental costs which would need to be met through increased fees to our members. Our desire to ensure maximum benefit to our community of members makes it tremendously difficult for us to reconcile paying more for GESAC than is charged by the Melbourne Sport and Aquatic Centre, arguably the best comparable facility in the state and possibly the country. Of course it is possible to pay more than the price we have offered for court hire elsewhere but this is typically on a casual basis whereas we made numerous offers for considerable time allocations;

c. Knowing the funding which was provided for construction of GESAC, particularly the last minute state government funding for completion of the multi-purpose stadium, it is clear that at the hourly rental proposed by the MBA, a reasonable payback of the construction costs is achievable. Therefore your comment in relation to the rival offer enabling Council to “provide and maintain the facility without cost to ratepayers” appears to us to be misleading, particularly given that it was made clear to us that the dry areas of the facility will subsidise the pools.

3. Capacity. You have stated that the allocated group offered increased occupancy to the MBA’s offer. It is frustrating to hear this as a reason for Council’s decision considering that the MBA made numerous proposals, ranging from 2 to 7 days per week. We were told in no uncertain terms initially, that Council were keen to see as many groups as possible use the facility and that there was no prospect of extended periods of use for one group; consequently we scaled back our initial offer to address this.

Your letter goes on to make two further points as follows:

“The allocated group offered a much more comprehensive marketing program to ensure its success”. We have a ready-made association of several thousand members, we do not need a more comprehensive marketing campaign to ensure our success. We are already of a size which would enable us to fill GESAC on each weekday evening and all weekend but were discouraged from submitting a proposal along such lines. In fact the other honour recently presented to the MBA by Basketball Victoria was that of fastest growing Association, consequently this point is simply not relevant.

Given the emphasis you place on community benefits in your letter, it seems incongruous that you would take steps to promote an Association from outside the Glen Eira community, which will presumably be seeking to compete with and undermine Glen Eira’s existing, well established and much loved McKinnon Basketball Association.

We wish you well with your endeavours and should things not work out with the allocated group, we would be happy to discuss alternate options.

 

July 14, 2011

State Planning Review

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments 

Have your say on improving Victoria’s planning system

Thursday, 14 July 2011

Planning Minister Matthew Guy today announced that the public submission process on ways to improve the planning system in Victoria is now open.

“I encourage anyone interested to take part in this significant overhaul of our planning system by making a submission to the Victorian Planning System Ministerial Advisory Committee,” Mr Guy said.

“This is the chance for all Victorians to make their views known about what works and what does not work with the system and how it could be shaped for the future. This is a key commitment by the Coalition Government – to listen to the community.”

The Advisory Committee, announced last month, is calling for submissions from any person wishing to make a comment about improving the Victoria Planning Provisions, planning schemes and the planning system generally.

Under the Terms of Reference the Advisory Committee is to:

  • advise on ways of improving the planning system, including the legislative base, the structure of planning schemes – the structure of state and regional policy provisions – as well as regulations under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and other relevant legislation;
  • categorise the range of comments and issues to allow for further assessment in light of government planning policy;
  • prioritise matters raised according to the frequency of raising and in light of Government Planning Policy;
  • inform the government of the perceived efficiency of the planning system from the varied perspectives of the users; and
  • recommend areas for further study and the preferred method for dealing with the issues arising from the findings.

Mr Guy said submissions should identify any issues of concern and suggest options for improvement and should be received by 31 August 2011.

Information about how to make a submission, together with the Terms of Reference, are available at www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/systemreview or from Information Victoria on 1300 366 356.

Advertisements calling for submissions will also be published in all major newspapers.

NOTE: The provided URL is as yet unavailable!!!!!!! We rang the 1300 number and were told that the Minister’s announcement was ‘premature’ and that the website would probably be up and running either later today or tomorrow morning. Looks like the right hand certainly doesn’t know what the left hand’s doing!

 

July 13, 2011

More MRC Shenanigans: Reprobate’s View

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[3] Comments 

I’d like to remind people that this planning application involves roughly 10% of the area reserved by the Crown for “Racing, Recreation, and Public Park purposes”. Although present and past Governments have privately acknowledged that the MRC should be allowed to control the entire precinct to make money for themselves, they have had to bow to public pressure about improving access and facilities for the centre of the reserve. 150 years late, there is now, finally, some limited acknowledgement of the systematic corruption that has plagued the management of this property.

The ongoing problem with the reserve is that the Trustees responsible for managing it under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 have abrogated their responsibilities. Its not the MRC that Council should be negotiating with, nor is it the MRC that should be funding improvements to the Reserve. This extraordinary state of affairs has only risen because of political pressure. If the Trustees have leased the Reserve to MRC, as claimed by MRC in their submission to VEAC [16 Feb 2009], then what are the terms of the lease? The public should be informed, because we might discover we have no rights of access under the lease, and that all improvements are for the benefit of MRC. The MRC grudgingly has “agreed” to improvements as a political necessity to ensure support for C60. Past agreements have not been honoured, but C60 wasn’t at stake then. The submission from GERA to Select Committee On Public Land Development highlights just one egregious failure.

The MRC, through their privileged position, has been permitted to charge for entry to the public land in question, for example see the rates in Government Gazette No 80, 18 Oct 1967. Well technically its the “Trustees” doing the charging. So where does the money go? We the public simply don’t know. We do know it hasn’t gone into improving the amenity of the centre of the Reserve for the public. If it hasn’t gone into improving the centre, then it must by Law have gone into improving the remainder, which are the assets MRC hold so dear. Its those same assets sitting on Crown Land that have enabled the MRC to purchase freehold land and terrorise the residents of Lot A when they didn’t want to sell. [I can understand that somebody in continuous residence for 60 years might not want to sell to an avaricious organisation prepared to employ Stuart Morris SC to do their bullying.]

If the improvements as proposed are made to the centre of the Reserve [and note, first in the list on the planning application is “carparking area”, due in no small part to the exigencies of C60] then it is reasonable to ask whether the public will get to enjoy them. Maybe. Maybe not. The MRC has encircled the Reserve. Via fiat, they have absolute control over who enters or leaves, and when. Their recent application for a 7-lot subdivision is to create parcels of land so they can swap some less valuable bits with a vastly more valuable parcel. The Government is right behind this, thank you very much David Davis. [See Land (Revocation of Reservations and other Matters) Act 2009.] Its worth reading the view of the Greens [a different organisation presumably to the one Cr Pilling is a member of] about this because it covers a lot of territory and shows the carelessness demonstrated by Parliament in considering this matter: http://mps.vic.greens.org.au/node/1541

Government and the MRC are above the law, so in due course I expect a lease will be signed for the new Lot 2 (remember the 7-lot subdivision?), delaying for a further 10 years when that will become part of the Reserve and a public park. This is despite clearly not being for the purpose the land is reserved for, and will be “substantially detrimental to the use and enjoyment of any adjacent land”. As it has in the past. The MRC is objecting to 2 conditions in the Permit that Council granted, which are there to ensure the public has a right of access to “their” Reserve. Some idiot many years ago sold Crown land along Booran and Kambrook Rds so the tunnel is one of only two underline accesses to the centre [the other is for pedestrians only, not disabled people] but that access involves freehold land [held by the MRC naturally] with no right of access. And now they’re fighting an encumbrance that would provide that legal right.

One could talk about the temporary wartime fence installed by the Army which the MRC has clung tenaciously to. I don’t understand how they could have survived for the first 80 years without it, given their passion and fervour for it. Under one Agreement [and there have been many] that temporary wartime fence might be gone in 5 years. Or not…depends on the MRC’s risk assessment. Its a bit like the Government reassuring the public about the proposed land exchange…the MRC get to do their own valuation.

Finally, why is a planning application submitted in 2010 being advertised now? There is a statutory obligation on Council to decide on applications within a fixed number of working days. Cr Lipschutz did say in April that the MRC had requested their planning application be put on hold. Which section of the Planning and Environment Act was that request made under? Did the MRC simply refuse to provide the information Council needed to consider the application? Maybe the application has lapsed.

I remain deeply unhappy at the privileged role the MRC has in the ongoing management of the Reserve. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they are unfit for the job. Their answers to various Government Committees have demonstrated that they see the land as being theirs, and that the Public should have no say in its management. The Government agrees, insisting upon racing hacks to stack the Trustees. We are all the poorer for this appalling management regime, and the “bone” that they are prepared to throw us [GE/PP-23061/2010] is meagre compensation

******************

AND AS AN INSIGHT INTO HOW SERIOUSLY THE MRC TOOK THE 2008 ‘AGREEMENT’ TO MAKE THE CENTRE ‘USER FRIENDLY’ HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THEIR EFFORTS –

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

July 13, 2011

Planning Application: Centre of Racecourse

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
1 Comment 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »