Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

November 12, 2013

Open Space: Compare & Contrast

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[18] Comments

PS: Before we forget, we remind readers that the Mayoral ‘election’ is taking place tonight. Strong rumour has it that Pilling will get the nod, but the intrigue involves the Deputy Mayor. Again, the rumour is that Lobo will be supporting Lipshutz for Deputy instead of Delahunty. If true, how amazing! An individual who has been screaming ‘racism’ , who is a Labor man, will now support his nemesis? If Lipshutz is running for Deputy, then it is pretty clear in our view as to why – Pilling needs a ‘minder’ to ensure that he sticks to the gang’s agenda! If there is any credence to this rumour then what a sorry, sorry state of affairs!

November 11, 2013

Blah, Blah, Blah…..: Part 2

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

PS: A reader has sent us the following image which clearly illustrates the woeful traffic situation in Morton Avenue. Please keep this in mind as you read the ‘debate’.

Below is our continuation of the Morton Avenue ‘debate’ aka debacle. Just for the record, we have also gone through the minutes of this new council in order to highlight the hypocrisy, lack of consistency, and sheer humbug that represents planning argument by these councillors. On each of the decisions listed car parking requirements were waived – whether this be onsite resident parking, visitor parking or loading bays, or a combination of all.

ESAKOFF: moved motion for 5 storey, 33 dwellings, 1 shop and a visitor car parking to 4 spaces. Seconded by Okotel. Esakoff didn’t say much except that this was ‘more in keeping’ and that since there’s already a permit for 5 storeys then ‘this was more in keeping’ with the area. On car parking Esakoff stated that this was a waiver of 3 and ‘this was fair’. Moreton Avenue is ‘busy’ so ‘it’s important that onsite visitor parking is provided’ and her motion would make it ‘nearly adequate’.

OKOTEL: even though this is ‘overdevelopment’, 5 storeys is ‘more resonable’ than 6 storeys and with the increased parking requirements and the ‘reduction in dwellings’ that residents ‘in that street’ will be better off.

PILLING: claimed it was ‘ironic’ that in providing more car parking spaces it could be seen as inviting ‘more cars to the area’ and ‘that’s the opposite of what we probably want’. Went on to say that if people are worried about ‘congestion’ then giving more car parking spaces will only ‘bring more cars in’. Spoke about ‘precedents’ and how other councils have given permits for developments near railway stations minus any car parking provisions. Glen Eira needs to be more ‘flexible’ on this because the result will just be ‘bringing more and more cars’ into these areas ‘which doesn’t help anyone’.

MAGEE: ‘everyone knows’ that in Glen Eira there’s an ‘unprecedented need for housing’ and there are plenty of areas where ‘we struggle to build’ places. ‘We have to supply affordable housing in those areas’ that they think are ‘acceptable’. Said that ‘we’re failing with this motion’ by not accepting the ‘opportunity’ that the site presents. Stated that every time in sites like this if they keep taking off a floor then it ‘reduces the opportunity to maximise not just the investment’ but ‘returns to us the community’. Went on to speak about ‘amenity’ and the impact of 4 more ‘units doesn’t stack up’ to the ‘need for community housing’. Thought that ‘we need to be a little bit braver’ and ‘seize the opportunities in front of us’. ‘It doesn’t get any clearer than this’ and council is ‘missing a great opportunity’ here.

SOUNNESS: said that things are a ‘little bit incongruous’ and ‘wished that we as a council group can form a clear picture’ of what’s the future for these areas because ‘we can’t have dense development and car parks’. Said he saw this happening in other areas like Murrumbeena, Elsternwick etc.

DELAHUNTY: didn’t want the discussion on parking and encouraging users onto public transport be ‘laid to rest’ and that there should be a ‘look at impact on future traffic flow’. There was the need to determine ‘what we want’ things to be like and ‘how we can actually make that happen’. Said that she would ‘bring this up at a later date’.

HYAMS: thought that the issue boiled down to whether visitor car parking ‘encouraged people to drive’ or whether ‘they are just going to drive anyway’. He thought that the ‘reality’ is that people will drive regardless. Therefore ‘incumbent on developers’ to provide parking spots. He’s therefore in favour of visitor car parking because not having this won’t stop people from using their cars. So ‘visitor parking is still important’.

ESAKOFF: didn’t ‘have a problem’ with the building ‘one iota’. Problem is parking and ‘it will be a long time’ before behaviour changes so there’s a need for parking. What will hapen is that with no parking then people will park ‘in the nearest possible’ side residential streets and ‘impact’ on these people’s amenity. She’s therefore ‘trying to avoid that impact on the wider community’.

MOTION PUT AND LOST. Hyams admits that now ‘I don’t know what to do’!!!! Chaos now reigns supreme for about 5 minutes whilst everyone runs around trying to figure out what to do and drafting another motion. At one point Pilling wanted to move the original motion again!

Pilling then moved the motion for 4 car spaces and seconded by Lipshutz. Pilling didn’t speak to his motion at this point.

LIPSHUTZ: said that he voted against first motion because his ‘concern’ is parking.

OKOTEL: asked if they made the application include car parking spaces ‘where would they go’ on the plan?

AKEHURST: basically said that this would force down ‘the number of dwellings’

OKOTEL: asked if the top storey was removed whether the developer would have to ‘reduce the amount of greenery’ around the site and the setbacks?

AKEHURST: said he didn’t think this would happen.

OKOTEL: asked if he thought there would be ‘a reduction in open space’

AKEHURST: the decision is being made on ‘the basis of the plans submitted’ and the conditions imposed would be making one change.

PILLING: this was a ‘compromise’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Here are previous decisions, all taken directly from the minutes. Readers should note the previous comments from Lipshutz and Hyams and how they stack up against the comments represented above!

127-131 Gardenvale Road (November 27^th 2012) – motion carried. At the time this is what Lipshutz said: concurred with Delahunty that this area is ‘appropriate’. Was concerned about parking and ‘unfortunately this particular site doesn’t lend itself to have ‘ visitor parking available but there’s areas on the street so residents won’t have this added pressure put on them. Didn’t agree with Delahunty on structure plans because they are a ‘blunt instrument’ and ‘certainly not very flexible’ but that’s ‘a debate for the future’. Hyams in turn stated the following: “‘Normally I would say there should be visitor parking, but in this case it is ‘not practical’ because of the car stackers which visitors couldn’t use. It’s also a commercial areas so people wouldn’t come outside ‘commercial hours’ there would be ‘spots for visitors to park’ and on ‘that basis’ he supports the recommendation/amendment

At least on this occasion, Esakoff and Okotel were consistent on their advocacy for visitor car parking.

483-493 Glen Huntly Road (Feburary 5^th, 2013) – Lipshutz and Sounness moved this motion for reduction of car parking, visitor car parking, loading bay, etc. Motion carried. On this one even Esakoff and Okotel voted to accept.

687-689 Glen Huntly Rd (February 5^th, 2013) – Lobo and Delahunty moved to reject application. Motion lost and subsequently Pilling and Lipshutz moved to accept. Motion carried.

645-647 CENTRE ROAD (April 9^th, 2013) – Magee and Delahunty moved to accept. Motion carried.

451-453 South Rd (2^nd July, 2013) – Pilling and Magee moved to accept. Motion carried unanimously.

261 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH (August 13^th, August) – delahunty and lipshutz moved to accept. Motion passed unanimously.

674 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST (24^th September 2013) Pilling and Okotel moved to accept. Passed unanimously.

November 8, 2013

‘Forgive Them, They Know Not What They Do’: Part 1

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

This is the first part of a very long post, which we’ve interspersed with our own commentary on the continual nonsense that issues from the mouths of all our elected representatives. We are admittedly having great difficulty in deciding whether most of these councillors are just plain ignorant and haven’t done the necessary homework or, whether all their utterances are designed to deceive, beguile and play to the audience. Or whether they simply don’t give a damn and are only going through the motions. Whichever, one thing is absolutely clear – they are not up to the job in any shape or form. The following illustrates this completely.

MORTON AVENUE APPLICATION

Pilling moved to accept and seconded by Magee

PILLING: stated that this was a ‘key site’ being ‘opposite a railway station’. Supported the officer’s recommendation and said that recently they’d lobbied and been ‘successful in getting new zones’ and this application ‘falls into 3%’ of the municipality and ‘it’s the only zone which hasn’t got height restrictions’. Pilling also said that ‘6 storeys in this location is quite acceptable’. Said that all round there really weren’t any residences – a library, carpark, etc. Claimed that people ‘shouldn’t shy away’ from the fact that the city is protected and that 3% around activity zones is quite acceptable. ‘We should be true to what we’ve been advocating’. Acknowledged that there was some concern about the reduction in visitor car parking but this could be ‘justified’ by the nearby VicTrack public car park. Went on to say ‘that we are encouraging high development in this area’ so that people will end up using public transport. ‘This is in keeping of where we were aiming for’.

COMMENT: Pilling should definitely check his facts – the Commercial zone is NOT the only zone within Glen Eira that does not have height limits. The Mixed Use Zone (of which there are 23 within Glen Eira) is also without prescriptive height limits.

MAGEE: said that when an application like this comes up then ‘we know’ that parking will be an ‘issue’. Then ‘you go through things that as an individual councillor concern you’. Claimed that this ‘meets every criteria for a six storey building’ and for ‘the right building in the right place’. ‘It’s a very good looking building’ and ‘I think it’s a responsible height‘. Said that there’s an ‘abundance’ of car parking nearby and ‘visitor parking isn’t such an issue’ because ‘evidence based’ information says that this is after hours. Said he hoped that it ‘does meet the community’s expectations’. ‘I believe that this is the right building at the right place and certainly at the right time’.

COMMENT: A bit rich for Magee to comment on ‘community expectations’ when the community has NEVER been provided with the opportunity to state clearly what its preferred height limit is in any area of the municipality. We would also advise that Magee sits down and carefully reads the government guidelines on higher density development. We certainly doubt that he has! We also love the appeal to ‘evidence based’ data. We interpret this to mean any data that is provided by the developer’s traffic consultant!

OKOTEL: said that this is a ‘gross overdevelopment of this area’ since Morton Avenue is ‘small’ and already has many ‘new developments’. It’s already ‘congested’ and made worse by ‘traffic’ and there’s a ‘lack of amenity’ for those people already living there. ‘It is incumbent on council to consider that’. Reported that in 2003 VCAT approved a 4 storey dwelling in Morton Avenue but ‘at that time Morton Avenue was a very undeveloped area’. Now ‘ten years on’ this is a ‘completely different area’. But since council has since approved a 5 storey development nearby it would therefore ‘be fair’ for this to also be five storeys. Said that infrastructure was ‘lacking’ and that turning into Koornang Rd is ‘a nightmare’. Visitor car parking is also ‘of great concern’ and ‘we do need to look at our policies and what we require’ and that even if one storey is lopped off there would still be ‘inadequate car parking spaces’. Spoke about how residents can be impacted by such developments and the lack of amenity. Said that potentially this means ’80 people’ moving in and finished by saying that ‘this is not an appropriate development’.

COMMENT: ‘need to look at our policies’!!!! Well, all we can say is that this is why you and other councillors are there! When was the last time that the Road Safety Strategy came up for review? When was the last time that Parking Precinct Plans were even thought about? When did council last successfully introduce any parking overlays in its Planning Scheme? What on earth have these councillors been doing – except to mouth the platitudes that certain policies need to be ‘looked at’!!!!!!Actions count and not public grandstanding!

ESAKOFF: agreed with Okotel that 6 storeys, 40 units and waiving car parking is ‘a little too much’ for the ‘busiest corner of Carnegie’. Said that if they start waiving 7 car parking spots then they’re ‘asking for incremental trouble’. She would ‘like to see the parking provided that’s necessary’ but ‘would consider a waiver of perhaps three’. Agreed that if ‘there’s a place, this is the place’ but ‘it is not providing sufficient parking’ and for her this has ‘always been a sticking point’. Foreshadowed a motion for 5 storeys. Went on to say that ‘in an ideal worls’ she’d like to see ‘something happening’ up on roofs as part of open space such as a garden or just ‘a space’.

COMMENT: ‘would like to see the parking provided that’s necessary’. Wow! Perhaps someone should point out to Esakoff that there are standards in the planning scheme that council, including herself, simply like to ignore. Here are just a few of decisions FROM 2013 that have waived car parking, and/or loading/shop front parking bays! And all have been given the stamp of approval by councillors themselves – often in unanimous votes. It’s a bit difficult then to swallow the guff about providing what’s necessary when waiver after waiver is granted, not by VCAT, but by councillors themselves.

645 – 647 CENTRE ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST

198-202 BALACLAVA ROAD, CAULFIELD NORTH

483-493 GLEN HUNTLY ROAD ELSTERNWICK

451-453 SOUTH ROAD BENTLEIGH

We also have to ask whether a waiver of 3 car parking spots does NOT REPRESENT ‘INCREMENTAL TROUBLE’ OR IS 7 SOMEHOW THE MAGICAL NUMBER?

SOUNNESS: was in support of the recommendations but had some concerns. Thought it was ‘good to have people’ close to transport, and a good facade which this has. Was worried about the lack of 3 bedroom units. Said that there are similar zones in Glen Eira and that greater density will be happening and that council ‘will be facing pressure’ from developers for 6, 7 or even higher buildings. Claimed that there has to be a ‘range’ of dwellings and not just ‘boxes’. He will support the recommendation, but he sees this issue as ‘lacking in Glen Eira’s policy’.

COMMENT: Oh dear – another councillor who does not know his own planning scheme and community plan. The scheme clearly states the need to encourage a ‘diversity’ of dwellings including 3 bedroom units. The fact that council does nothing about this is another matter. Please Sounness, do your homework. It’s a year now since you’ve become a councillor and should at least know the basic but unimplemented vision!

HYAMS: didn’t have ‘a problem with the height’ because it’s the ‘right place’ and ‘next door to a five storey building’. Conceded that there are one storey houses in Sheppason Avenue but ‘they won’t even be able to see’ the building because of setbacks and the 5 storey building. Was worried about parking and that there is ‘policy’ and that the ‘reason why we have policy’ is to make Glen Eira ‘a whole better place to live’ and they adhere to policy when they consider how the ‘amenity’ of other people is affected. Said it was hard to get parking in the area and ‘especially on a Saturday’ so ‘we should continue to do what we can’ to make developments have sufficient car parking. Putting in more stackers won’t solve the problem. All that will help is ‘reducing’ the number of units. Thought that ‘it is important that we try to stick to our policies’. On that ‘basis’ he is against the motion.

COMMENT: good to know that ‘policy is policy’ (but only when it suits) since in the past Hyams has clearly stated that applications should be looked at on a case by case basis! Wonderful rhetoric that leaves room for all kinds of inconsistencies and political manoeuvring!

DELAHUNTY: ‘as a general rule’ she believes in ‘sustainable development’ and that higher density has to go near railway stations, etc. This is good for ‘traders’ and ‘the city’ and that it’s ‘council’s job to make sure that the traffic flows’ and also ‘encourage’ people to use alternative modes of transport. ‘The only thing’ with this application that worries her is the lack of visitor car parking. Said that council’s policy on visitor car parking ‘is not necessarily consistent’ with other councils’ guidelines. She is ‘torn about this’ but will support the recommendation. Admitted that ‘it might set quite a precedent for that area’.

COMMENT: what a pity that Delahunty doesn’t acknowledge that without height limits, without parking overlays, without any attempt to introduce structure plans for activity centres in the past decade, there is no such thing as precedent! Anything goes, and it’s already long gone!

PILLING: ‘this is the right area’ for this development. Thought that there ‘has to be some flexibility around visitor car parking’ and the problem is also level crossings so have to be ‘flexible’ about the car parking and get people to use transport. ‘Balancing’ the ‘pros and cons’ he thought that officers ‘had got it right’ and ‘it’s in line with the zones’

MOTION PUT AND LOST 4 TO 5.

VOTING FOR – MAGEE; PILLING, SOUNNESS, DELAHUNTY

VOTING AGAINST: ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ; HYAMS, LOBO

Part 2 will focus on the next motion from Esakoff that also went down in a flaming heap! and nor did it lift the level of debate as readers will see.

November 7, 2013

Secrecy & Sycophancy Writ Large!

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

November 6, 2013

The Circus In Full Swing!

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

We strongly recommend that every single Glen Eira resident should at least once in their lives attend a council meeting in order to view the continual circus, and general incompetence of our elected representatives. Tonight was no exception. Below is a very brief summary of what occurred. Full reports will follow in the coming days.

MORTON AVE APPLICATION

1. Pilling and Magee moved to accept the recommendations for a 6 storey development with the usual arguments of ‘appropriate’ for this zone; ‘reasonable’ high density; ‘right building for right place’, etc. etc.

2. Arguments against were waiving of loading bay, reduction in visitor parking.

MOTION PUT AND LOST.

3, Esakoff then moved another motion that this be 5 storeys and 33 dwellings plus 4 visitor car parking spots. Seconded by Okotel. Main arguments were problems with traffic, parking, and that 5 storeys was okay plus a waiver of 3 parking spots ‘was fair’.

MOTION PUT AND LOST

Great confusion at this point since: – (a) no decision on application and, (b) no amendment had been put. Everyone scurried around like lost sheep ‘consulting’. Pilling then came up with a third motion – back to 6 storeys and 3 visitor car parking spots! This time motion got up unanimously!

MAV CONFERENCE

Esakoff reported on the MAV conference she attended and the raft of resolutions passed at the conference. All well and good. Trouble is that not once did she say anything about the voting pattern of Glen Eira City Council!!!! We remind readers that none of the motions were presented at an ordinary council meeting and no formal resolution has ever been taken on how to vote on any of the motions. Worse still, is that residents are kept in the dark. It is secrecy, lack of transparency and abysmal governance all over again!

Plenty of calls for Lobo to withdraw some of his comments which he eventually did but not before he named Lipshutz as the councillor who told him that officers could not understand him. Okotel was having hearing problems and attempted to use ‘right of reply’ to counter some comments from other councillors (Lobo, and she assumed an error by Delahunty) – so, on and on, with utter nonsense – especially the interminable, and in our view either trivial, or irrelevant, Requests for Reports. Perhaps we should consider retitling this post since circuses are entertaining. Tonight’s effort was definitely not ‘entertaining’ but an indictment of councillors, their priorities, and their total lack of knowledge when many have been councillors for yonks!

Finally, responses to public questions were either evasive, non-informative, or entirely irrelevant to the questions. Well done Mr Burke!

November 4, 2013

At Your Service…….Maybe, Perhaps…..Sometime!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication
[9] Comments

From: COkotel@gleneira.vic.gov.au
To:

Subject: Automatic reply:

Date:
Thank you for your correspondence.

If your email is addressed to multiple councillors, it will be responded to by the first-named councillor on behalf of those who have been emailed. If you are unhappy with council’s response, please let me know.

If I am the first-named councillor that you have emailed, I will endeavour to get back to you as soon as possible.

Warm regards

Cr Karina Okotel

November 2, 2013

Inequity & More Humbug!

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

Up for decision are several planning applications that are worthy of comment. Given the empty promises of the new residential zones these applications in our view are a sign of what is to come.

Bolinda St Application

This is for 2 double storeys in a minimal change area. No objections were received, so the question needs to be asked why something like this should even make it to a full council meeting for decision? Countless others of far more import are decided by officers who do have the delegated authority to refuse this outright. Our take on this is that it represents nothing more than a public relations exercise designed to dupe and lull the community into believing that the residential zones are really ‘protecting’ neighbourhoods.

Here’s what we are told about this application:

The site is large enough for increased density
Site coverage is 44% – the standards are 50%
Rear and side setbacks are 4.5m for one unit when standard is 4m
Unit 2 has 154 square metre private open space when standard is 60 square metre
No overshadowing of note
No significant or valuable trees
Solar access to private open space is fine

So, on basically every single important ResCode and council standard this proposal meets the requirements. Yet officers have refused a permit. Their primary ground of objection is stated as:

This planning policy/discouraging two storey dwellings in rear yards has been rigorously followed for over 10 years. The policy is soundly based in town planning principles. Namely, 2 storey developments in rear yards potentially causes visual bulk issues for abutting rear yards of neighbouring properties. This is evident in this proposal whereby the visual bulk is considered unreasonable on the backyards of the properties to the north and the east. This policy of discouraging 2 storey development in rear yards is widely understood and accepted including by VCAT. Precedent is a concern. Approval of this proposal weakens the future application of this policy.

So all of a sudden ‘precedent’ is important and we’re expected to believe a 2 storey dwelling in the back yard of a minimal change area is ‘widely understood’ and even ‘accepted’ by VCAT. In other words it is ‘verboten’! The facts certainly don’t bear out this version of reality. Here are some VCAT decisions from the past 5 or 6 months where permits were granted for backyard double storeys –

19 Wilks St., North Caulfield

38 Victoria St, Elsternwick

60 Neville St., Carnegie

312 Glen Eira road, Elsternwick

9 Brian St., Bentleigh East (council itself granted a permit for this one and confirmed by VCAT)

24 Marara Rd., South Caulfield (2 double storey attached dwellings)

3 Osborne Ave., Bentleigh (2 double storey attached – council granted permit and confirmed by VCAT)

7 Irving Ave., Murrumbeena (2 double storey attached – council granted permit and confirmed by VCAT)

Since the introduction of the new zones there have been numerous applications for exactly this type of development. We list some of them here:

22 Waratah St., Bentleigh

36 Adrian St., Bentleigh East

18 Beddoe Avenue, Bentleigh

32 Seaview Caulfield South

Nothing but nothing in council’s old planning scheme, or the new, prevents this kind of development. All council has been able to come up with for the past 12 years is: “Discourage the siting of two storey or multiple storey dwellings at the rear of sites.” And that’s only when it suits! VCAT has repeatedly ignored this as has council itself.

If council was really serious in enforcing its own planning scheme and doing its utmost (as it claims) to protect minimal change, then all those applications listed immediately above should have been rejected outright under manager delegation. Instead they remain on the planning register awaiting decision – whereas applications for subdivision and other forms of development receive the nod in the matter of days! We will keep a very close eye on these applications.

We have no doubt that if councillors reject this application and it goes to VCAT that the council decision will be laughed out of court!

Morton Avenue Carnegie

This is an amended permit application in a commercial zone for a 6 storey, 40 unit, 1 shop and loading and car parking waivers. Ron Torres has given the go ahead. The original permit was for 4 storeys and 20 dwellings; now it’s gone up to 6 storey and double the number of dwellings – all one and 2 bedroom units.

Inaccuracies, or deliberate misleading information is ever present. We’re told: The site is included in the Mixed Use (East) precinct of the Carnegie Urban Village. It’s not! This is zoned as Commercial 1! Torres goes on to state that the proposal is ‘consistent’ with policy because there already are 4 storeys in the area and a permit was just granted for 5 storeys – so now 6 storeys doesn’t matter. Pity that the argument regarding ‘precedent’ used for the Bolinda application has suddenly gone out the window!

But there’s more:

Parking and loading bay waivers are fine because the shop is ‘small’. Perhaps someone should tell Torres that the size of a shop has got absolutely nothing to do with the size of the truck rolling up to deliver goods and its need for adequate parking provision! As for the number of customers, well who bothers going to small shops these days according to this logic?
No specifics are given anywhere, and terminololgy such as ‘no unreasonable’ overshadowing abounds.
Nor is there any valid and quantified explanation as to why council’s own Traffic Department has been overruled when that officer believes: The parking demand associated with visitors to the site should be provided onsite. As such a provision of 5 parking spaces is considered warranted.
There are also comments about stackers, setbacks from the street, lack of daylight for some dwellings, small narrow balconies.

Thus on countless standards this proposal fails outright. Yet the recommendation is to grant a permit albeit with conditions. Thus anything goes as far as council is concerned in housing diversity, mixed use and commercial zones. Glen Eira is thus actively encouraging a system which cannot adequately protect minimal change, but worse, those residents living in housing diversity and/or commercial or mixed use do not warrant any consideration whatsoever as to open space, height limits, parking, site coverage and so on. The system deliberately fosters inequality and officer reports are part and parcel of the public relations arm of the administration.

November 1, 2013

More Funny Buggers?

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

The agenda for next Wednesday night is out and surprise, surprise, there is no mention of the CEO appointment. According to the legislation, public notification of the intent to reappoint must occur at least 14 days prior to the resolution being passed. On Wednesday it will be 15 days since the announcement was buried away in both the Age and on council’s website. So why the silence? If this is to be done in camera, then the only possible item that might be applicable is the lovely catch-all phrase “under section 89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter”. Tautologies reign supreme in Glen Eira!

Other items set down for in camera are also intriguing. For example the regrassing of 2 Caulfield Park ovals. Readers might remember that this was put off for one year in order to save money. Yet it does not explain why on November 3^rd 2012 the Age featured this tender advertisement – “Redevelopment of Caulfield Park No 3 & 4 Sports Ovals Requirement: Sportsground drainage, irrigation, surface reshaping & resurfacing.” Applications closed on November 17^th. Then low and behold, on July 27^th 2013 we get the identical advertisement again. This time closing date is 16^th August 2013. That raises many interesting questions:

Why was this advertised last year when the budget had decreed to delay regrassing?
Why does the 2013/14 budget state that the cost of regrassing is $650,000 and the figure in the incamera section states $450,000? Surely with all the millions already spent on ovals council would have a pretty good idea what this would cost? Or is this just another example of creative accounting?

There are plenty of other fascinating items up for decision as well, but we will conclude this post with a comment on the financial report. Seems like GESAC is continuing to rack up the bills with another $33,000 for landscaping and the ‘release of retention money for waterslides’. More squabbles perhaps with this particular contractor? Then there’s another $19,000 for the purchase of ‘additional strength equipment’. But the really, really big one is the incamera tender for $610,000 for ‘air handling and ducting’. Of course council does not reveal that this is for GESAC to rectify what is obviously a huge problem. But this was again advertised in the Age on September 7^th, 2013! Hopefully this figure will appear somewhere in future financial reports!

More disturbing is that so many projects have not had a penny spent on them in 3 months, or a piddling proportion of their allotted funds. Duncan McKinnon pavilion is the perfect example. The same goes for Local Area traffic management improvements. Taking into account the carryovers of money from the previous year’s budget, and granted that ‘progress’ in Glen Eira is invariably at a snail’s pace, we still have to wonder whether or not these interminable delays are the results of a continuing cash shortage?

Finally, it is worth pointing out again that:

The non-appearance of the Local Law – promised for March 2013 by Lipshutz
The non-appearance of a sporting ground allocation policy

With a bit of luck these may appear just before Xmas when it’s hoped that not too many people will notice!

October 31, 2013

Lipshutz: No End To His Talents?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[37] Comments

Below is an article from The Leader. It appears that there is literally no end to Lipshutz’s expertise, talent, self-importance, and arrogance. Leaving aside the question of racism, we simply ask:

Shouldn’t Lipshutz leave such questions to the Federal Police and/or ASIO?
How would any ‘reasonable’ man interpret such as question?
We are quite prepared to supply Lipshutz with a dictionary so that he may acquaint himself with the meaning of the word ‘innocuous’!

None of this is new. In fact we reported upon it years ago. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/where-has-the-old-cr-lobo-gone/

No amount of spin can disguise the fact that Glen Eira Council has never been, and continues not to be, the happy ‘club’ that Newton and his cohorts so desperately try to portray, but a council forever divided, secretive, punitive and dysfunctional.

++++++++++++++

Glen Eira councillor defends “terrorist” question he asked colleague three years ago

Andrea Kellett
October 31, 2013 12:04AM

A GLEN Eira councillor who asked a fellow councillor if he had worked for a bank linked to terrorists says the question was fair and innocuous and not racist.

Cr Michael Lipshutz has defended the email he sent to Cr Oscar Lobo three years ago, which was also sent to the other seven councillors, chief executive Andrew Newton and two other officers.

The email was shown to the Caulfield Glen Eira Leader this week – two weeks out from Glen Eira Council’s mayoral election, which Cr Lobo plans to contest.

Cr Lipshutz today confirmed he sent the email, described it as “innocuous” and said it was asked in the context of discussions at the time.

In it he listed six questions he wanted Cr Lobo to answer.

One stated: “Given his long history in the Middle East, whether he personally or any bank with whom he was employed has been involved in transfer of funds to any organisation listed by either the Australian government or the US Government as a terrorist organisation or a supporter of a terrorist organisation?”

Cr Lobo said the email implied he had terrorist links and had offended him and he did not reply to it.

When the Leader asked Cr Lipshutz if the terrorist question was racially motivated or would appear so to the community, given Cr Lobo’s Indian background, he denied his email was racist.

“I’m not saying he was involved,” Cr Lipshutz said.

“That can’t be racist.”

He said he simply wanted more information about Cr Lobo, who at the time had put his hand up to be mayor.

“There was nothing behind it, no attack at all,” Cr Lipshutz said.

“I said it in the context of something that we were discussing at the time, he never answered and I never followed up because there was no need to follow up.”

The email has surfaced at a sensitive time for Glen Eira. On October 15 Cr Lobo, currently deputy mayor, said a fellow councillor had told him he was not fit to be mayor and that officers could not understand him as English was not his “mother tongue”.

“It is a racial discrimination,” he said in the council chamber.

Glen Eira Council’s mayoral elections will be held on November 12 and Mayor Jamie Hyams does not plan to recontest, having served two terms.

Greens councillor Neil Pilling is a likely contender and confirmed he was keen to be mayor, had told his fellow councillors and felt he had a “reasonable chance”.

In 2005 the council at the time was sacked after a municipal investigation found multiple failings that included a “serious break-down in working relationships between councillors”.

Glen Eira Council spokesman Paul Burke said: “The then Mayor Cr Tang responded to all councillors in relation to the email of 27 November 2010 that you refer to.”

“Councillor conduct is regulated by the Code of Conduct adopted by council. The Code provides mechanisms for councillors to deal with disputes and complaints. As with all organisations, employees do not regulate the behaviour of employers.”

October 31, 2013

Hansard: Caulfield Racecourse Reserve

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

Source: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Council_2013/Council_Aug-Dec_2013_Daily_30_October_2013.pdf

Yesterday’s debate in parliament on the Caulfield Racecourse is very long. Hence, we have edited some sections. The full debate is available at the link shown above. Readers should take note of the appalling positions taken by both the Liberal and Labor parties.

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE RESERVE

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan)—I move:

That this house notes that—

(1) the recommendations of the 2008 report of the Select Committee on Public Land Development regarding Caulfield Racecourse Reserve have not been fully implemented;

(2) Glen Eira City Council has been advocating for better public access and various improvements at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve for many years and on 19March 2013 adopted, by resolution, a position statement on Crown land at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve which stated that the Crown land is reserved by law for three purposes—

(a) a racecourse;

(b) a public recreation ground; and

(3) the first purpose, a racecourse, is well catered for, but the other purposes are not;

(4) the Crown land should be managed to achieve all three purposes equally, and that to achieve this, Glen Eira Council listed ten actions that need to occur, including the—

(a) allocation of land for public recreation;

(b) removal of horse training and car parking from the Crown land;

(d) provision of suitable access points; and

(e) reinvestment of income from commercial purposes to be used for public purposes;

(5) the most significant barrier to achievement of these actions over many years has been the inappropriate and out-dated governance structure that has been allowed to continue by successive state governments; and

(6) calls on this state government to—

(a) amend the membership of the trustees of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve to reduce the number of racing industry representation, include more community representation and retain representatives of Glen Eira City Council;

(b) ensure that the trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve comply with DSE guidelines for committees of management of Crown land and that the meetings, decisions and actions of the trustees are open and transparent;

(c) ensure that the governance arrangements over the Crown land achieve the equal purposes of a race course, public recreation and public park; and

(d) ensure that all financial arrangements and transactions associated with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve subject to audit by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office….

Again, I will begin with the first part of the motion:

That this house notes that—

(1) the recommendations of the 2008 report of the Select Committee on Public Land Development regarding Caulfield Racecourse Reserve have not been fully implemented… The recommendations regarding that particular site are worth again reading into Hansard, some five years later. There has been a lot of work done in the community with the local council and various MPs to try to get some of these recommendations implemented. Recommendation 5.8 states:

That the government investigate:

the history, membership structure, responsibilities and current arrangement of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve board of trustees, particularly in relation to its duty to uphold not just horse racing, but all the purposes of the reserve in the original grant;

the purpose to which money raised by horse racing has been used; and

ways in which the government can ensure that the board of trustees operates in an open and transparent manner and in accordance with the terms of the grant.

So recommendation 5.8 goes straight to the governance issues at the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, which is really the crux of the motion I have moved today. I will get to that in paragraph (6) of the motion. One would have to say that that recommendation has not been implemented.

Recommendation 5.9 states:

That the master plan for the Caulfield Racecourse reserve redevelopment be the subject of wide public consultation incorporating the municipalities of Glen Eira, Stonnington and Port Phillip.

Mostly that has been implemented. The redevelopment of a parcel of land known as the Triangle, near Caulfield railway station, has been the subject of some public consultation, but there has been a lot of public discussion and discussion between the racecourse board and the local council, which is the Glen Eira City Council.

Recommendation 5.10 states:

That the Minister for Planning strongly consider appointing community members and/or people with park and recreation expertise as nominees of the state government to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve board of trustees to provide a balanced representation of interests and expertise. That has not been fully implemented. …..

Recommendation 5.11 states:

That the day-to-day management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, by delegation from the trustees to the Melbourne Racing Club, be reconsidered. That has not happened either.

Finding 5.14 states:

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve profits to the Melbourne Racing Club have been disproportionately directed to racing users, with inadequate provision for use of public park and recreation users as required by the original grant. Despite a minor investment of funds by the Melbourne Racing Club into some public facilities in the racecourse reserve, that finding continues to be the case.

Recommendation 5.12 states:

That the Melbourne Racing Club’s recent report relating to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve fencing boundaries be publicly released. I do not know if that was ever publicly released. A letter was sent to me by the CEO of the Melbourne Racing Club some years ago mentioning the pros and cons of fencing, but the situation remains that if you circumnavigate the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, most of it is shielded by a large tin fence, so that the public cannot see into the reserve. Access is still only through a couple of points around the reserve, and in my opinion the Melbourne Racing Club still tries to make that as difficult as possible for the general public.

Recommendation 5.13 states:

That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve trustees direct a substantial amount from the profits made by the Melbourne Racing Club over many decades to the provision of public park and recreational facilities, including promotion of the public use of these facilities as recompense to the community.

Again only a relatively small amount of money is made available for public use, compared to that gazillions of dollars that the Victorian Amateur Turf Club, as it was known previously, and now the Melbourne Racing Club have made out of racing and associated activities, including a Tabaret, sports betting and various other activities, over many years. It really is scandalous.

Recommendation 5.14 states:

That the government support the joint communiqué between the Melbourne Racing Club and the Glen Eira City Council to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve trustees, bearing in mind that further public consultation is needed with respect to the future use of public open space within the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

As I said, to some extent some of that has happened. Some works have been done in the centre of the reserve for public recreation facilities, but we still have a long way to go. Considering this work has taken five years, it is very minor. This is disappointing because following the tabling of this report some goodwill appeared to exist about bringing this reserve up to the standard of others around the world and making it a multipurpose, multi-use facility. It is a very large area of Crown land in the city of Glen Eira. Glen Eira City Council is starved of public open space, but this fight for genuine public access to the site from dawn till dusk has still not been won. That should be what happens.

The second part of my motion reads that:

Glen Eira City Council has been advocating for better public access and various improvements at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve for many years and on 19March 2013 adopted, by resolution, a position statement on Crown land at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve which stated that the Crown land is reserved by law for three purposes—

(a) a racecourse;

(b) a public recreation ground; and

The third part of my motion states: the first purpose, a racecourse, is well catered for, but the other purposes are not.

As I have said, this has been going on for many years—decades in fact. Various councils have tried, with various ways and means, to provide better public access to Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and to ensure that the Crown land is used for the purposes clearly stated in the trust deed. These are: racecourse, public recreation ground and public park. Anybody who goes to Caulfield Racecourse Reserve will notice that the racecourse is its identity. Its signage is all about racing. The signage referring to public access is very small and cannot be seen from a distance.

In fact Mr Ondarchie would not be able to read it, even from the distance between the Chair and me or that between Mr Ondarchie and me. He would not be able to read the signage telling him that, as a member of the public, he had access to the reserve. But the signs about the racecourse and racing events are huge and dominate the landscape. That is still the culture which exists at that piece of Crown land.

Part 4 of my motion summarises what the council said in its motion, which was put and carried unanimously on 19March. (summary of council’s motion regarding training, parking on racecourse edited out here).

The sixth action concerns the revenues for public purposes, and this is very important:

The Crown land is public land and should be used for public benefit. The land is currently used for many commercial purposes including a Tabaret with a very large monetary turnover, training of horses early in the mornings and commercial exhibitions such as caravan and camper shows. Virtually all income from the use of this public land accrues to a non-public body. This should be changed so that a racecourse, public recreation ground and public park are provided and any commercial activities are charged a commercial rent, payable to the governing body and available for the governing body to reinvest in a racecourse, public recreation ground and public park. This does not happen. Only a small amount of money has been set aside by the Melbourne Racing Club, delegated by the trustees, to run the racecourse reserve on a day-to-day basis for any sort of public park or recreation facilities, and the rest of it goes to the Melbourne Racing Club. It is scandalous that a private body has been able to do this for so long.

The seventh action that the council wants to see is provision of access: Suitable access from multiple points must be provided for the public to enjoy the land. Access for all abilities must be provided.

As I mentioned before, the Melbourne Racing Club, while it has paid some lip service to this matter, still makes the Crown land appear as if it is only a racecourse and that the public is not welcome there. Access points are very few and the signage for access is very small. You would have to be very determined, live locally and be one of the few people in the know to make use of this public land on a day-to-day basis.

The eighth action is compliance with government standards:

The governing body must accept and comply with the DSE guidelines for committees of management of Crown land or be compelled to comply. All governance should be open and transparent.

With regard to that point, during the adjournment debate on 15 August last year I referred a matter to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change asking that he ensure that the trustees for the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve adhere to the then Department of Sustainability and Environment guidelines for committees of management of Crown land or be compelled to do so, and also be required to administer the Crown land for the three purposes set aside in the Crown grant. I am awaiting a response to that matter. I have had no response from the minister, and that occurred some 14 months ago. My staff have called the minister’s office to see whether he was intending to respond, but so far there has been no response.

The ninth action that the council adopted by its resolution of 19March was headed ‘Compliance with auditing standards’: The governing body is responsible for approximately $2 billion of public land and the Auditor-General for Victoria should be its auditor. Who could disagree with that? Nobody knows, and what has gone on is not public knowledge. How much money is made by the Melbourne Racing Club and what happens to it? Over many decades only a small amount—and I will get to that in a moment—has been put back into public recreation and a public park.

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve has been mentioned in Parliament since the tabling of the 2008 report. The former member for Caulfield in the other place, Mrs Shardey, on 6 October 2010, which is three years ago, raised the issue about the lack of consultation on the land swap at Caulfield racecourse. Of course that has been an issue of much contention, and I will refer to it shortly. On 3 May 2011 the current member for Caulfield in the other place raised the issue of the agreement between the Melbourne Racing Club and the Glen Eira City Council for a $1.8 million upgrade of the reserve, and he also mentioned the Booran Road reserve, and what will be happening there still remains a puzzle. There has been some movement on that particular issue, but I draw the chamber’s attention to the amount of money involved—$1.8 million has gone into an upgrade of the centre of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve for a public park and recreation facilities. Out of all the hundreds of millions of dollars that has been made out of that public racecourse and reserve over decades, Melbourne Racing Club has generously put $1.8 million into the public facilities in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

It is something, but one could not possibly say that is recompense for the amount of money that is being made by the Melbourne Racing Club, before that the Victorian Amateur Turf Club, over decades of occupying that land, running it solely as a racecourse, keeping the public out as much as it can and now it has thrown a few peanuts at the public by way of the $1.8 million.

I mentioned part of the council’s resolution, the ninth action, which was compliance with auditing standards, and I note that Cr Delahunty from Glen Eira City Council has written to the Auditor-General asking that he take over auditing the accounts of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. It seems to me that would be a sensible idea because it is Crown land, and the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office should concern itself with money and commercial activities on Crown land.

That brings me to the fifth part of my motion, which states that:

(5) the most significant barrier to achievement of these actions over many years has been the inappropriate and outdated governance structure that has been allowed to continue by successive state governments; and

(6) calls on this state government to—

(b) ensure that the trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve comply with—

DEPI, now the Department of Environment and Primary Industries, although it is very difficult to find on that website—

guidelines for committees of management of Crown land and that the meetings, decisions and actions of the trustees are open and transparent;

(c) ensure that the governance arrangements over the Crown land achieve the equal purposes of a racecourse, public recreation and public park; and

(d) ensure that all financial arrangements and transactions associated with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve are subject to audit by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office.

I mentioned before that I would return to the issue of the land swap. …..As far as I have been able to work out—and I have asked the question of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change about that particular issue and I got the answer not very long ago—no payment was received by the government for the 54 square metres of land added to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, which is the small amount of land at the Booran Road corner. I am sure the minister knew that was not what I was talking about, so I will have to take that issue up with him again. But as far as I know, full recompense has not been paid to the taxpayers of Victoria for the Crown land that has now been acquired by the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve for development and exchanged for a smaller parcel that is now, as I understand it, under the committee of management of the Glen Eira City Council.

There is a very long history of the public being locked out of this reserve, which is meant to be for the public. Following the tabling of the report there seemed to be a period where there was goodwill and a sense that things might happen, but I think the council became very frustrated. One of the other councillors, CrMagee, was selected as chair of the trustees. He tried to bring in some changes, introduce proper governance and get the trustees to agree to abide by the Department of Sustainability and Environment guidelines; they did not. He tried various other things. I think the council just got frustrated, and that is why it adopted this resolution—to get something done.

The crux of my motion is that the governance structures are problematic and inappropriate. There is certainly a problem with conflict of interest. Decisions are being made as to what happens on that parcel of Crown land, which is supposed to be administered as racecourse, public park and public recreation in three equal parts, but the managing body is stacked with racing industry representatives and all the decisions go towards racing interests. One has to say that we have a huge conflict-of-interest issue, and it really should not be allowed to continue.

MrsMILLAR (Northern Victoria)—I am pleased to speak on behalf of the government in relation to this motion. I could in fact not be more pleased to stand to speak against this motion which in light of recent completed capital investment upgrades is lacking in substance.

The Melbourne Racing Club has a rich history at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and operates with its local community firmly in mind. That history started with the Victoria Amateur Turf Club’s first meeting at Caulfield on 5 August 1876. In the motion Ms Pennicuik refers to the Glen Eira City Council advocating for improvements at Caulfield Racecourse for many years. I put it to the house that for 137 years the Melbourne Racing Club has been successfully holding race meetings; providing employment to large numbers of people in the local community—it currently has over 2000 employees, rising to 2500 during the Spring Racing Carnival; providing entertainment, enjoyment and a range of social benefits to the local community; providing economic benefit to local businesses and the wider Victorian economy; and, in addition to all of these significant and definable benefits, continuing to create racing history year after year. All of this speaks for itself.

There will always be those who seek for their own purposes to denigrate what others have created of their own free will. I am not going to speculate on the possible motivations for this motion, but nor will I remain silent as those across the chamber launch an unwarranted attack on this esteemed racing club, its proud history and the benefits and services which it continues to deliver to the local community and this state. Instead of giving recognition and appreciation for benefits and facilities extensively enjoyed by the local community, particularly the significant improvements over this period, this is an attempt to chip away at the edges and to undermine the legitimacy and achievements of the club.

This club continues to be open to engagement with the trustees and the local council on any and all matters in relation to the reserve, and this commitment has been made many times. As I have detailed in noting the recently opened capital improvements at the racecourse reserve, this motion is totally without substance. For these reasons the government will not be supporting this motion.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria)—In the few minutes that remain in this debate I would like to put the Labor Party’s position on Ms Pennicuik’s motion and speak on specific points contained within it. The Labor Party will be opposing this motion. The decision by the Glen Eira City Council was, we believe, a breach of an agreement less than two years old—an agreement between the club and the council that would have provided for the club to spend some $2 million to increase public use of the facility and provide new facilities, like toilets, barbecues, a children’s play area and the like.

On the point of the removal of horse training and car parking from the Crown land, this is not something the Labor Party supports, and Labor members are on the record in relation to this matter. There are significant consequences to those actions, and we do not support this blunt instrument.

In relation to paragraph 6 calling on the state government to amend the membership of the trustees of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve to reduce the number of racing industry representatives, I say that what we know is that right now the club has a trust that is operating independently. There is in fact a reasonably well-publicised disagreement between the club and the trust over various matters at the moment, and it is indeed the role of council, I would suggest, to represent the community’s views.

I will also just make a comment about paragraph 6(c) of Ms Pennicuik’s motion, and I am conscious of the short amount of time I have available to contribute to this debate. The motion proposes equal purposes for the Crown land—a racecourse, public recreation and a public park. I know we are in the middle of the Spring Racing Carnival, and I know that a lot of members enjoy going to the track year round and that a great many more Victorians go at this time of the year. I am not sure how you take one-third of a racetrack and still have it as a functioning racetrack. This is an impractical suggestion, and it is not made in a way that could possibly be cognisant of the practical realities ….Finally, it is disappointing the government led by the Deputy Premier and Attorney-General has continued to hold to their absurd definition of public land based on an obscure administrative order from 1988. The committee believes that this approach is obstruction pure and simple and is an attempt by the executive to frustrate the will of the Parliament. It is wrong that the government should seek to define or limit the ability of the Legislative Council to scrutinise its activities.

Finally, in 6(d), Ms Pennicuik’s motion seeks to ensure that all financial arrangements and transactions associated with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve are subject to audit by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. I will make the point that this is a matter that comes under the Audit Act 1994, and if this is what the member seeks to do, perhaps she might like to introduce amendments to that act. The clock says my time is up. The Labor Party will be opposing this motion.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates