July 5, 2011

Glen Eira Does Not Rate

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[18] Comments 

From today’s Caulfield Leader.  Stories by Jenny Ling –

GLEN Eira Council has ranked lower than its fellow city councils in the latest Local Government Victoria survey. The 2011 community satisfaction survey asked 28,000 residents across 77 councils to rate their council’s performance. The data showed that though Glen Eira rated higher or similar to all Victorian councils in overall performance, advocacy, community engagement and customer contact, it didn’t fare so well compared with its fellow metropolitan councils.

Glen Eira achieved a score of 69 per cent for overall performance. The average for metropolitan councils — Baysid e ,Yarra, Stonnington, Kingston, Melbourne, Monash, Port Phillip, Moreland, Boorondara, Darebin, Hobsons Bay, Maroondah, Moonee Valley, Banyule, Whitehorse and Glen Eira – was 85 per cent. For advocacy, which covers the representation of the community’s interests, Glen Eira rated 64 per cent compared with the Melbourne average of 77 per cent. Glen Eira rated 62 per cent for community engagement compared to t he metropolitan councils’ 71 per cent average, while local customer contact was 77 per cent compared with 80 per cent.

Glen Eira Residents Association president Don Dunstan said there needed to be more transparency and open governance in Glen Eira. ‘‘The core problem is the way council meetings are run,’’ Mr Dunstan said. Glen Eira Mayor Margaret Esakoff said ‘‘given the survey was taken at the same time as severe flooding (February) and the bin downsizing, it is a good outcome for Glen Eira’’.  

Victorian Local Government Minister Jeanette Powell urged councils to analyse the ratings to see where improvements were needed.

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

Libs on back foot

THE Liberal Party has backflipped on the contentious $1 billion Caulfield Village development faster than a Bart Cummings champion. Planning Minister Matthew Guy and Caulfield MP David Southwick applauded the project which will attract 2000 residents and create 35,000sq m of office and retail space on 5ha around the racecourse when they announced its approval on Tuesday.

In October, Mr Southwick said it would cause traffic congestion, anti-social behaviour and parking problems, and pledged to stop the ‘‘ monstrosity’’ that would ‘‘ destroy Caulfield’s amenities and identity’’ with a postcard petition to households in the electorate. Mr Guy, then Opposition planning spokesman, echoed Mr Southwick’s pledge. Mr Southwick said there were several concerns which he ‘‘made very clear’’. ‘‘It was important for me to be on the front foot and be involved in negotiations with Glen Eira (council) and residents,’’ he said. ‘‘The main issue I had was open space . . . being able to get a win for the city.’’

Glen Eira Council approved the plans with height restrictions in April, capping buildings in the Smith St precinct at 20 storeys. Mayor Margaret Esakoff said Caulfield Village would provide the community with a range of housing options close to transport and facilities. ‘‘The wider community will also be able to enjoy the improved open space and recreational areas in the centre of the racecourse,’’ she said.

Glen Eira Residents’ Association president Don Dunstan said there was no provision for carparking and no amenities being provided for the thousands of people who will live there. ‘‘And this is the right thing for a suburb? I don’t think so,’’ he said.

COMMENT: This is now the second time that The Leader  has taken a pot shot at Southwick. Whilst his backflip is undeniable, and the criticism is justified, good balanced reporting might also have commented on the role played by this council and its ‘gang of four’. We suggest that if all the facts are being presented then Lipshutz, Esakoff, Hyams and Pilling should also come in for their equal share of criticism!

 

July 4, 2011

Bayside Weekly

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

BY REBECCA THISTLETON

Residents fear village will cut public space

CAULFIELD residents fear a $1 billion development at Caulfield Racecourse will reduce open space. Community group, Supporters of Caulfield Reserve, claim the public has been ‘‘locked out’’ of the decision to build the Caulfield Village.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy signed off on the project last week. Melbourne Racing Club will build the village on a five-hectare site currently used as a car park off Normanby Road, near Caulfield station. The development will include a 20-storey building with office space, 70 homes along Heywood Street and up to 200 retirement dwellings. A planned public park on the racecourse will include a children’s play area, shade areas and toilets, as well as a boardwalk around the lake with fishing areas.

The project will take seven to 10 years to complete and Mr Guy said it will generate 4800 jobs during construction and 1100 jobs when completed.

Supporters of Caulfield Reserve spokeswoman Roslyn Gold said she kept a close watch on the proposal because public space was under threat. Ms Gold said plans presented to the public seemed to be a ‘‘done deal’’ between the club and council.

Caulfield MLA David Southwick said he knew open space was a concern to residents but that the proposed development would make better use of land and park space.

Melbourne Racing Club development and strategic planning manager Brian Discombe rejected Ms Gold’s concerns. ‘‘The process to date has been vigorous, open and transparent and the club is committed to keeping the community informed,’’ he said.

Glen Eira Council community relations director Paul Burke said councillors made decisions in open meetings of council or the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee. ‘‘Any substantive decision that the council may make as a result of any meeting is only taken in the council chamber,’’ he said.

 

 

July 1, 2011

GESAC: The Mess We Didn’t Have To Have

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

From Council Minutes (28th June)

Crs Lipshutz/Magee  

That Council;

 1. Reiterates Council’s desire to maximise community use of GESAC.

2. Recognises the expressions of interest of both Warriors Basketball Association and McKinnon Basketball Association in supporting Council’s objectives at GESAC.

3. That Council seek independent legal advice as to whether the communication between Council and Warriors Basketball Association;

(a) constitutes a legally binding agreement; and

(b) stops Council from cancelling the allocation awarded to Warriors Basketball Association at GESAC.

4. That pending receipt of the legal advice Council not execute any agreement or contract with respect to the allocation of the basketball courts at GESAC.

5. That this resolution be incorporated within the public Minutes of this meeting.  

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

QUESTIONS

 What a mess this whole issue is. Councillors have finally exerted some authority and appear to be attempting to ensure that local groups are catered for at GESAC. The real questions are:  

  1. Where were councillors right at the start in setting performance criteria, overseeing the tendering process and establishing clear protocols and expectations?
  2. How much will this ‘legal advice’ now cost ratepayers? Will it be added to the overall escalating costs of GESAC?
  3. What of other local groups who have been refused allocation? Will we be going through the same process with them? Or are contracts already signed? Or does it take a public backlash to get any action?
  4. What role will the administration and the lawyers play in all this? Will the ensuing advice simply be ‘sorry folks – nothing can be changed’? This at least saves face!
  5. If the Warriors contract is null and void, then by how much will this affect the figures for GESAC? Does this mean that costs will go up elsewhere in the next budget and in the renewal of leases throughout the municipality?

These are not idle questions. They go to the heart of councillors’ duty to set policy and administrator’s duty to deliver services according to Best Value principles – ie. a real cost benefit deliverable. It would appear that neither of these mandates have been achieved thus far and in the process occasioned much needless angst for many in the community.

 

July 1, 2011

Some More Crowing!

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[16] Comments 

Once again all our previous records have been absolutely obliterated. Our monthly record now stands at 15,903 (and this is with one less day than the previous month). Our weekly record has also gone through the  roof, as well as our daily figures – 1023 hits in a 24 hour period.  We also welcome another 14 new subscribers to  the site. We are incredibly chuffed with these results and thank all our  readers.

Since we’ve been online for 1 year and 2 days, we thought it was time for a ‘retrospective’ – to pinpoint the issues that appear to have  generated the most discussion, greatest concern or interest for  residents. Without a doubt, GOVERNANCE, in all its guises, was the top issue. We’ve had another Municipal Inspector’s investigation (whitewash?) which queried  various practices of councillors; there was a focus (again) on Newton and his shortened reappointment; as well as various conflict of interest matters. Then  there was the resignation of Whiteside and her allegations of poor governance  on the part of certain councillors. None of this has really been resolved as  far as we’re concerned. Good governance, transparency, accountability, and  openness are still in short supply at Glen Eira.

Planning, whether this be individual applications, or Planning Scheme reviews, are also strong contenders for ‘issue of the year’. It is however extremely gratifying to find that council meetings are no longer empty echo chambers, but now often filled with placard waving objectors who  have taken the trouble to organise themselves and to fight what they believe to  be poor planning policy and even worse decisions. In this way, decision makers are held accountable. But we believe much more needs to be done, and this leads  onto the third and probably most important issue that faces the community –  consultation, or the lack thereof.

For the past decade, any semblance of genuine community consultation has been eroded and stripped away via tiny ‘adjustments’ to the  Local Law Meeting Procedures and policies which go through the pretext of  consultation, but which, we suspect, have the outcomes preordained. Real engagement, consultation and ultimately empowerment of residents is non  existent. Whatever spin administrators and certain councillors insist on trotting  out, nothing can hide the reality that residents’ views are largely ignored, or  worse, not even sought.

So everything seems to boil down to a corporate culture that is aided and abetted by processes that only pay lip service to the tenets of open and transparent government. The success of this site is clear evidence that many, and an ever growing growing number of residents generally agree with us and welcome a forum that enables them to express their views.

A sincere ‘thank you’ for all your well wishes and support.

 

June 30, 2011

Hansard: Some Revealing Repartee?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[2] Comments 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 

Planning: car parking

Mr EIDEH (Western Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning, Mr Guy. Is the minister considering any reduction to the minimum parking requirements for multistorey developments?  

Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — There is a review which was put in place by the previous government and went on for some period of time. Members in this chamber from the previous Parliament will remember that I asked the previous Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, about it, and he flippantly disregarded it. The review is the subject of some discussion within my  department and will be released in due course.

Supplementary question  

Mr EIDEH (Western Metropolitan) — Can the minister advise the house if the government will support councils imposing fees on new multistorey developments where there are insufficient on-site parking spaces so that councils can provide parking elsewhere?

Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — That is not a proposal that has been submitted to me, so it is not one that I am considering.

AND

Minister for Planning: meeting records  

Mr LENDERS (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning. I refer to his answer to a question from Mr Tee on 25 May regarding the minister’s meetings with developers and asking if he takes a minute taker from the Department of Planning and Community Development to record minutes. I ask: since the minister’s unequivocal answer on 25 May, is that still his
practice?

Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — Yes, it is.

 

June 30, 2011

GESAC: Parks, Open Space, or Concrete?

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

It appears that Lipshutz and Magee (and some councillors) are at it again with the request for a report on the ‘feasibility’ of extending the car park at GESAC – that is, converting open park land into more concrete. We find it exceedingly strange that after spending over $2million dollars on ‘design’, and one presumes some understanding of projected needs, that at the last moment council decides that it simply does not have enough car parking space to accommodate its anticipated 600,000 visitors to the complex. We must therefore question once again the competence of planning in this council. Caulfield Park pavilion also resulted in the ‘relocation’ of two ovals when the project was nearly complete. Why can’t they get it right first off? Why do such issues always seem to crop up at the eleventh hour? Is it intended to put pressure on councillors through the ruse of ‘if we don’t have this, the project will fail’? Below are the details of the ‘debate’ –

LIPSHUTZ: The request for a report was for officers to report on the feasibility of constructing a ‘multi level carpark’; and extension of existing carpark – but watching out for trees! ‘One of the concerns with Gesac’ is car parking and ‘need to increase that car parking to meet demand’…..at previous council meeting it ‘was discussed about having a multi level car park’ and he ‘seeks a report as to feasibility’….

MAGEE: ‘GESAC is going to be so successful ….there will almost never be enough car parking’ around GESAC ‘. ‘With the influx of…somewhere around 600,000 visitors per year parking is certainly going to be a premium…parking is something that should be increased….multi storey car park….interesting to see how that would look…..something I believe is needed….will fit nicely with the success of GESAC….

TANG: ‘some realisation that you’re never going to be able to accommodate enough people….regardless of how many extra car parks you put in…..(Lipshutz spoke about the concerns of car parking, it) ‘was a concern at the outset ….when council (supported GESAC) it knew that car parking was one of the key factors that would affect the attendances …..(visited other aquatic centres)…’planners determined that car parking was one of those big factors’…came to a balance – the site that GESAC is at ….is in a park, got to remember that…next to soccer grounds, cricket grounds, ….particularly playgrounds….and council has to minimise the impact as much as possible…as against those other uses there….think what we’ve got is an appropriate balance ….(shouldn’t use officers’ time and their workload to focus on this. There’s other important things that they should be working on such as the childcare in Elsternwick)…’I’d be seeing that as a waste of their time’….

HYAMS: although he ‘couldn’t agree more with Cr. Tang’ it’s important to remember that ‘when cricketers or soccer players….roll up to play their sport on Bailey Reserve….they won’t have anywhere to park….(and bad especially if they are carrying heavy cricket equipment)….

PILLING: ‘two bites at the cherry….I don’t agree…we seem to be trying at the 11th hour to get something up….

LIPSHUTZ: surprised that the two councillors are so ‘aggressive’…’the fact is that things change….(Tang is right in that) when we planned GESAC parking was a problem….we have now found that …demand will be greater…..and we can’t sit there and say’ (there won’t be change)…’we won’t pull down trees’…’I’m not suggesting that we build a car park….I’m suggesting we get a report to determine whether it is feasible….(I’m sure they can do the report very quickly)…we may look at other alternatives….(car parking is a problem) we need to look at it and not ignore it’.

MOTION CARRIED – TANG AND PILLING VOTED AGAINST

Gazing into our crystal ball we predict: (1) next council meeting will see the Officers’ Report ( as usual bereft of facts, details) recommending the construction of an additional car park. (2) Councillors will then be required to vote on this  and hey presto, GESAC will have its car park. BUT: where will the money come from? Is it budgeted for? how much extra will this cost?

 

June 29, 2011

Debate & Accountability Down The Drain!!!

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

Below is a report on the two items concerning developers’ levy and the flood report.

Item 9.7 – C84 amendment – Hyams/Lipshutz

HYAMS: Started by saying that he didn’t think that there was anyone on council who would give up the opportunity to collect money from developers. ‘However…..this particular issue there was no …’cost to do the research and initiate the developments….what it was worth….so basically there was not any point in doing it…..the money we were getting wasn’t going to actually pay for the scheme itself…..as the report says there are other ways of making developers pay more attention to the (effect they have on flooding) by putting this very low levy on them’. …..it was appropriate to fast track and that’s what’s been done here…….

Lipshutz declined to speak. There were no other speakers. Motion was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Duration of debate – approximately 3 minutes!!!!

ITEM 9.13 – Flood Report – Hyams/Lipshutz

HYAMS: ‘An interesting read…..hopeful that we won’t be seeing it (flooding) again….report explains…what council does…to prevent flooding and after flooding….and also what Melbourne Water does….Council …cleans about 6000 drain pits per year ….also cleans 30km of drains each year…..respond to 800 – 1000 requests…..I don’t think any infrastructure system would have dealt (with the floods)….we have to minimise. This sets out the ways this can be done…..consultation between ourselves and Melbourne Water…..Melbourne Water now better understands the problems in this area and hopefully …..we will be able to cope with it (another event) better and so will they.’

LIPSHUTZ: Told residents that ‘they should make sure’ to obtain a drainage plan’ before they buy or move house. ‘Melbourne Water has a plan of areas which are affected and it’s important that people understand  when one buys in an area of a flood zone…..

ESKAKOFF: ‘This does respond’ to the original request for a report. ‘It oulines many areas of council’s maintenance, of responses, of Melbourne Water’s drains and council’s drains, …..and the differentiation between those….plans to review the emergency response….there is a map as attachment one …it does show the MAIN areas….where businesses and homes were inundated……it by no means covers all areas of flooding…..these are the main areas and I just wanted to point that out…..

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY –DURATION OF DEBATE: 4 Minutes

COMMENTS: Two items which will have a major impact on the community, on amenity and livelihoods lasted exactly 7 minutes. This is plainly disgraceful and a complete whitewash of councillors’ responsibility to critically assess and evaluate the advice that is provided to them. All present last night did not undertake this duty. There was no questioning, no demand for statistics, no accountability to ratepayers.

 

June 29, 2011

C60: Hansard

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

Highlights from both the Legislative Assembly & Legislative Council

Planning: Caulfield Racecourse

Mr
SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)
— This morning I had the pleasure of joining the Minister for Planning, the Honourable Matthew Guy, in my electorate to announce the approval of a planning scheme amendment that will allow for a $1 billion development near the Caulfield Racecourse. As part of this development Caulfield residents will see an improvement in the quality of open space facilities for the community. I am pleased this agreement that I helped facilitate between the Glen Eira City Council and the Melbourne Racing Club has led to such a wonderful result. Facilities for the community to enjoy will include a picnic area by the lake, a large off-leash dog area, walking and jogging paths and a junior soccer pitch. I look forward to continuing to engage with the community on ways to utilise this fantastic facility.

Planning: Caulfield Village

Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy. Can the minister inform the house what action he has taken to assist the planned development around Caulfield Racecourse and around community involvement in this planned development?

Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — I thank Mrs Coote for her outstanding question and for her outstanding work in facilitating what is a terrific outcome for the community in Caulfield. The work done by Mrs Coote, Ms Crozier and the member for Caulfield in the Assembly, David Southwick, has been outstanding. The work they have put in as local MPs is unique.

Mr Lenders — What about Mr Davis?

Hon. M. J. GUY — Mr Lenders, I could also talk about Mr Davis and the work he has done. In the health portfolio he has been cleaning up 11 years of mess left by you. Mr Davis, as the Leader of the Government in this chamber, is trying to clean up $2 million a day worth of financial mismanagement from the desal contracts, which you signed with your mate Tim Holding.

That aside, it was terrific to be part of the Glen Eira planning scheme amendment C60, which will facilitate Melbourne is to have urban renewal, this is the place to have it — around a railway, an activities area and existing facilities where new child care and sporting facilities and open space can be built into this outstanding development.It should also be remembered that in the previous Parliament the public land committee, which was chaired by Mr Davis, also met to hear issues in relation to Caulfield and public space, and I can report to this chamber with pleasure that the C60 amendment will, for the first time, pick up the recommendations of the committee’s report. The C60 amendment will pick up those recommendations thanks to the work done by Ms Crozier, Mrs Coote and Mr Southwick to ensure that the central part of the racecourse will be used as public open space, which is a far cry from what we saw under the previous dark decade of former planning minister Justin Madden and former Premier John Brumby.

Mr Finn interjected.

Hon. M. J. GUY — Mr Finn, as he knows about open space issues, would also be interested in the fact that the C60 amendment — and the figure 60 is just two digits away from the Prime Minister’s disapproval rating of 62 — which former Labor member Evan Thornley was in favour of, puts in place, as Mr Davis said, the results of a lot of work by the racing club and by the council, which should be congratulated for the work it has done. The council presented a planning scheme amendment to the state government, and there has been a truly collaborative approach between the government and the council. A ‘collaborative approach’; don’t you love that word? Labor Party members love it. It gets their little left-wing juices running. There has been a cooperative approach between the state government; the local government; our local members of Parliament, who have worked so hard on this; the public land inquiry, which reported on the necessity for open space; and the racing club, which has put forward a proposal and had it accepted and presented to the state government with the support of Glen Eira City Council. Congratulations to all involved.

AND TODAY’S ‘AGE’

Caulfield development off and  racing

  Miki Perkins

June 29, 2011

A residential development at Caufield racetrack has been approved. THE Baillieu government has approved one of Melbourne’s largest inner-city  residential developments at the historic Caulfield racetrack, leaving some  residents ”bitterly disappointed” and warning of an infrastructure meltdown.

Plans reveal the  $1 billion development at the racecourse will include 1200  apartments as well as office and commercial space, with buildings ranging from  two to 20 storeys. Flemington and Moonee Valley racecourses are also working on major  residential plans.

The Melbourne Racing Club said yesterday the centre of the existing track  would be turned into a publicly accessible park with a lake ringed by a  boardwalk and fishing spots. The club says the new development –  dubbed  ”Caulfield Village” – will  offer a range of housing to young families just seven kilometres from the city  centre. But Planning Minister Matthew Guy said yesterday the amount of social  housing was yet to be ”factored in”.

”We don’t mandate social housing policies in Victoria; we are currently  working on some strategies but it will not involve mandation,” Mr Guy said.

The development has been dogged by controversy, with local councillors Frank  Penhalluriack and Sheryl Forge opposed to elements of the plan. Glen Eira City Council mayor Margaret Esakoff said yesterday she had a  ”humungous” council meeting to prepare for and did not have time to respond to  news of the minister’s approval. 

Mr Guy said the decision to proceed with the development had been made solely  by the council before it was handed to the government. ”There was no heavy-handedness, there was no need for any of that when the  council themselves have been a terrific, proactive part of this solution.”

A spokesman for the resident lobby  group  the Malvern East Group, Mathew  Knight, said infrastructure would struggle to cope. Drainage problems at two   underpasses would get worse. ”The traffic is going to be horrifying and getting on a peak-hour train at  Caulfield is going to be a problem –  it’s already a nightmare,” he  said.    ”We’re bitterly disappointed.”

Local member Liberal MP David Southwick said concerns about public access to  the racetrack had been resolved with the inclusion of new features like a  jogging track and soccer pitch. The racing club has not sold the land but will become either a landlord or  partner in developing the land.

 

June 28, 2011

Council Meeting

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

A brief report on the main items of tonight’s council meeting. Details will be up tomorrow.

  • Gallery was overflowing with kids and parents (waving placards) from the McKinnon Basketball Association. A guestimate would be well over 150 people crammed into chamber and on stairs. A petition of 713 signatures tabled. This matter was dealt with first and that was the end of the story – to the complete surprise of most newcomers, who obviously expected the issue to be dealt with in greater detail and possibly resolved there and then. Little do they know how this council works!!!
  • The C84 Amendment was passed without a whimper. Hyams spoke very, very briefly. Lipshutz was silent. Passed unanimously
  • The ‘Flood Report’ also passed unanimously again without a whimper.
  • All public questions were taken on notice. This occurred at 9.45 pm with the excuse that there were many items for the in-camera session. Readers should note that incamera sessions have previously gone well past 11pm. Taking questions on notice seems like it’s becoming a trend.
  • The budget passed of course, together with the Strategic Resource Plan.
  • No councillor questions
  • Lipshutz asked for a request for a report on extending car parking at GESAC. In other words, let’s turn valuable open space into another concrete car park! Opposed by Pilling and Tang but was carried.
 

June 28, 2011

Minister Guy Rubber Stamps C60

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

Matthew Guy has this afternoon announced the formal rubberstamping of the C60 Amendment. Interviewed by Steve Vizard these were some of this comments –

The C60 is a “billion dollar development, planned for 5 years, right next door to a railway station….one tower (only) which will …only shadow the racecourse itself…large development in an area where it should be….

Guy also spoke about the centre of the racecourse claiming that this decision will “ensure that open space and centre of racecourse can be used, (the) centre will now be opened up,… we are now going to open up centre of land for parkland and open space which can only be good for the people of Caulfield…..”

As to the land swap with the MRC, Guy stated that the MRC were “taking a large amount of risk” in their investment. That they would “be opening up the centre of that track….a very important win for the community….we are addng a very large area in the centre of the track….a good outcome for the community”.

Also interviewed was Mr. Don Dunstan, President of the Glen Eira Residents’ Association. Mr Dunstan highlighted:

  • the granting of Crown Land for private interests
  • the undemocratic processes involved where only 4 individuals decided the fate of the C60
  • the implications for other areas and for the people of Victoria

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »