April 24, 2011

More Agenda Items of Note

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

The various ‘Records of Assembly’, brief as they are, still contain some fascinating items. One that really caught our eye was – “At conclusion of Assembly of Councillors a Councillor only meeting took place with a Note Taker present.” We simply ask – who was the Notetaker? Was the Notetaker really ‘independent’ as per a contract? How much did this little tete a tete cost ratepayers if the Notetaker was an ‘outsider’ under contract? What was the purpose of this meeting? Could it have anything to do with Newton’s contract?

Then from the same meeting we get this: ‘Cr Penhalluriack – a Court Order to remove a Plane tree in Murrumbeena’. Given that this is a Court Order, rather than a VCAT order, we can only assume that another court case has taken place and that Council has been thumped. So the question again is – how much did this cost ratepayers? Were barristers, QCs or merely a solicitor involved? Did it need to go to court? Could council have averted court proceedings in any shape or form?

Two items that appear under the in camera discussions deserve comment. One relates to another sporting oval resurfacing for ‘more than $350,000’ at Lord Reserve. We wonder what the final cost will actually be? There’s also this tit bit under ‘personnel’ and Occupational Health and Safety Compliance? Again, we can only speculate, but has this anything to do with worker safety at the mulch heap, or possibly another issue altogether? The real question is will ratepayers be footing any bills or payouts on this little number?

Finally, Glen Huntly’s comment deserves taking up. $7.5 million has now been forecast for the ‘development’ of Booran Rd. Reservoir. Given that no plans have as yet surfaced (officially) for this site, then how can any sum be assigned and what is this money for? What are the mega plans that have possibly already been concocted – once again, without community input?

 

April 22, 2011

The ‘Truth’ About the Racecourse & the MRC

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

We received the following Power Point presentation from Cr. Penhalluriack. We’ve put it up in the public interest as both an information tool and as a guide to the issues which the proposed ‘agreement’ does not cover, acknowledge, or take into account.

This was presented to Councillors – it appears that it may have fallen on deaf ears!

Please download the full file FROM HERE.

It is a large file and may take a little while to download, so please be patient:-)

 

April 21, 2011

How Do You Like Them Apples?

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

We’ve received a set of correspondence between a resident and councillors in regard to the meeting scheduled for the 28th April. We also include a letter from Cr. Penhalluriack in response to this resident.

This first letter/email was address to Mr. Torres (planning dept) and cc’d to all councillors –

Dear Mr Torres,

 Thank you for your undated letter received on the 20th April notifying us of the sitting of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee meeting on the 28th.

As you will have discerned from the attendance of over 130 people at the recent meeting at the Caulfield Park Community Centre, there is a very large interest in this matter.  Although there is no provision to address the councillors at the proposed meeting, it may be expected that a large number of those people who attended the previous meeting will want to attend to observe the actual decision process.  Consequently, the decision to schedule it at short notice in a week’s time at this time of year is most unfortunate.

This is the Easter/Passover period, when very many people are away enjoying the Easter break.  For this reason alone, the date is inappropriate.

However, it also coincides with a forum (Phoenix Precinct Rising) regarding the very same topic on which councillors are making their decision.  This forum includes the mayor of Glen Eira as a participant.  This will mean that since the two items are both of crucial interest, and on largely overlapping matters, that even those who are not away will be split in which meeting to attend.  Again, the scheduling is inappropriate.

 Further, one might have thought that given the nature and focus of this forum, with several well-known and distinguished panellists, that the councillors on the committee would have wanted to maximise their knowledge, prior to making such an important decision.  So again, unless they have no interest in gaining more input, the scheduling is inappropriate.

 We are sure that you did not intend it, but to many, it will seem that this hasty scheduling is a attempt to avoid public attendance and observation at this most important meeting.  It is said that justice not only needs to be done, it also needs to be seen to be done.

We suggest that you reschedule this meeting in order to allow all the above matters to be properly addressed, and so that people can be given adequate notice of the meeting so they can arrange to attend and observe.

 Yours sincerely,

Michael and Bridget Cramphorn

Cr. Penhalluriack responded to this missive and cc’d his response to all councillors –

Dear Mr Cramphorn,

I empathize with you. 

Councillors themselves have had only one brief meeting to discuss the C60 development.  I don’t recall seeing any of the “Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee” members attending the C60 Panel Hearings.  If any of them attended it was only briefly.   

You have correctly observed that the C60 decision is being rushed.  So too is the decision on the proposed public (car)-park and the seven-lot subdivision.   

Council posted letters out inviting objectors to a “planning conference” for C60 AND the  proposed public (car)-park – until somebody realized they were actually obliged to have a “public consultation” and not a “planning conference”.  More letters went out correcting their error.  Then the MRC pulled the plug on their “public (car)-park” planning permit application, realizing that they would be better off negotiating with selected Councillors and the CEO behind closed doors than facing an angry public meeting.  The CEO promptly declared the negotiations “confidential”, and that was the end of any pretense that we Councillors care about public opinion. 

The Council Meeting on the 27th April will now decide what happens with the proposed public (car)-park in the centre of the Reserve.  The following night (28th) the Special Committee Meeting (Crs Esakoff, Hyams, Lipshutz and Pilling), will meet to railroad through C60 and the seven-lot sub-division.   It is all so rushed that the obligatory advertisement  in the Leader  announcing that meeting was overlooked, and an advertisement had to be placed in the Age instead.  


The team negotiating with the MRC have achieved virtually nothing by way of concessions towards a workable park in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.  As already mentioned, the situation is exacerbated because the CEO slapped a gag on public discussion – although from noon today Council’s web-site should contain both agendas.  

I can say, however, that only one of the seven important demands passed by Council at its meeting on the 15th March has been achieved.  You will recall, at the meeting on the  4th April, how some Councillors were extolling the negotiating skills of the family-law lawyer, Cr Lipshutz – and at the same time denigrating Cr. Forge and me as “too emotional”.  (I took that as a compliment.  It means that, unlike some of my fellow Councillors, I care.)   However it now seems those negotiating skills were phantasmal, and the MRC team was able to get just what it wanted.

You may get a better understanding of why this has been so rushed, and why your request to reschedule the meeting will fall on deaf ears, if you ask which Councillor is taking leave of absence from the 1st May. 

Cr Frank Penhalluriack.
 
COMMENT: Mayor Esakoff will now NOT BE MODERATING NOR ATTENDING the community forum. The ‘excuse’ was that there is a Special Committee meeting at Council. We however note, that Esakoff’s attendance was requested for 9pm to moderate a discussion panel. Since we expect the C60 to be rubber stamped within minutes, she would have had plenty of time to drive the 5 minutes to Monash and make an appearance!! We can only assume that she did not receive ‘permission’ to attend from Newton and Lipshutz?
 
 

April 21, 2011

The ‘Sell Out’ is Complete!!!

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

Here are the agenda items of note for next Wednesday night’s council meeting. We will be writing much, much more of these issues!

MRC and Council Agreement for Centre of the Racecourse

Readers should carefully dissect this proposed agreement. It basically ignores the resolution passed by Council less than a month ago! (See Item9.12)

 Strategic Resource Plan

  • Rates up 6.95%
  • $5.5 million for Duncan MacKinnon in 20011/12 and then another $1.8 in 2012/13
  • Pavilions – $2m p.a. commencing in 2012-2013.
  •  Elsternwick Child Care Centre – Council has developed a proposal to obtain use of some Crown Land on the east side of Kooyong Road to build a purpose-built child care centre – $250k has been allocated in 2011-2012 for building design and community consultation and $1.35m in 2012-2013 for building works.
  • Booran Road Reservoir – The SRP allows for the reinstatement and redevelopment of the Booran Road Reservoir Site – $4m in 2017-2018 and $3.5m in 2018-2019. (Hence for another 4 years this valuable open space will remain untouched!)

COMMENTS

  • No appreciable increase in spending on drains
  • Pavilions are the major priority of this council it seems – without any cost benefit analyses as to refurbishment/redevelopment as opposed to demolition and new buildings

Tree Protection

Incorporating Tree Protection into the Planning Scheme is considered too ‘cumbersome’. Instead, there is the option to simply introduce a new clause into the Local Law, which will require a permit for about 100-200 trees in the special category of ‘Classified’.

COMMENT: How will this stop ‘moonscaping’?

Council Plan

“Council proposes to retain the existing Council plan” (No further ‘consultation’ since it was done so wonderfully well in 2008!)

Planning Applications

Address

Proposal

Notification

Objections
29 Railway Pde 3 storey/16 dwellings 12 residences notified; 22 notices sent 21 objections
285 Hawthorn Rd Synagogue/reduction in car parking 7 properties notified; 25 notices sent 14 objections + petition of 47 objections
8 A’Beckett St 2 dwellings 9 properties notified; 23 notices sent 2 objections
14-18 Lillimur Rd. Amend current permit 35 properties notified; 49 notices sent 2 objections
Halstead, Cromwell & Hawthorn Rd Subdivision into 19 lots; remove reserve status (current use: private open space) 82 properties notified; 148 notices sent 2 objections

 

COMMENT: The usual lack of notification continues. Please note that inverse correlation.

 

April 19, 2011

At Last – The People’s Voice!

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

A petition has been organised which is to go to the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. The objectives of the petition are:

  • To suspend the decision on the C60 amendment
  • To ensure that a proper Master Plan is developed for the entire Phoenix Precinct
  • To ensure that a Committee of ALL STAKEHOLDERS (including community representatives) is created to oversee the Master Plan, and
  • To ensure that the plan incorporates the social, environmental and economic mandates of the legislation

We have uploaded the petition and ask readers to:

  • Download a copy, print it off and then ask their neighbours, friends, associates to sign
  • Ensure that signatories understand what the current proposed C60 amendment (if accepted by Council) will mean to their lifestyle, and well being
  • Once signed, we ask that all petitions be handed in to the organisers of the April 28th Community Forum. Full details are available from http://melbournecommunities.org.au/caulfieldheath.html
 

April 19, 2011

Deliberate or Merely Incompetent?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication
[16] Comments 

We’ve repeatedly highlighted the fact that when it comes to ‘advertising’ of planning applications that are likely to cause a stir, there appears to be a direct inverse correlation between the number of objections and the number of residences notified. Now, we have another example of either deliberate ‘non-advertising’ or just plain old incompetence.

The Special Committee Meeting to decide on the C60 appeared on Council’s website last Friday afternoon (15th April). The decision to hold the meeting was therefore made at the latest, either the day before, or possibly that morning. So why is there not one single word about this meeting in the Caulfield Leader? All it would have taken is a quick filling out of the standard template, a quick email to the Leader, and the public would have been informed of this major announcement. Now all the public has announcing this meeting is a single one liner link on council’s homepage. Not good enough!! And especially not good enough when one considers that the Local Government Act specifies that ‘advertising’ has to be included in local newspapers with at least 7 days notice!! It may well appear in the Moorabbin Leader tomorrow, but it is the Caulfield Leader which reaches the people most directly impacted by the probable decision.

If next week’s Caulfield Leader is to run the ad, then that would make it the 26th (a public holiday!) – far less than the legal requirement of 1 week. So our questions are:

  • Why wasn’t an ad placed in the Caulfield Leader? Deadlines are Monday morning. And given the ‘hard working’ Mr. Burke, even an email over the weekend would surely have sufficed?
  • What does this say about Council’s commitment to a proper ‘engagement’ policy?
  • Or is this again a typical example of keeping people unaware and ignorant?
 

April 18, 2011

The Schemozzle That Is C60

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

A comment by Reprobate, reproduced here as a post:

If Council has all the information it needs to make a decision, then it should make a decision. In that sense its not indecent haste. I seriously doubt though that Council *does* have the information it needs, and I further doubt the Special Committee has mastered the detail.

Regardless of the merits of C60, it is appalling that Council has failed to provide an up-to-date Incorporated Plan for residents to inspect. The members of the Special Committee have a moral obligation to ensure the documents being published under their imprimatur are kept current, especially before the recent meeting that ostensibly was to listen to the community. Those who attended might still not be aware that what is being proposed doesn’t match the published Incorporated Plan (dated 2008). [The Panel commented on this.]

I’ve explained before why this matters, but as a reminder, C60 removes third-party rights except in very narrowly defined circumstances involving the Incorporated Plan. The Explanatory Report, published under the aegis of Council, reveals why. Its to help the developer make more money (thats the reference to “facilitate”).

There is no compelling need to make the area a Priority Development Zone (PDZ), despite the claims of the Explanatory Report. The proposal is primarily for residential development in a Residential Zone (R1Z) and mixed development in a Mixed Use Zone (MUZ). It does however seek to obtain Crown land and change its zone to build MRC’s beloved tower. Additionally it seeks closure of some inconvenient roads. This can all be done without a PDZ.

Loss of third-party rights is something *every* non-developer resident of Glen Eira should be concerned about. Council has already argued, successfully, at VCAT that standards designed to protect residential amenity should be waived when it involves multi-unit development. While most attempts to insist on compliance with the Planning Scheme are doomed, nevertheless third-party appeal rights keeps pressure on Council to have to explain itself. Its a sad fact that Council rarely explains itself until it appears before VCAT.

At both the recent C60 community meeting and planning conference re an MRC 8-lot subdivision, Cr Lipschutz has attempted to intimidate attendees. This is unacceptable. Far from helping people understand the process and listing all the matters that the Responsible Authority *must* and *may* consider, he has provided his own, and I would argue erroneous, interpretation of the Planning and Environment Act. This has extended to mentioning VCAT explicitly in his assessment of planning permit applications in Council. Somebody as aggressive and clumsy when dealing with the public on controversial topics is not an ideal choice for chairing such a Committee.

There is a curious double-standard used by Planners (spelt with a capital P), whereby they cling to anything that supports what they want, and ignore anything that contra-indicates support. So it is that Cr Lipschutz (without apparent consultation with his Committee colleagues) has decided narrowly what matters the committee will consider, regardless of the considerable powers PAEA confers. It was the MRC that thought it appropriate to include photos of a few thousand cars parked in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse And Public Reserve. In a submission from their partner, Monash University, parking in the centre of the racecourse was explicitly mentioned. Further, both Council and VCAT disagree that a Use of land should meet its own parking needs. That’s why non-compliance with parking requirements as specified in the Planning Scheme are so universally waived for developers. Creating traffic and parking problems is a de facto Council policy in and around Activity Centres.

The Panel probably correctly identified the interface with existing residential areas as the most sensitive interface. The published Incorporated Plan as far as I can tell seeks to build 4 storeys closer to existing single-storey dwellings than the Standards (guidelines if you’re VCAT) specify. If increased traffic isn’t an issue (the Panel doesn’t think it is), and proximity of 4 storeys to existing single-storey dwellings isn’t an issue (Council doesn’t think it is), then its time to scrap the Minimal Change Area policy as being manifestly unfair (fairness is a key Objective of Victoria’s Planning Provisions).

There is something really really odd when so many documents that Council has published re C60 have “Supporting_document” as part of their name. Its almost as if the matter has been prejudged.

I repeat that nobody knows what the development that C60 is designed to facilitate will look like. Not Council, not its officers, not the MRC, not the Panel, not successive State Governments. There is a rough concept, which has met considerable community resistance. The powers that have aligned behind the proposal desperately wish to silence critics up front, secure their funding and valuable crown land, and move on with the development, safe in the knowledge they cannot be scrutinized by people whose amenity they are impacting

 

April 17, 2011

The Mulch Fiasco

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

The sign placed at the now defunct mulch heap attempts to lay the blame for the closure of this facility squarely at the feet of councillors. What the sign does not disclose is the reasoning behind councillors’ decision – namely, that it represented a risk to both employees and the public. No matter how remote this risk may have been, councillors acted appropriately – in stark contrast to the audit committee and the CEO in failing to provide the scientific consultant’s report to ALL councillors at the earliest opportunity and initiating action.

In the minutes of 3rd March 1997, a report written by Newton states that it was ‘decided that it would be desirable to have a comprehensive set of written policies on all areas(s) of Council activity’. He goes on to state that “in most cases policy ought to be approved by Council. This would give clear authority to the policy being laid down. It would also require reconsideration by the Council itself if the policy is to be amended (good corporate governance)”.  So, it is Council, who is to set policy, or to change policy. Under the same item, the ‘Occupational Health and Safety Policy’ was voted on. It states:

“Management has a duty to provide and maintain so far as is practicable, a working environment that is safe and without risk to health. All staff have a duty to report and assist management to correct unsafe conditions”.

“…the organisation makes the following commitment – We will not knowingly engage in any activity or provide any service unless we can perform the activity or provide the service safely”.

“This policy recognises that the health and safety of all employees of the City of Glen Eira is the responsibility of Management…..”

One of the tasks and procedures adopted was to ‘Promote proactive risk identification, assessment and control programmes that embrace the principles of effective risk control”.

It should never have taken the persistence of one councillor to get things done. It also should never have been ignored by the Audit Committee, and it should never have had to come to a vote at council meeting. The onus was on management to ensure that the mulch heap was 100% safe. The fact that it was even moved into an area adjacent to a playground, school, and public park is beyond belief. As Mr. Newton stated so many years ago – the blame must be laid at management’s feet!

 

April 15, 2011

Indecent Haste Continued….

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance
[18] Comments 
Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee Meeting 28 April 2011  
Notice is given pursuant to Section 89(4) of the Local Government Act 1989 that a meeting of the Glen Eira City Council Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee will be held on Thursday 28 April 2011 in the Council Chambers, corner Hawthorn and Glen Eira Roads, Caulfield commencing at 7pm.
The business to be transacted at this meeting will be:		  
 
Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) Planning Scheme Amendment C60 to consider either approval (adoption) or abandonment of the amendment; and
Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) to consider a planning application for a 7 lot subdivision.
 
 
Amendment C60 was exhibited on 19 November–21 December 2009, was the subject of six days of hearings by the independent panel in May 2010, the panel’s report was released publicly on 30 July 2010 and the Special Committee considered further submissions at a meeting on 4 April 2011.
  

 
 

April 15, 2011

Newsflash: MRC 8 Lot Subdivision

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

Last night saw the planning consultation meeting for the MRC’s 8 lot subdivision that we’ve highlighted previously. From all reports very few people even knew it was on, much less received official notification from Council. Hence there was a poor turnout. A couple of things should be noted:

  • It was chaired by Lipshutz, who on several occasions threatened to close the meeting and insisted that discussion not include the C60 (again!)
  • The Planning Officer did not appear to have a good grasp of the issues when asked specific questions by people
  • The MRC were given the privilege of responding last (again not the usual state of affairs)

There is much more to this subdivision than meets the eye. Once again we witness the complete orchestration of events by Council and its failure to properly inform residents. The proposed subdivision is integral to public entry to the racecourse via the tunnel and hence the centre of the racecourse issue, which in turn is central to the C60. Separate them all and do things in reverse order, as is being done now, and all the cards fall neatly into the lap of the MRC.  Readers should also ask themselves what role our dear council is playing in all this?

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »