April 30, 2011

The Facts & Nothing But The Facts!

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

We have received a copy of the $5,000 consultant’s report into the now closed mulch facility in Glen Huntly Park. In recent days there has been much publicity and reaction to this closure with allegations of ‘conflict of interest’ against Cr. Penhalluriack. It really seems that the response has in large part been an orchestrated attempt to either discredit Penhalluriack, or create a neat diversionary tactic from what is a far bigger issue for the residents of Glen Eira – the C60 and the complete acquiescence of this council to the will of the MRC. It also just happens to be Cr Penhalluriack who has been the chief opponent of the MRC (and council) in this whole ‘negotiation’.  So we ask: is the current furore mere coincidence or deliberate? If the latter, then by whom? Who has most to gain by discrediting Penhalluriack is the question that needs answering!

We’ve also written previously about the whole saga and the important sequence of events (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/how-good-is-newtons-alibi-part-2/.  To reiterate:

  1. Newton is responsible for ensuring the complete health and safety of his work force and residents
  2. Newton had the consultant’s first draft on his desk for at least 12 days before it was handed over to the audit committee. The Audit Committee (comprising Lipshutz (6 years straight) and the ‘evergreen’ Gibbs and McLean (12/13 years straight) basically did nothing.
  3. Why the need for several versions of this report? Was anything altered between version 1 and version 2? If so, why?
  4. Why did councillors have to ‘request’ a copy of the report instead of it being distributed to all immediately – especially since the report did recommend that Council take specific actions to ameliorate the potential risks?
  5. Who was responsible for the placement of the mulch heap at Glen Huntly park in the first place? Why didn’t Council’s Health Section recognise the potential dangers and veto such placement? Why did it take Penhalluriack’s persistence to finally initiate a scientific consultant’s report only after two months of his badgering the Audit Committee? Surely risk management needs to be acted upon immediately?
  6. Why has Newton not provided councillors with a copy (if it exists) of the Adcock (Dept of Health) advice? Was this in fact a real ‘report’ or ‘advice’, or simply a phone conversation? Again, we remind readers that this very same Department of health has on its website the following statement: Legionellae are ubiquitous in the environment. They are often isolated from water and wet areas in the natural environment such as creeks, hot springs, seawater, woodchips, mulch and soil. Potting mix is often colonised with Legionella species….”
  7. Why were graphic photographs ‘accidentally’ omitted from Newton’s response to Penhalluriack. This is not the first time that ‘selective editing’ has occurred!
  8. How ‘intellectually dishonest’ is the sign that was subsequently placed over the now defunct mulch facility? The intent was obviously to blame councillors.
  9. Why is Penhalluriack copping all the flack, since the vote was 7 to 2 – that means that at least another 6 councillors were persuaded by his arguments and evidence!
  10. Why should the Leader suddenly feature this story on its front page, when as we’ve stated previously, there has been a heap of much more important news happening in Glen Eira. Who also put 3AW onto the story today – all primed with the Darren Cooksley’s of this world to ‘have a go’ at Penhalluriack. Serendipity, or an orchestrated campaign?
  11. Residents should be more concerned with the fact that a tin shed, and an ineffective sprinkler system is cited as costing $160,000. Tenderers and other contrctors must be laughing their heads off at the cost/benefit analyses that this administration runs. Seems like it’s money for jam!

Finally, the report itself. For those who can’t be bothered reading the entire report, we’ve highlighted some of the important findings. They are quoted verbatim –

“Based on a literature review of the health and safety risks associated with composts, soil conditioners and mulches, and the warnings applied to commercially available mulch, users may still be potentially exposed to bacteria and fungi, despite the favourable air quality testing results.”

“the current warning signage was assessed and is not adequate, hence additional warning signage is required’.

‘Exposure to shredded mulch, potting mix, or compost, including general garden compost and commercially available products can carry a risk of exposure to various fungi (yeast and moulds) and bacteria, including Legionella”.

‘Longbeachae is the strain of legionella most commonly associated with composts, mulch and potting mix” (compare this statement with the supposed ‘advice’ from Adcock as claimed by Newton!)

“Some commercially available mulch products are not considered to present a risk of exposure to Legionella where they have undergone a pasteurisation process. However, mnay commercially available composts and mulch products present a risk of exposing users to fungi and bacteria for eg. Legionella.”

“The material stored at Glen Huntly Park is not pasteurised or treated and therefore has the potential to exposure workers, users and the general public in the surrounding area to elevated levels of bacteria and fungi above background. Potentially most at risk groups are members  of the (public) who collect and use the mulch material for gardening, the compact truck loader driver and other council workers who regularly work with the mulch material’

“Bulk sampling of the mulch stock pile for legionella was not carried out as this is a difficult test to conduct and based on literature and other information sources there is certainly a potential for this to exist, although it may quite likely not show up in sampling. Air sampling for Legionella is not considered an effective method of sampling due to the short time span of the bacterium in air.” (NOTE: THE ACTUAL MULCH HEAP ITSELF WAS NOT TESTED)

So, what does all this mean? We conclude:

  • Correct risk management practices were not carried out in a timely fashion
  • Poor decision making as to location means that attention must be diverted from this central question
  • Penhalluriack has been the target of a deliberate smear campaign
  • The consultant’s report conflicts with the ‘advice’ Newton claims to have received from Adcock
  • Penhalluriack’s coloured photos (conveniently omitted at first) clearly show the dust spray and the dangerous incline that the loader is working at. Both situations should not have been allowed to occur.
  • Why should something as simple as a tin shed cost the earth?
  • The reluctance to disseminate important information to all councillors represents a failure of good governance
  • here’s the missing photo – in glorious technicolour!

 

April 29, 2011

Joint MRC & Council Media Release

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
1 Comment 

Please take careful note of the David Southwick statements included in this media release and also the qualification – IF HORSE TRAINING IS REMOVED!

Friday 29 April 2011

Agreement on public use of Racecourse Centre

Glen Eira City Council and the Melbourne Racing Club have reached agreement on increased community use of the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

More facilities for the community to enjoy including a picnic area by the lake,  large dog off leash area, walking and jogging paths and a junior soccer pitch. The lake area will be available to the public 352 days a year and the whole of the centre on all days other than race days and major event days.

Additional access will be provided including a new pedestrian rout from Neerim Road across the racecourse, vehicle access through the tunnel after 9.30am with 20 car spaces reserved for the community and a separate footpath through the tunnel.

Fences will be converted to open up views across the Reserve starting with the corner of Neerim Rd and Queens Avenue. If horse training is transferred from Caulfield, additional areas will be added to Glenhuntly Park.

The Mayor, Cr Margaret Esakoff, said: “Council has been working to achieve public use of public land and we welcome the agreement for the benefits it will provide to our community”.

Melbourne Racing Club CEO Alasdair Robertson said that the Club and Council had worked closely together to deliver an outstanding result for the Community.“The MRC will provide a new $1.8 million public park in the racecourse infield. The MRC will pay for the design, landscaping, community facilities and ongoing maintenance of 5 recreational precincts.”

The infield public park will include new BBQ and picnic areas, a kid’s play area, shade and toilet facilities, a boardwalk around the lake including areas for fishing and a junior soccer pitch.

State Member for Caulfield, David Southwick MP worked with both parties to bring about the agreement. He said: “this is a great result for the people of Caulfield with the creation of new open space, new facilities and access to the Racecourse Reserve.” “I am very happy that I have been able to bring the Glen Eira Council and the Melbourne Racing Club together to facilitate this result and to promote greater access to this significant open space in Caulfield.” “Our community had real concerns about the lack of access to the inside of the track and about the low amount of open space in the City of Glen Eira. This agreement creates an excellent destination for a variety of recreational activities and will be greatly enjoyed by Caulfield families”

The Agreement and plans are on Council’s website.

 

April 29, 2011

‘A Silk Purse from a Sow’s Ear’!!!

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

MEDIA RELEASE 

Friday 29 April 2011

Council places limits on C60

On 28 April 2011, Glen Eira City Council adopted Amendment C60 with changes to restrict heights, restrict student housing and ensure higher levels of on-site car parking. Amendment C60 rezones land but does not authorise any construction. Future development will need to satisfy Council in six areas: an environmental management plan, integrated transport plan, car parking management plan, drainage management plan, landscape plan and waste and recycling management plan. 

Any development proposal which is not consistent with Council’s decision of 28 April would need to start again with a fresh planning application which involves advertising, submissions, decision and the opportunity to appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). On height limits, Council did not support the view of the Independent Panel that there should be no height limit at the end nearest Monash University. Council has imposed height limits on 100 per cent of the area ranging from two to three storeys at the Kambrook Road end to not more than twenty storeys at the Monash University end. 

On student housing, Council changed the provisions relating to developing student housing in the C60 area and required any student housing to undergo a full and separate planning process including application, advertising, determination and appeal rights to VCAT. On car parking, Council imposed higher requirements for on site car spaces than in recent comparable developments. For retail and supermarket uses, the car parking requirements are higher than recent VCAT decisions for mixed-use developments. For some other uses, Council imposed higher car parking requirements than the State Government approved for the nearby Monash University Equiset proposal. In addition, car parking restrictions will be established in surrounding residential streets in consultation with residents and at the cost of the C60 applicant. 

Consultation on C60 has included: 

  1. exhibition of the amendment 19 November–21 December 2009;
  2. the planning conference of 8 February 2010;
  3. six days of hearings before the independent panel in May 2010;
  4. public release of the panel’s report, July 2010; and
  5. public consultation meeting on 4 April 2011. 

It will now be up to the State Minister for Planning to consider Amendment C60 and decide whether to approve it.

 

April 28, 2011

Et Tu Brutus?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance
[4] Comments 

The C60 Amendment and the 7 lot subdivision were passed unanimously tonight – all according to plan no doubt. The gallery were assailed with the usual cliches, motherhood statements, and half truths. The rhetoric was familiar and repetitive. The C60 is the best deal that can be got; look we’ve protected residents, it’s only going to be 20 storeys instead of 23 and yes traffic will be a problem, but it’s already a problem so what’s the big deal? On and on and on. We’ll provide a more detailed report in the days ahead.

We’ve also chosen the title to this post deliberately. We think it speaks volumes of the actions of these four councillors and the administration in their total betrayal of residents. Top of the Brutus Scale is our first Green Councillor – Pilling. We simply wonder what his party must be thinking of him now?

 

April 28, 2011

MRC ‘Agreement’.

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s)
[12] Comments 

LIPSHUTZ: Claimed this was a ‘far reaching agreement’ which goes well beyond what was originally proposed by the MRC. Outlined and summarised the ‘agreement’. critics will claim that council ‘ought to have been more robust’ . ‘both parties came to the negotiating table willingly’ and negotiations were robust, and ‘compromise for both sides’ resulted. Compared the previous position of the MRC and the current ‘improvements’ that the negotiating team now has, ‘last year $800,000 and now $1.8 million dollars’ for landscaping…..’As a councillor….I have to make decisions based on reality ….adopting an adversial role’ gains nothing. ‘You can’t come to the MRC and simply make demands, they’re not going to be achieved….there has to be a compromise and this is a compromise…vote against….and you get nothing’ Some hope the government will step in and give us what we want – ‘that is not going to happen’. ‘What the government has sought from both parties is that we act reasonably…

PILLING: Agreement provides for ‘solid foundation’ for present and future improvements of ‘access, amenity and usage’ of the racecourse. Through this agreement the ‘MRC can no longer deny the community’ its share of the racecourse. Will ‘be viewed in future years as a productive beginning…our negotiating team have done a commendable job…there will need to be ongoing negotiation between both parties to ensure that all aspects of this agreement are fulfilled and delivered’ and this will mean ‘continued good will on both sides’ . Agreement is demonstration of good faith…’this approach should be encouraged’. Outlined ‘new amenties’, toilets, etc. and ‘these are all significant advances’ as are ‘fencing removal with a staggered time frame’; unrestricted access from 9.30 and ‘MRC will pay for all improvements….except for those on council land and we will share costs with them where there are boundaries’. Time line is also an ‘important aspect’ – all have been given a ‘reasonable definitive timeline’ ‘so it will happen, it’s not just open ended’. ‘To reject this agreement as some colleagues are urging would place’ at risk the good will that has been generated and the future. ‘This would be a retrograde step and a risk I’m not prepared to take’. ‘This item is not about past history, personal crusades, personalities or individual grievances’. It’s about ‘delivering tangible real benefits now’

PENHALLURIACK: Read the intended recommendation about the agreement and asked Esakoff to rule on ‘whether or not this would be in conflict with the terms of reference of the Caulfield racecourse Special Committee’ since the terms of reference for that the committee state that it is to deal with issues concerning the racecourse. ‘That would seem to fly in the face of the motion which we have now’ which is usurping its powers. Penhalluriack asked Esakoff to make a ruling.

ESAKOFF: ‘What’s your question Cr. Penhalluriack?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask you to rule’ whether this should be council decision or special committee decision.

ESAKOFF: ‘It’s on the ordinary council meeting agenda so my reading would be that it qualifies council to’ consider. Penhalluriack then questioned whether because something is on the agenda does it mean that it’s’legal’? Esakoff’s answer was ‘It’s on the agenda. We’re dealing with it tonight’. Again Penhalluriack questioned Esakoff stating that since it’s on the agenda’ that makes it legal?”. She responded ‘Yes’.

LOBO: ‘this is one of the biggest issues to come before the council …what I feel is that we are racing, we are going too fast. Perhaps we should slow down and postpone…..

FORGE: ‘it disturbs me’ that some are saying ‘we must rush into this in case we lose it’. ‘We’re just beginning….I was under the understanding that the community expected further consultation…what further input do you expect to get from the public in this regard?’ Esakoff asked to whom Forge is addressing her question. Forge resopnded ‘to the special committee’. Esakoff then claimed that she didn’t understand the question enough to be able to answer it. Forge then quoted Lipshutz as saying that the special committee would be going back to the public. Esakoff interrupted and asked whether the question was concerning the centre of the racecourse. Forge replied that the issues were ‘intermarried’. Esakoff then stated ‘No, tonight we’re dealing with the Caufield reserve only’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘Cr. Lipshutz would make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, Cr Pilling, the only Green on council….

Pilling then interrupted claiming ‘personal attacks’ and told Penhalluriack to ‘speak to the issue’ and not indulge in personal attacks. Esakoff agreed with Pilling. Penhalluriack then dissented from her ruling claiming that ‘all I said was that Cr. Pilling is a member of the Green’s Party. If he finds that offensive he should resign from the party!. Esakoff then said ‘Cr Penhalluriack, we’re speaking to a motion here. We’re not having personal attacks on each other’.

PENHALLURIACK: Began by reiterating the history of the racecourse and stating that the public has been ‘excluded’ from the grant by Queen Victoria. ‘Tonight I stand ashamed to be a councillor of Glen Eira because the negotiators’…..’did a terrible job’. ‘almost everything they achieved was achieved by a letter from the MRC to Council in september last year….that was held secretive from council, all councillors I presume until it was published in the agenda for the Special Council Meeting on the 13th December last year’....’What has been achieved in my opinion is pathetic.‘ ‘Nobody will go into a public park with a big fence around it’ Most people are at work at 9.30 and instead of allowing people to enjoy a barbecue in summer they have to be out by sunset…’what’s wrong with having lighting in this particular park?’….’It will not work as a park’…’and the access is shared with horses. Sure the horses go, but they leave their shit behind and when you go into the park you can smell it’. Outlined his solutions for walking horses across the area…’It’s a deliberate move by the MRC to exclude the public because for the last 8 or ten years the public is suddenly gleaning an understanding that it’s their park’. It is not ‘the exclusive domain of the Melbourne Racing Club as they would like you to believe it is’….The MRC is a non profit organisation but ‘I’ve never known a more avaricious organisation in my life’. Spoke about the profits from pokies and compared Zagame’s payment of 8.3% in tax because it owns the land, compared to the MRC which can spend this ‘tax’ on watering the lawns in the racecourse and paying the labour. ‘We should have that money in council’. ‘You heard cr Tang earlier talking about this massive increase in rates that you’re going to be facing,…it should not be happening. That $3 million dollars…should be coming back to council’. ‘What we’ve got with this dreadful negotiation is a piece of nonsense….I can tell you that….in 24 months time the MRC will go to the government and say ‘Look we’ve wasted a million dollars on this park and nobody uses it’…..Cr. Lipshutz….has ‘caved in’ …or whoever was dealing with the MRC and it may well have been our CEO becuase the CEO and the planning department had a number of meetings with the MRC ….which we’re not informed about as councillors and we should be informed about it’. reiterated that this deal came from the MRC last September and ‘we didn’t know about it….we are heading for a disaster, we have missed a golden opportunity….If the motion is lost I’m going to move that there be further’ negotiations with the MRC’. doesn’t believe that it should be ‘discussed here’. ‘The deal we’ve got is a waste of the paper it’s written on’. ‘Five years to pull down the fence on Queen’s Avenue. I can do it in 5 minutes’!

FORGE: attempted to raise a point about ‘Winky Pop’ and the legal advice she had received that morning.

ESAKOFF questioned relevance. Forge responded with importance of the issue and it shouldn’t be decided tonight. Esakoff responded ‘this item is going to be decided tonight’.

HYAMS: ‘this is the best we’re going to get’. Stated that if council wants more ‘negotiation’ then ‘we’ll get what the MRC originally asked for which is less than what they’ve agreed to now – if we’re lucky!’….’we can’t get more….the MRC is not prepared to give us more unless a higher power is prepared to make them give us more and the advice that we had is that that’s not going to happen....so either we want a park in the middle of the racecourse or we don’t want a park…..My understanding is that the government thinks that the negotiations have been reasonable but if we keep on procrastinating, they might change their mind’. ‘There is an element here of taking a crusade against the MRC ….so personally….PENHALLURIACK OBJECTED AT THIS POINT saying that the allusion was to himself. ESAKOFF stated – “I don’t believe your name was mentioned Cr. Penhalluriack’. Penhalluriack then asked Hyams to whom he was referring. Hyams answered ‘Not just you Cr. Penhalluriack’. Esakoff then asked Hyams to withdraw the statement. Hyams then said there is an element of ‘concern with the MRC’s past behaviour’!!!! that ‘they would rather get nothing than perceive to lose to the MRC….I think if we say no to this it is actually a loss to the community….we can look at this in a year’s time and either we’ll have a park….or we won’t and it will be our fault for saying ‘no’. It’s that simple’…..negotiators did the best job they could have done…..compromise……MRC has moved a long way…..certainly we have not got all the 7 points – that was our ambit claim….we set out our position, we didn’t get our position and now….this is what we either accept or not….that’s not to say as time goes on…..there won’t be further improvements’. The ‘MRC can’t do that on their own’ (get rid of training)….’they need somewhere to put it, and those facilities need to be found’. In regard to sport, Hyams said you can’t have sport without facilities such as change rooms,  ‘and the MRC doesn’t want to put facilities in the middle of the racecourse’. …..The question is do we want a park there or not? If we want a park vote for the motion….or keep butting our heads against the MRC for no other purpose than to make us feel good about ourselves….

ESAKOFF: negotiations when two parties get together and walk away both happy ‘a win win situation’ or a compromise on both sides.’ Negotiations are not held with one of those parties saying ‘this is what we want and unless we get it, forget it.’ The agreement will be ‘valuable’ and ‘meaningful’ to the community in terms of open space’….compared the decision making involved in this to the decision making that contestants make in game shows. ‘some take huge gambles and say ‘I came with nothing and I’m prepared to go home with nothing…in this case though it’s the community we’re playing for….we need to ask ourselves, what would the community do, what would they want. I believe they would want this win’….I don’t believe our residents would thank us if we were to say this is not enough….the risk is too great….to come home with nothing is irresponsible….I believe that this is a good outcome’.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘One thing you don’t do when you’ve been arguing for many years’ and then you talk only to say ‘hold on another three months….we were charged with negotiating…(and) each person represented the council’s position…each party has said it’s position is final and there is no more, that is the time to bring it back to the council’. Stated that Penhalluriack’s claims of avaricious MRC and their failure to pay council has ‘nothing to do with tonight’. ‘What we have tonight is an issue involving the park….all the issues that Penhalluriack has raised have been raised with the MRC….that’s what it is a compromise. Restated that there has been a major change from the past in that previously it was an ‘adversarial position’, now it’s a ‘conciliatory position’ ‘we’re working together and that is something that I think is very important’. Referred to Penhalluriack’s claims that the CEO had not informed council. ‘The CEO meets with many people during the course of the day….some have nothing to do with councillors…..to the best of my knowledge every meeting that the CEO has had with the MRC …has been brought back…I reject any issue of secrecy’. ‘….If we accept the community wins’.

MOTION PUT TO VOTE: Penhalluriack called for a division 

REQUEST FOR REPORT 

PENHALLURIACK: I’d like a detailed report on the meetings Andrew Newton has had with the MRC or representatives of the Trustees over the past two years. Seconded by Forge. ‘we’ve just heard’ that the CEO has reported on all meetings, ‘I don’t believe he has’, so I’d like detailed reports on what has been discussed and which hasn’t been reported back. Wanted to know what occured ‘behind our backs’. 

HYAMS interjected and said that Penhalluriack should withdraw ‘that imputation’ about ‘behind our backs’. Penhalluriack said that if he’s wrong he would apologise. Esakoff asked Penhalluriack to withdraw the ‘assumption’. Penhalluriack then asked Esakoff what the assumption was that she was referring to. She repeated about meetings ‘behind our backs’ only to have Hyams interrupt again and state ‘negotiations behind our backs’. Penhalluriack insisted on the word ‘meetings’ – he withdrew negotiations and substituted ‘meetings’. Repeated again ‘behind our backs and without our knowledge’.

FORGE: ‘I can bear witness to that fact told to me by the CEO of the MRC that he had several meetings with Jeff Akehurst and the CEO’ and that councillors were not aware of that.

HYAMS claimed he had no objections to the report because if they voted against it, it would make it seem that they were trying to keep something secret.

TANG asked Penhalluriack to detail the previous report by CEO which had been approved by council

PENHALLURIACK: about 12 months ago; included some dates and some gaps

LIPSHUTZ: what were the gaps?

PENHALLURIACK: it was incomplete

MOTION CARRIED. PENHALLURIACK ASKED FOR A DIVISION

Newton later on spoke to the ‘request for a report’. We’ll comment on this in the next day or so.

 

April 27, 2011

News Flash: Victory to the ‘Gang of Five’

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

Item 9.12 – ‘Agreement’ between MRC and Council regarding the Centre of the Racecourse was decided tonight. The votes were: Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling in favour of agreement. Lobo, Penhalluriack and Forge against. Both Magee and Tang had vacated their chairs declaring a conflict of interest – ie as MRC trustee members.

We’ll report on this in full tomorrow.

 

April 27, 2011

Tomorrow’s Community Forum

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

From yesterday’s Caulfield Leader

 

April 27, 2011

Hansard: A Little History

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[2] Comments 

Hansard – 9th October, 2002

PEULICH – This is not a 2030 vision, it is a current nightmare. I say that very much from a local perspective, with one of my local councils, Glen Eira, forging ahead with the state government in piloting and preparing an amendment designating something like 117 streets in the Bentleigh electorate for high-density development. We are not talking about something 30 years into the future; we are talking about an imminent threat to local amenity, local residences, our suburbs and our local streets — and the aggravation of local parking problems, which are already severe. Currently an independent panel in the City of Glen Eira has been put together to hear objections. There have been 150 very substantial submissions made to the independent panel. Today I tabled a petition collected within only seven days and signed by over 100 objectors to the state government’s plan. It is not a metropolitan strategy with a vision.

This is a nightmare that is to be imposed upon the suburbs, and the suburbs will not wear it.

Quite clearly this is going to make the medium-density housing policy of the previous coalition government look like an open space policy, because the definition of high-density development in the City of Glen Eira, which has been guided and advised by and has been working closely with the Department of Infrastructure, is that high density is one storey higher than the height of existing buildings. Given the local streets which have been designated and which I have listed in the petition that I am currently circulating, it means the entire electorate is going to be crisscrossed by high-density development. That obviously includes secondary roads such as Brewer Road, Wheatley Road — I also mention that I live on Tucker Road, which is one of these roads — Chesterville Road, South Road and Bignell Road, as well as all the surrounding local streets within 400 metres of activity centres.

Some of these are close to railway stations or railway lines, but many of them are not. The government has devised this plan even around bus routes.

The whole concept is ludicrous, especially when you have a look at the significantly ageing demographic profile of my electorate, which has the third highest number of over-65s. These people catch a taxi to go to the doctor or to the local supermarket. They do not walk kilometres in order to get to their destination.

This is an absolutely outrageous plan, and the suburbs will rebel. Yes, we all want a vision for the development of Melbourne and we all want plans that preserve open spaces, but the government at the same time is fostering and taking action that is going to see a further diminution of open space for the suburbs.

Mr Nardella interjected.

Mrs PEULICH — You will hear about the plan.

We are not going to provide you with the solutions; we are not going to let you get off the hook. We will provide you with our ideas during the election campaign so that the voters in the suburbs which have been targeted will have a clear choice.

If you thought the town halls filled by objectors to medium-density housing in your Brightons, your Stonningtons and your Bentleighs were well attended, let me make a forecast. There will be wall-to-wall objectors in the suburbs!

I note the Premier’s own suburb of Williamstown, where he has purchased a $1.4 million home, is not singled out for this high-density development. Neither is Northcote, which is where my opponent at the next election lives.

Honourable members should look at where these plans will be implemented and where loss of amenity will be suffered by residents, where we will end up with three-storey houses in local streets, where there will be many more cars cluttering the streets and where there will be far less open space than there is currently……

As I said before, the local suburbs will not wear it. I have called on the Minister for Planning as well as the Premier to scrap plans to open up 20 per cent of my local electorate to high-rise and high-density development. Based on the definition, in secondary roads where there are already three-storey developments, we are looking at four-storey developments. It is an ever incremental plan. In local streets where there are two-storey developments there will be three-storey developments. If we thought — and the government argued — that the infrastructure and the drainage system were inadequate to cope with the increased density of our suburbs, what will it be with this strategy? …….

Mrs PEULICH — …..The controversial C25 planning amendment of the City of Glen Eira in fact shows this is not a vision, a 2030 vision; it is a nightmare. It is here and now. It is a threat, it is being fast tracked, and it is being implemented quickly by this government. I asked myself why the City of Glen Eira was so keen to go down this track. Quite a few of its councillors opposed it, including the mayor.

The answer came to me the other day, when I found out that the chief executive officer had for some time worked for a former federal housing minister and Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Brian Howe — as did the Bentleigh Labor candidate, Rob Hudson. Clearly the two are fast-tracking this plan to increase housing density in local streets. The Labor candidate for Bentleigh does not give a hoot about the loss of amenity, the increased density, the increased clutter of cars in our local streets and the stress to drainage, because he lives in Northcote. His suburb is not listed for higher density, and neither are those of a substantial number of government members.

I am calling on the Premier and the Minister for Planning to protect our local streets. We all understand there has to be some consolidation, but it should not be at the expense of our local streets. It should not be at the expense of open space even in the suburbs — it counts.

The strategy will have a profound and negative impact on my community. It is a timely illustration of what will happen in so many other areas that are listed for high-density development, including Bentleigh, Carnegie, Caulfield, Elsternwick, Glenhuntly, Clayton, Oakleigh, Moorabbin, Brighton, Hampton and Sandringham — they are just some of the surrounding suburbs that are being targeted by Labor. Let me tell you, Mr Acting Speaker, the south-eastern suburbs will not be railroaded by the likes of this strategy or this government.

 

April 26, 2011

“Agreement’ or Cave-In?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance
[15] Comments 

We’ve gone back and had a look at the Council resolution that was passed about negotiations with the MRC and compared this with the proposed ‘agreement’. It was decided that council’s position would be: 

1.That the opaque fences be replaced by palisade fencing as soon as possible;

2. That the centre of the circumferential training tracks be fenced off and the general public be given exclusive and unrestricted access via the tunnel from Glen Eira Road to this entire area;

3. That the Melbourne Racing Club landscape this area to plans and specifications to be agreed with Council, but which will include sporting ovals, areas for passive use, change areas and toilets;

4. That a firm timetable be set for the expeditious removal of horse training from the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve so the Crown Land used for training can be made progressively available for unrestricted public use.

5. That aside from the tunnel there be further public access to the centre of the Racecourse.

6. That car parking not be permitted in the centre of the Racecourse except in association with the use by the public of the public park.

7. That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve be administered by Independent Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust not dominated by any one group.

What Newton and co have come up with doesn’t cover half of what was in the resolution. There’s nothing here about unrestricted access, a firm timetable for getting rid of training and greater access to the centre. It’s also odd that this item hasn’t got a single name attached to it. All we get are disclaimers such as “Council has no more control over this land than it does over the average residential property.” 

Also of note is that decisions on fencing remain with the MRC and not council. Further, Glen Eira residents will be forking out further monies to share in the construction of various entrances and fences. So much for the MRC footing the entire bill! Oh, and there’s a time limit of up to 5 years for some of this fencing to go. 

Of greatest concern is the total failure of this so called ‘negotiation’ to insist on the expeditious removal of training from the racecourse and the establishment of an independent trust ‘not dominated by any one group’. As it stands, this ‘agreement’ does not in any shape or form adhere to the council resolution. If this ‘agreement’ is passed then Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff, Hyams, Pilling and Magee will have to parry charges of hypocrisy since they all voted in favour of Penhalluriack’s motion on what council’s position should be. The motion still stands. They are therefore obligated to support the motion or be viewed as the lackeys of the MRC.

 

April 24, 2011

Open Letter of Protest

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

From Supporters of Caulfield Reserve

OPEN LETTER OF PROTEST

TO ALL POLITICIANS

MEMBERS OF LOCAL, STATE & FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS 

The proposed C60 Amendment for theCaulfield Villageand the Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse redevelopment will change the face of Caulfield forever. As residents of the municipality we protest in the strongest possible terms to:

  • The failure of state, federal and local authorities to  have in place a democratic and transparent process for the development of a holistic plan which involves all stakeholders
  • We decry the current situation where democratically elected councillors are denied the right to represent their constituents as a result of spurious ‘conflict of interest’ claims
  • We denounce the abandonment of the original Phoenix Precinct Plan and the progressing of this MRC proposal in a piecemeal but wilful fashion that deliberately undermines the Public view and wishes
  • We maintain that the MRC proposal fails to adhere to the underlying tenets of the Planning and Environment Act in protecting residents’ amenity
  • We denounce the failure of the current proposals to adequately consider the consequences of high rise and high density residential and commercial development on the immediate surrounding areas and the permanent social, economic and environmental damage this will cause
  • We denounce the secrecy and failure to keep the community informed as to the alleged progress of this development

 If this proposal is accepted the Caulfield and wider Glen Eira community faces the inevitable:

  • Reduction in quality of life and liveability
  • Unacceptable increase in traffic congestion, and destruction of urban amenity.
  • Loss of public open space as agreed to by the Queen Victoria grant and George VI reaffirmation of the grant in 1947
  • Economic downturn of local shopping strips
  • The ceding of Crown Land to private interests
  • Public perceptions that horses have more rights than public citizens 

We Urge All Councillors And All Members Of Parliaments To Immediately Resolve To: 

  1. Ensure the C60 Amendment is abandoned.
  2. Institute a fully representative panel to co-ordinate the development of the  Phoenix Precinct Structure Plan followed by Master Plans, and
  3. Ensure that all stakeholders are represented on this panel: Zagame Corporation,MonashUniversity, VATC (trading as) Melbourne Racing Club, Caulfield Racecourse Trustees, Victorian Government, Federal Government, and those affected by the changes – Ratepayers and/or Residents or their Representative bodies. 

SUPPORTERS OF THE CAULFIELD RESERVE

Informing Glen Eira Community 

http://melbournecommunities.org.au/caulfieldheath.html 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »