Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

April 30, 2013

Tonight’s Voting!

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

CAULFIELD PARK CONSERVATORY

Lipshutz moved the motion to accept recommendations. Delahunty seconded. The final vote went 5 to 4 to accept motion.

In favour: Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Delahunty, Okotel

Against: Lobo, Pilling, Sounness, Magee

We will report on the ‘debate’ in the days ahead.

Item 9.1 – Railway Cresc. application

Esakoff moved motion that instead of 3 storeys and 10 dwellings this be reduced to 3 storeys and 8 dwellings plus including a visitor car park. Lipshutz seconded. Even though Lobo spoke against the motion, the final vote in favour was unanimous.

 

 

April 29, 2013

The Conservatory: 12 Years Of Neglect!

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

P1000140

P1000139

P1000141

conservatory1

P1000136

P1000137

 

April 23, 2013

Short Changed – Again & Again!

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

Newton, Southwick, and the notorious Special Racecourse Committee should hang their heads in shame or better still, resign! The so-called ‘negotiating’ team has been a total disaster in terms of what they have delivered to the Glen Eira community. The Centre of the Racecourse and the so called ‘agreements’ are not worth a cracker. We maintain that:

  • This is not a ‘park’ and never will be as long as fences continue to mushroom everywhere
  • Access remains limited
  • Terms of the ‘agreement’ are not being met
  • Playground is NOT a playground
  • Landscaping is appalling
  • People would need a GPS system to find their way through all the fences and of course, no signage or directions anywhere
  • Concrete paths are cracking every 2 to 3 metres
  • No shade over barbecue tables
  • Signage on ‘entrance’ points is contradictory (and again not in accordance with the ‘agreement’)
  • One would need to be a mountain goat to scale the Queen’s Rd., entrance – plus no disability access through this entrance whatsoever.
  • If this token ‘development’ really cost $1.8 million, then someone has been ripped off big time. It fails on all criteria of aesthetic, environmental, and open space design.

We will let our photos do the talking. But, how on earth any of this was ‘negotiated’ and how this council can continue to let the MRC get away with blue murder is unforgiveable. Lipshutz, Hyams, Newton, Esakoff, Pilling and Southwick are fully to blame for their monumental sellout of a potentially great community asset.

Here are a few photos and then a slideshow. Please read carefully the nonsense that the MRC has been allowed to post at the entrances. Special attention should be paid to: the statement about ‘restricted areas’; times of opening; and the totally inaccurate maps.

P1000111

For the historical record here’s what was said by residents and these councillors when the application came up for approval. The relevant URLs are:

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/mrc-planning-conference-the-farce-continues/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/mrc-planning-conference-part-2/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/2594/

And some of the most pertinent comments are highlighted, especially ESKAOFF’s –

SPEAKER #11: Asked if playground was part of application – was told ‘yes’. No detail provided about the playground; Tangalakis then asked if the speaker was an original objector and if so she would have seen the drawings. Speaker responded that what she’d seen were ‘board games’  and “I think that is a silly idea’. Stated that she has young children and couldn’t imagine anyone bothering to go over to a board game if that’s all that was going to be offered.  Kids need better designed playgrounds. ..’.waste of money to put a board game there’. Suggested that unless decent scale is erected then it would remain ‘isolated’ and ‘neglected’. Queried the location adjacent to a lake – safety. Needs fencing and will be cold. Looked at plans, ‘i tried but I could not work out the scale so had no idea’ of anything. In support of developing centre, but if the plan goes ahead it will simply be a ‘lost opportunity’ to do something worthwhile. Concerned that this is all MRC work and that council should ‘independently assess’ merits. Objects to fence, and ‘why it’s necessary’ since access is denied until training over, so why need it? Access point for family not officially recognised so makes it difficult for people to get to facilities. Needs to be ‘equitable access’ to these facilities.

ESAKOFF: Concurred with both Hyams and Pilling. The post and rail fence becomes ‘something more acceptable….we will be pursuing further (playground) equipment….other than that I’m happy with this approval…

 

April 22, 2013

Oooh Calcutta!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments 

The government has released the figures on the planning activity audit for 2011/12. We’ve commented previously on the highly dubious figures submitted by Glen Eira (see: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/a-mountain-of-clerical-errors/) so it would not surprise us if this year’s data is equally suspect. However, even given these figures, the trends are alarming and the future is writ large once comparisons are made with surrounding councils. With over 1000 subdivisions and 1000 planning permits granted in 2011/12 Glen Eira is paving the way for more and more (over) development. Further, the much vaunted ‘safeguarding’ of Minimal Change Areas is also becoming exposed for what it is – a myth!

Below are some maps detailing permits for all the areas. Please note the distribution in Glen Eira for both permits and subdivisions. Under Newton and Akehurst, Glen Eira is fast becoming what Lobo would call ‘Calcutta’!

GLEN EIRA

GLEN EIRA SUBDIVISIONS

stonnington

bayside

yarra

boroondara

port phillip

 

April 17, 2013

Moonscaping

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Drive or walk anywhere throughout Glen Eira and you’ll find block after block waiting to be developed, or in various stages of development. What they all have in common (with some very rare exceptions) is that they are treeless and that every remnant of vegetation has been ripped out in order to cram bigger or higher density development onto the land. Moonscaping is definitely a most appropriate name for all this.

Yet, when it comes to tree registers and their protection on private property, the arguments put up by some councillors are that the current planning scheme and the application process ensures that moonscaping doesn’t happen. Esakoff even complains that there is no need to make people ‘jump through more hoops’ – that the rigours of the planning scheme are sufficient. Nothing could be further from the truth. We just wonder:

  • Of the 1200 planning applications that come in each year, how many trees have been ‘protected’ on these properties?
  • How many applicants have been fined for removing said trees?
  • How many prosecutions have actually taken place?

Glen Eira is supposed to be ‘green’ – a city that values its trees, vegetation, and ‘garden’ atmosphere. These photos all taken in the space of half an hour, are just a glimpse into how little this council does to ensure that the environment is just as important as multi-unit development. Please note: there are many more photos we could have put up.

P1000087

moonscaping1

moonscaping4

moonscaping3

moonscaping6

moonscaping5

PS: A FEW MORE!

ms

 

ms2

 

April 16, 2013

What’s The Real Agenda?

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

A very recent VCAT decision highlights once again how residents are personae non gratis when it comes to this council’s planning department and the sycophantic councillors who allow Newton and Akehurst to literally do as they please. Here’s a little bit of history.

On the 30th August 2011 councillors voted unanimously to pass the following motion – “Seeks authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C90 which proposes to alter the Housing Diversity Area Policy and Urban Village Policy to include prescriptive guidance for development at the interface of Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas”.

Nearly a year later we find out in the fine print of the Quarterly Reports that HERE IS A COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT HAS NEVER BEEN CARRIED OUT. Nor has there been any motion to withdraw, rescind, put on hold, etc. The amendment has never been advertised, never had submissions called and been allowed to disappear into the ether. No public announcement has been made as to the reasons why officers have failed to carry out a council resolution. All that we know is that there suddenly appeared the minimalist sentence ‘Amendment will be withdrawn. The issue of transition will be addressed through the New Zones’. Who made this decision? When was it made? And how can a council resolution suddenly be overturned in secret?

That’s only half of the story because whilst countless other councils are passing amendment after amendment in the attempt to shore up as many safety precautions as possible for when the planning zone reforms come in, Glen Eira is sitting on its hands and doing bugger all. The ramifications of this inaction was evident in a recent vcat appeal and decision.

The VCAT hearing involved an application for a 3 storey building, multiple dwellings and reduced car parking. The site was Glen Huntly Rd (housing diversity/tram lines) and abutted Minimal Change. Hence the proposed amendment would have been extremely important here in protecting residential amenity. Here are the lamentable arguments put up by council and relevant extracts from the final decision. (See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/381.html for the full decision)

Council advised that these setback distances were recommended in its proposed amendment C90 to manage the interface between housing diversity and minimal change areas, and as a response to Clause 22.07 to reduce the visibility of additional levels when the proposal is higher than the prevailing height of an area.

Council noted that it did not impose the minimum setback of 4 metres on the ground level as recommended in the amendment, acknowledging that there are currently out buildings in the rear yards of 6 Emma Street and 4 Lonsdale Street. Conceding that Amendment C90 has yet been exhibited, Council still wished to pursue the desired setback as a reflection of its thinking of interface management.

Council has imposed permit conditions to require the first and second floor to be further recessed to manage the change from a housing diversity area to a minimal change area, as recommended by its Amendment C90, which will result in the loss of dwellings.

As Mr. Bissett pointed out (for developer), Amendment C90 is not a seriously entertained planning proposal. It has not been on exhibition and it is premature to implement the setbacks recommended in this amendment. The approach should be one of the particular set of circumstances and the context of the site: that is whether the proposed setbacks of the various floors an acceptable interface with.6 Emma Street and 4 Lonsdale Street.

Given all this, questions have to be asked:

  1. Why has a council resolution not been carried out?
  2. Who made the decision to withdraw or abandon? When was it made? and most importantly – WHY was it made?
  3. What is the real agenda behind all this?
  4. Why are councillors allowing employees to rule the roost?
  5. Why aren’t residents afforded the full protection as originally intended?
  6. Why after two years has nothing happened? What aren’t residents being told?
  7. Why didn’t this development come to a full council meeting in the first place? What is the precise criteria that determines whether an application remains in the hands of the hired help?
  8. When will councillors start exercising their mandated duties and INSIST that proper transparency and governance occurs in this council?
  9. When will councillors finally get off their backsides and insist that ALL of the outcomes of the 2010 Planning Scheme Review are carried out. 3 years of deferment, inaction, and silence is not good enough.
  10. When will they stop being accomplices to the continued failure of good governance in Glen Eira?
 

April 13, 2013

Is Consistency Too Much To Ask For?

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

Item 9.1 of last Tuesday night’s agenda concerned the amended permit application for a Tavern in Centre Road. Please note:

  • We are not questioning the right of anyone to submit an application
  • We are not questioning the right of any commercial enterprise to grow its business

What we are questioning is the woeful decision making capacity of this planning department and councillors; the continued shonky reports that fail to come up under scrutiny and finally the clear bias evident in the report. We are also highly critical of the inconsistency trotted out by Lipshutz and some others.

In July 2011 (that is LESS THAN 2 YEARS AGO) Lipshutz and Hyams moved the motion to accept the conversion of a ‘café’ to a ‘tavern’ that extended the hours of opening, waived car parking, and included a liquor license for footpath trading. The motion was carried unanimously. At the time objectors also claimed that the premises had been operating ‘without a permit’. Now there’s another application to extend existing hours to 3am, include live music and increase seating from 24 to 64 plus an increase of staff. All well and good, EXCEPT that the current officer’s report just happens to state – “The site context has not changed significantly from the time the previous approval was granted in that the residential properties to the north are still separated from the subject site by an Australia Post dispatch facility and a petrol station that is open 24 hours a day.”

In other words the surrounding environment, which has not changed, was good enough for the planning department to impose limits on numbers, hours, music and staff back in 2009, but not today when these exact some conditions persist! So, if nothing much has changed then how can something be regarded as having an adverse impact in 2011 and 21 months later suddenly be deemed as appropriate for a threefold increase in clientele, staff, and hours of operation? Did Ron Torres just happen to conveniently forget what he wrote at that time and now just regurgitates what happens to suit the decision for the go ahead?

We’ve drawn up a table that compares the officer’s report from 2011 and 2013. There’s much, much more that was in the 2011 report that has suddenly disappeared from the current version. What is repeated is merely all those points that would provide support for the current application. If that’s not ‘doctoring’ a document, then we certainly don’t know what is.

July 19th 2011 Minutes

April 9th 2013 Minutes
28 properties notified; 48 notices sent (owners and occupiers) 6 properties notified; 29 notices sent (owners and occupiers)
N/A Since then, the business has continued to grow and the restrictions on their current planning permit have become onerous.
The current approved hours of operation are considered to be low impact in terms of causing significant noise that would affect the amenity of the local area. The current approved hours of operation are considered to be relatively “low impact” in terms of potential to cause significant noise that would unreasonably affect the amenity of the local area.
The focus of this application is on the 3 additional hours Monday to Thursday (11pm closing) and the 2 additional hours on Friday and Saturday (1am next day closing). The focus of this application is on: the 3 additional hours on Monday to Thursday (closing at 1am); the 3 additional hours on Friday and Saturday (closing at 3am); the 2 additional hours on Sunday (closing at 1am); andthe associated additional live music performances.
Noise from patrons leaving after 8pm weeknights and after 11pm Friday and Saturday would potentially disrupt the amenity of local residents. MISSING
It is considered that a reasonable closing time for Monday to Thursday would be 10pm. An additional 2 hours on weeknights is unlikely to significantly increase detriment to the amenity of the nearby residential area if it is combined with conditions that limit noise levels in accordance with EPA guidelines and a requirement to limit live music to Friday, Saturday and Sunday and to prohibit the sale and consumption of liquor on the footpath. The proposed closing time for Sunday to Thursday of 1am the following day is considered excessive for a weeknight. A more reasonable closing time for weeknights (Sunday to Thursday) would be 11pm. This is a reasonable compromise to what is being sought in light of the context. An additional 1 hour on weeknights (as recommended in the appendix to this report) is unlikely to significantly increase detriment to the amenity of the nearby residential area if it is combined with current permit conditions that limit noise levels in accordance with EPA guidelines.
For Friday and Saturday nights, it is considered that a closing time of 1am the following day is likely to cause disruptive late night noise and a closing time of midnight is recommended. Additionally, live music performances on Friday, Saturday and Sunday will be required to be finished at least 1 hour before the closing time to further ensure that the impact on the nearby residential area is moderated. For Friday and Saturday nights a closing time of 3am the following day as proposed is likely to cause unreasonable disruptive noise in the early hours of the morning to local residents. A closing time of 1am is recommended as a condition in the appendix as 1 additional hour on weekends is considered reasonable and will have minimal additional amenity impacts.The current permit restricts live music
Recommended conditions will prevent live music in the rear courtyard. No dance floor will be allowed. The current permit does not allow live music performances within the rear courtyard  yet the proposal seeks to allow them between 12 noon and 7pm. This is considered reasonable as the courtyard is adjacent to commercial car parking areas which provide a buffer of over 30 metres to nearby residential land located to the north, and after 7pm the live performances will be restricted to inside the venue.
Patron numbers are proposed to increase from 24 to 64, with one additional staff member (4 in total). The increases would allow the business to fully reach its  potential and have the ability to conduct more viable private functions. The additional staff member will contribute to the efficiency and general operation of the venue. The proposed increases are considered reasonable.
The impacts on the amenity of the area from additional night time parking and traffic would be noticeable to the local residents. Council’s Transport Planning Department do not object to the proposed extension of trading hours.ANDGiven the above, the increased impacts on the amenity of the area from additional night time parking and traffic will not be unreasonable.
Council’s Transport Planners have confirmed that Centre Road can accommodate the additional parking that is likely to be generated by the use. The amount of additional parking will be kept to a small increase by applying a condition to restrict the maximum number of patrons to twenty four (24) at any one time. This figure matches the number of patron seats applied for. Staff numbers will be kept at the current level of three (3). Patron numbers are proposed to increase from 24 to 64, with one additional staff member (4 in total). The increases would allow the business to fully reach its potential and have the ability to conduct more viable private functions. The additional staff member will contribute to the efficiency and general operation of thevenue. The proposed increases are considered reasonable.
Victoria police

  • • Caulfield Police have confirmed that Roo Baa has been operating within its current liquor licence hours without significant disruption to the local area.However, concern was expressed that noise from live music might impact the nearby residential area. The Police confirmed that they can issue fines for breaches of noise restrictions.
 Victoria policeCaulfield Police have confirmed that Roo Baa has been operating within its current liquor licence hours without significant disruption to the local area. Support the proposed increase in patron numbers and increased hours of operation. Support live music performances on all days subject to it finishing by 11pm

Sunday to Thursday and 1am the following day on Friday and Saturday.

No issues with live music performances being conducted in the courtyard between 12 noon and 7pm.

 The sale and consumption of alcohol in the footpath seating area should be prohibited after 9pm to minimise the effect on residents directly across the road.

 Restricting staff numbers is not beneficial to the proper running of the venue and

do not support a restriction placed on staff numbers.

So how did councillors handle all this? – especially those who were party to the original permit? Here’s what happened –

MAGEE: moved that a permit be granted for 12 months only. Delahunty seconded. Magee went on to say that ‘this gives the operator what they are wanting’ and since there have been complaints from people and ‘council has some concerns‘ the permit is only for 12 months and the applicant has to then come back and reapply. The objective is for the applicant to ‘show us’ that ‘you can adhere to this permit’ and then council would issue the extension of the permit.

DELAHUNTY: said that this motion would ‘strike a balance’ between business and community ‘wants’. Said that it’s in everyone’s best interests to have ‘private business’ in the city but ‘they must be good neighbours’   so the motion is trying to ‘strike a balance’ between these two things. Looked forward to a year down the track and that the applicants can ‘show they’ve been well behaved’.

LIPSHUTZ: at first he was going to support it but ‘I’ve changed my mind’.  He’s got emails from people complaining and that recently officers had discovered that there were more people on the premises than allowed and that ‘bands were playing’ so they ‘had breached their license‘. So, when people come and ‘seek the indulgence of council’ you have to come with ‘clean hands’ and not treat both residents and council ‘with contempt’. Magee’s motion does ‘put them on notice’ that they have to ‘do the right thing’ but ‘they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with more’. It’s only ‘when you can show you’re a good neighbour’ that you should come to council instead of ‘asking for more’.

PILLING: supports the motion. Outlined where residential and commercial properties are. The motion ‘does strike a balance’ and he thinks the times are ‘reasonable’ and a good ‘alternative’ and ‘respects the wishes of residents’.

SOUNNESS: was at the planning conference and noted that ‘there comes a point when a development has reached its capacity’ and more makes it an ‘over development’. With this application there can’t be more space since the building isn’t big enough. Thought that the development was ‘overly ambitious’ and that there had been issues about ‘management’ of the place. So even though Magee’s motion takes this ‘down the right path’ it doesn’t take it ‘far enough’.

HYAMS: said it was a ‘strange planning conference’ in that there were opposite views expressed. People from ‘500 metres away’ said they could hear the music but patrons said that they ‘go there’ so they can actually talk with each other ‘above the music’ so ‘it’s not that loud’. Said the police were happy for the extended hours and that officers on the occasions they went there ‘reported’ that the tavern was ‘conforming’ to the permit. But then Lipshutz has said that ‘on one occasion they weren’t’. So he’s ‘happy’ with the ‘sunset clause’ and that the place will be ‘monitored’ and ‘if we’re happy’ then they ‘can go ahead’. Said that at the planning conference objectors said that people were urinating outside but this was denied by applicant. So there is a need for more staff to supervise this outside.

MAGEE; said that council ‘want to see business succeed’ and for residents to ‘live in peace and quiet’. The applicant has now got 12 months to show that ‘they are good operators of the business’. The tavern is a ‘bit of an icon’ in Bentleigh and gives the area ‘its bit of uniqueness’. It’s never ‘raised its head before as a concern with me’. He had walked past there recently and all was well. Hoped that ‘the business will succeed’ and that surrounding people ‘will accept it’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. VOTING AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ & SOUNNESS

COMMENT: This is not the first time that breaches of conditions have occurred on numerous permits and not the first time that nothing much has been done about it by council. In the past Lipshutz and his cohorts have seen fit to ignore such breaches and to vote in favour of the permits. All that has been said by them is that council will be ‘vigilant’ and will come down on them ‘like a ton of bricks’ if the new permits are abused. How hypocritical then of Lipshutz to now get on his high horse and say that this application should be refused because the applicants have treated council with ‘contempt’. If Lipshutz is to stand on his record then the public has a right to demand consistency.

We draw readers’ attention to his stance on the extended 1A Albany Court decision (as just one example!) which involved a synagogue that had continually breached its conditions and which the VCAT member made absolutely clear that council had done nothing to ensure compliance. See https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/vcat-more-council-failures/. This is not an isolated example.

How many more times will we hear about council not informing all relevant parties on VCAT hearings as in the above judgement? How many more times will some applications get up because of what can only be reasonably perceived to be clear, vested interests and despite the fact that they have treated the permit conditions with ‘contempt’? How many more times will this planning department be permitted to produce reports that are short on argument, detail, and full justification for their recommendations?

This entire application history epitomises the failures of this council to embark on any decision making that is consistent, transparent, and protects residential amenity.

 

April 12, 2013

Lest We Forget!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[9] Comments 

For the first time ever we are repeating a post in its entirety. It’s the resolution on council’s ‘position’ on the racecourse centre. Given the sudden girding of the loins by the likes of Lipshutz and company, we thought it worthwhile to revisit the shambles that took place in April, 2011. There was no fire and brimstone then – only complicity, secrecy, and in our view, the utter sellout of residents. Now, when the deal is done and dusted, these very same councillors find their voice.

What was said 2 years ago should never be forgotten. What was NOT SAID last Tuesday night is just as important. No mention of what this council has done to ensure that the MRC abides by the various agreements – ie keeping gates open; pulling down fences; proper traffic management; ensuring the clean up of Queen’s Avenue, and so on. Utter, resounding silence on all these points. Instead the gallery witnessed nothing more than huge egos grandstanding. We have to also question whether the resolution to forward a ‘letter’ to MPs and others would have eventuated if the MRC had not embarrassed council even further with their Media Releases and interviews. If this council thought it was so important to ‘restate’ its position, then why did they not decide to write to all and sundry at the previous meeting? Was this even discussed in those secret assemblies? If so, how did the gang respond? Did they reject this idea a month ago? Our guess is that council were forced into the letter by the outcry against them! Again, everything is too late and useless!

Here’s our post from April 28th, 2011.

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 adversarial 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 amenities’, 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 responded ’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 because 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 11, 2013

Council’s ‘Position’

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

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE RESERVE

MAGEE moved a long motion which basically reiterated what had previously been stated – ie not enough sporting grounds and that it should be for racing, recreation and sport. Also mentioned recent history such as the Select Committee Report and their recommendations. Last part of motion was to write to all MPs, Ministers, Auditor General, etc.

MAGEE: spoke about population and lack of sporting grounds so that clubs have to play outside of Glen Eira. Claimed that 35 to 40 teams ‘would love to play in Glen Eira’ but presently can’t because lack of grounds. Said the plan could be ‘reconfigured’ to suit everyone and it’s really about the trustees and MRC who regard the land as theirs and that racing is more important than anything else. Said the MRC owns land all around the racecourse for their stables that they rent out so that gives trainers the right to train horses on the reserve. Then read out a long list about ‘prescribed uses’ such as weddings, exhibitions, exams etc. and noted that training is not listed once in this long list ‘according to the DSE’. Many things such as access, lighting ‘needs to be better’ and that the land should be given back to the community ‘who actually own it’. Saw this as ‘an opportunity to almost solve’ all the problems they’re having with sport. This isn’t happening and even though a barbecue area and running track will soon be opened it’s one that ‘just happens to run past the car park’ so that racegoers ‘don’t get dirty walking to the pavilion’. The toilet also suits the boot area. Therefore instead of this being a ‘great community park’ it’s ‘actually going to be used for racing’ ….’it will be used by you and me’ but you have to go through the tunnel ‘without suffocatig and getting mud’ and horse poo all over you. We’ve got a 2 billion dollar asset ‘sitting on’ the doorstep and yet Glen Eira can’t provide for its kids on sport.

OKOTEL: supported motion and ‘unfortunate’ that some people ‘misunderstood’ the position paper from the last council meeting. Said that this motion ‘seeks to clarify council’s position’ and to make this known to ‘all of the relevant stakeholders’. Went on to say that council ‘will honour’ its existing agreements and the intentions of council in ‘how to deal with this land in the future’. Hoped that this would prevent any ‘further misunderstanding’.

PILLING: endorsed the motion and said that it’s good that this would be sent to politicians because that’s really where the issue lies ie ‘with successive state governments’. ‘Training in the long term does have to go’ if council is to get what it wants. Said that this ‘position’ isn’t really that much different from its ‘previous positions’ just ‘articulates it better’. Said that the plan basically showed the ‘potential’ of the site and how it could be utilised for both active and passive recreation.

DELAHUNTY: also endorsed the motion. The report helped people understand just how much land is available and it’s just a concept and ‘may not be how it ends up’. Reiterated that ‘passive recreation’ is important. Spoke about jogging around the area and walking the dog years ago and would would ‘like to see some of that balance restored’. Saw that sport is about 2 issues – allocation and ‘supply’. Asked the community to support council’s position, ‘to get behind’ this move. Thanked officers for the report.

HYAMS: said that the focus of racing is a result of the ‘failings of previous trustees and government’. Criticism of the previous ‘issues paper’ was ‘unwarranted’ and the MRC’s media responses as well as Pakula’s ‘unfortunate speech’ in Parliament was ‘misleading’ so this ‘sets out the full context’. Mentioned the MRC spending $3 m on the synthetic track. Acknowledged that they’ve carved off Glen Huntly park but that there would now also be ‘1500 dwellings’ as part of the C60. Hoped that this was the ‘start for far more progress’ being achieved for the park.

MAGEE: 2 years ago Forge and he met Southwick who said this was ‘important’ but that in this time all he’s done in 2 years is ‘organise a fun run’ and that’s ‘insulting to everyone who actually voted for David Southwick’. He should apologise. Continued that ‘this is far too important’ to be ‘political’. ‘This is not going away’ and the MRC and Trustees should know that ‘council is just starting’ and will go on right to the 2014 election. If Southwick want relection then he ‘needs the people of Caulfield right behind him’. The whole issue is ‘about greed. Nothing more’.

MOTION PUT: carried unanimously

 

PS: THE FULL MAGEE MOTION AS PER THE MINUTES –

Crs Magee/Okotel
1. That Council note:
(a) That there are more people wanting to play community sport in Glen Eira than there are grounds for;
(b) That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown land is reserved for “A racecourse public recreation ground and public park”;
(c) That, as shown by the report provided by independent consultant Simon Leisure, in addition to horse racing, the Crown land could potentially accommodate additional grounds for soccer, AFL, netball, baseball, rugby and cycling, as well as a range of passive recreation opportunities;
(d) That the Glen Huntly Reserve was originally part of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve;
(e) That the Victorian Parliamentary Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Public Land Development in its final report in September 2008 found that, “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,” and recommended, “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.”;
(f) That, pursuant to an agreement with Council of April 2011, the Melbourne Racing Club has spent approximately $2 million on
providing public park and recreation facilities in the interior of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve;
(g) That, in relation to training, that agreement provided, “One of the current uses of the Racecourse Reserve is for the training of more than 500 horses.
For training to be relocated from Caulfield, there needs to be
· an alternative site
· construction of new facilities
· and transfer of the training activities.
This will not be achieved in the short term.
It is not within the sole control of the MRC.
Agreed Priority in this transition would be
1. removal of training from Crown Land before freehold land
2. top priority is the south-east corner of the Reserve which would become available for use as public open space consistent with the already established joint communique in conjunction with Glen Huntly Park, at the expense of the body controlling the land.
3. within the Racecourse Reserve, the only tracks required would be for the conduct of races and all other tracks would be re-incorporated into enlarged precincts mentioned above.
4. Council and the MRC would enter into further discussions about further improved facilities and uses of the Centre for the benefit of racegoers and the community.”
(h) That training infrastructure constructed in the interior of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve since this agreement includes a
synthetic training track worth approximately $3 million;
(i) That the MRC’s C60 Development, on its freehold land across Station Street from the Racecourse Reserve, is projected to
include 1500 dwellings; and
(j) That, in accordance with the April 2011 agreement, Council’s position paper on the Crown Land at the Caulfield Racecourse
Reserve, adopted at its March 19 meeting, stated “Training of horses on a commercial basis is not one of the purposes for which the Crown Land is reserved. Providing a “public recreation ground and public park” takes precedence over the training of horses. To the extent that training prejudices the provision of public ground and public park, training should be phased out.”

2. That this report and motion be sent to:
 the Minister responsible for Crown Lands
 the Auditor General for Victoria
 the Victorian Government Solicitor
 the Department of Sustainability and Environment
 each member of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust
 the Secretary of the Trust
 the Minister for Sport and Recreation
 the Minister for Racing and
 all State and Federal Members of Parliament representing Glen Eira.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

 

April 10, 2013

The Show Goes On!

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

Local Laws Committee

LIPSHUTZ: said that of the ‘major issues’ discussed one was the ‘tree policy’. Reports should come back ‘sometime in May’ from corporate counsel.  On ‘organised sport’ rather than ‘amend’ this in the Local Law the committee decided that ‘explanatory notes’ would be incorporated and that these would set ‘out what we see as organised sport’. Also stated that the tree register issue was ‘complex’. At first they were thinking about a ‘point system’ and then rejected it so other alternatives had to now be investigated. So ‘rather than rushing it’ and ‘getting it wrong’ it is wise to do it properly.

COMMENT : Requests for a Tree Register are now a decade old. This is certainly not ‘rushing it’! Also a decade old is the continuing farce over ‘organised sport’ and the laughing stock that this council has become statewide. Remember the ongoing Frisbee affair, the schleppers, the kids in the park, and last but not least, the zombies! And the $64 question – does Lipshutz son’s Frisbee group now have a permit? And why oh why can’t the community be privy to the rationale behind jettisoning the points system that countless other councils employ? Do other councillors even know the logic behind this decision?

Sport and Rec Committee

LIPSHUTZ: moved an amendment about ‘last paragraph of second page’ (WRONG he is referring to the sentence about BURKE) but wanted added that there would be an ‘update about policy’ at the next meeting. Magee seconded this amendment. Lipshutz continued saying that one of the main issues was sporting ground allocations. Said that ‘officers deal with that on the basis of policy’ . Said that Burke ‘went through that with us’ and that at the next meeting there would be an ‘update’ on policy. Stated that ground allocation is the domain of officers on ‘policy’ that council has approved. Burke at the next committee meeting will report back.

MAGEE: for a city with so little open space, sport ground allocation can ‘be divisive’ and ‘very disappointing for clubs’. A “clear policy can be put in place’ for allocations. This has ‘been done successfully’ for years and he ‘welcomes’ officers’ input into ‘putting the policy together’ and is ‘looking forward’ to seeing that policy.

COMMENT: Here we have it – despite Lipshutz’s attempts at obfuscation! There IS NO SPORTING GROUND ALLOCATIONS POLICY. There never has been! All has been left in the hands of Burke. From these comments councillors would appear to again be shying away from any attempt to pass a resolution on the authority to decide who gets what!

VCAT WATCH

Lipshutz provided the ‘commentary’ on the cited decision and claimed it again ‘comes down to what residents want’ as opposed to what the VCAT member wants. Said that the government wants more ‘denSity housing’ etc and that ‘we can’t do anything about that’. Also that ‘one member’ is pro-development’ and another member is opposed to development.

DELAHUNTY – when reading the article she noted that councillors argued ‘against setbacks’ on Hawthorn Rd (Emmy Monash decision and developer handing out How-to-vote cards) and that she argued for setbacks and now ‘another time those same councillors didn’t argue’ for setbacks. So it’s ‘no wonder’ that anyone, including VCAT is ‘confused….I’m confused’.

COMMENT: We’ve commented ad nauseum on the continual scapegoating of VCAT as the villain. Yes, they only need to ‘consider’ policy, but when a council such as Glen Eira has no structure plans, no height limits, no public realm policy, no parking precinct plans and after three years of the Planning Scheme Review has done practically nothing on what it stated it would do (ie Heritage reviews, open space levies etc.) then one must question how much ‘certainty’ this council gives to developers as opposed to residents and the protection of amenity.

 

CENTENARY PARK PAVILION

 

MAGEE moved the motion to accept the motion. It’s been needed for over ten years. His boys played for the teams and they ‘had to change’ under the trees because no changing rooms. Now it will be a change from the ‘dilapidated’ old building to the impressive ‘state of the art’ new pavilion. Said the report was ‘very in depth’ and the only ‘down side’ was that it was forecast to take 20 months to complete but the recommendation will let council ‘move onto detailed design phase’.

LIPSHUTZ: agreed that this has been ‘a long time coming’. Now they can with the $500,000 dollar grant from the government.

SOUNNESS moved the amendment that a landscaping plan be added to the recommendation and that the car parking plan be deferred until a ‘detailed landscape design assessment’ was done. Magee refused to accept the amendment. The amendment was then seconded by Pilling. Sounness went on to say that he felt there had to be discussion about ‘cost’ of car parks and he’s got questions about the use of the current land. Said that ‘more discussion’ is needed and that the information provided is ‘insufficient’ – that he wants ‘more information’.

PILLING: wasn’t opposed to the motion and the pavilion was a good idea and needed. But was concerned ‘about the process here’ in the car park design. Compared this to GESAC when ‘at the last moment’ there were 2 instances of extending the car parks and that ‘there seems to be a bit of a similar trend happening here’ . Said that he had asked if there was any loss of open space and that ‘I would like to see that information’ so that they could then ‘really discuss the merit’ . He was urging for a ‘cautionary approach’ and not to ‘just rush in’ and that council needs to ‘investigate all opportunities’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she’d asked a lot of questions and that as councillors they ‘do have an option to go back’ when the design is completed and look at the issue of car parking again and ‘whether or not’ this part ‘goes ahead’. Said that she’d like to see consultation with community and stakeholders about the design. Said she wasn’t so worried about loss of open space because council ‘gains’ in terms of safety and that the ‘new open space’ could be made into something ‘beautiful’.

LIPSHUTZ: said this was only about design and the building of the car park is ‘not what’s going to happen’. Yes, ‘we want it done properly’ and quickly. Once the design is done and ‘information that is brought to us by officers’ they can ‘have another look at it’. They can always say ‘no we’re not happy with that’ and order that the car park be redesigned. Said that the ‘analogy with GESAC is not valid’. GESAC did have a ‘car park planned’ but they were so ‘successful beyond our wildest dreams’.

HYAMS: ‘sympathised’ with Sounness and thought that they would be ‘better placed’ to look at issues of the car park and open space once the design was done because ‘then we’ll have a better idea’.

MAGEE: also ‘admired’ Sounness’ desire to protect the environment, but sometimes you have to be ‘selfish’ and say that he knows the area and the land and that no-one ever uses it. The two car parks date back to 1989 and the land was supposed to be for a kindergarten but with the amalgamation of councils nothing has been done with this. Didn’t think that there was anything on the land ‘worth protecting’ and that ‘the community does not venture into’ that space. Said that adding car park at building stage ‘makes good sense’ and brings ‘both car parks into one site’ and gives ‘extra car parking at no loss of open space’…’no net loss of open space’. Also removes a car park from the playground. It’s a ‘win-win’ and repeated that ‘there is no net loss of open space’.

AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND LOST. VOTING FOR – SOUNNES & PILLING. VOTING AGAINST: MAGEE, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, DELAHUNTY.

COMMENT: We draw readers’ attention to several crucial points in the above:

1. the claim AGAIN, that officers’ reports are deficient in information

2. Whom to believe – Magee or Pilling. Pilling claims that he asked for information on loss of open space. Clearly that has not come back. Yet Magee is so adamant that there is no loss of current open space. What does he know that Pilling doesn’t know, or is this just another porkey that sounds good?

3. Given the history of this council, there has rarely if ever, been a change of mind, or even a review, of the original proposals once passed by council. There is, in our view, as much hope of saving this area of vegetation as there is of Melbourne winning the AFL premiership this year!

Return to original motion. DELAHUNTY said good to see funding from government even though this comes from slashing TAFE funding, and that the project itself ‘has merit’. Said that ‘we will consider the open space’ and what the ‘community feels’.

MAGEE: ‘long awaited’ ‘valuable addition’ and ‘welcomed the money from the state government’.

MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »