Councillor Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

April 9, 2013

Academy Award Night

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

Several events were unique at tonight’s council meeting.

  • Esakoff did not utter a word
  • Lobo was absent with no mention by Burke of an apology or failure to give an apology as required
  • The minutes of the CEO Contractual committee meeting minutes VOTED UPON we presume, were not included in the agenda items even as a ‘late addition’.
  • The sale of McKittrick St went through without a single reference by anyone that a potential developer was acquiring public land for a piddling $20,000 on land valued at $66,700
  • Souness and Pilling moved an amendment requesting more information on the Centenary Rd car park and loss of open space. This was defeated by all other councillors and the original recommendation accepted unanimously.
  • Racecourse item involved much chest beating. No councillor trustee declared a conflict of interest.
  • Public questions were abysmally answered as per usual.
  • Lipshutz’s inconsistency in argument is definitely worthy of a place in the Guinness Book of World Records

We will provide full commentary on the above in the days ahead.

 

April 3, 2013

Just Like In Glen Eira, Eh?

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

progress leader

PS: We think readers will find the following Kingston Council Notice of Motion of great interest given what happens far too often in Glen Eira. The following is from the minutes of  25th March, 2013.

Notices of Motion

Notice of Motion – Cr West
Moved: Cr West Seconded: Cr Ronke
That Council adopt a position for mediation of a development
application only with the support of either:
1. all three ward Councillors, or
2. a majority of all Councillors.

CARRIED

 

April 2, 2013

The Leader & Racecourse

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

fun run

letters

 

March 29, 2013

‘Rare Lapses’ Are Becoming Endemic!

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

There have been 2 recent VCAT decisions that we wish to highlight. In BOTH cases council’s planning department failed in its legal obligations – namely to alert resident objectors as to the council’s position on amended plans within the required 7 day period of notice. What this means is that objectors show up to the hearing with practically no time to adjust their claims or to prepare sufficiently for what could be a completely different set of circumstances. They are left out in the cold and perhaps totally unaware of the secret deals that have been made between council and developer. Certainly without sufficient time to prepare an adequate defence or to even contact council planners.

We’ve previously featured Hyams’ pathetic response to one such objector – the officer was on holidays. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/does-council-support-residents-or-developers/) Not good enough! How many such ‘rare lapses’ have taken place and what steps have been implemented to ensure they don’t happen again? How often will the same pathetic excuse be used to explain sheer incompetence or indifference to residents? How much longer will councillors allow the inefficiencies and lack of accountability to continue?

What is even worse is that the VCAT Watch reports reveal nothing of these incidents. It is spin all the way. Except, that if one bothers to go to the actual judgement the Glen Eira Version of History is revealed for what it is – a total sham!

Here’s what council’s version of events regarding the 14-16 Maroona Rd hearing stated (from the minutes of 5th Feb) –

Prior to the hearing, the applicant approached Council seeking support for amended plans which satisfied a number of Council’s conditions, whilst the plans also provided for a revised design incorporating twenty six (26) dwellings. The amended plans were considered to be satisfactory and, in principle, Council supported the amended plans.

What really happened though is revealed by the member –

Prior to the hearing the Permit Applicant circulated amended plans which were intended to be a response to, though not fully comply with, many of the Condition 1 requirements for amended plans sought to be imposed by Council. Prior to the hearing, further discussions were held between the Council and the Applicant, such that an agreed position between these two parties was presented to the Tribunal as to a modified form of Condition 1 that should be applied as a result of the proceeding under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act.

Ms Coram and the other residents had not been part of these discussions and at the start of the hearing declined an opportunity requested by the Permit Applicant to attempt to mediate the matter.

Further, the original application was for 27 units. The original DPC decision cut this back to 24 and then lo and behold we’re back up to 26 units and a reduction in car parking. So we now have 26 two bedroom units when one of the major planks of the Planning Scheme is to ensure that there is ‘diversity’ of dwellings! We insist that no bigger hoax has been perpetrated on residents that this bit of fluff and bubble.

There are some other comments that clearly show how little effort is put in by this council to ensure the bona fides of applications. None of this of course is evident in the officers’ report. We’ll simply extract those passages.

During the course of the hearing it occurred to me (ie member) that the shadow diagrams for 9.00am had not been drawn correctly. As a result at the conclusion of the hearing I gave oral orders for an amended shadow diagram to be circulated to all parties within seven days of the date of the hearing, and for the other parties to have an additional seven days to make further submissions, if desired. At the hearing all parties agreed that these timelines were sufficient.

During the course of the hearing Ms Bowden (for developer) submitted that due to the removal of the two existing crossovers to the review site, that one additional on street visitor space is to be created. On this basis, and considering Council’s support for the proposal following the review by their traffic engineers, I cannot see any reason why I should not approve the reduction of the standard visitor car parking requirement by one space.

Ms Silveira (objector), in her concerns regarding the intensity of the development, referred to the risk caused by the increased traffic levels to be experienced in Maroona Road. At no stage during the hearing was I addressed specifically in relation to the existing or anticipated traffic levels, or any difficulties experienced by residents in exiting the street to either Neerim Road or Glen Huntly Road. Given the absence of any such detailed submission, I must give weight to the assessment of the application by Council’s traffic engineers and the support for the development as expressed by Council. I therefore cannot find any reason to refuse to grant a permit based on traffic grounds.

The questions that follow have to be addressed by councillors:

  • Why are resident objectors not always informed of amended plans nor council’s agreement to these new plans AND if they are informed why is there not sufficient notice given as required by law?
  • Why does this council so often merely accept the developer’s  assessment of various elements such as overshadowing, traffic, parking, without checking the veracity of these claims?
  • Why did council not check the accuracy of the shadow diagrams?
  • Why has traffic engineering not insisted upon the car parking standards?
  • How much longer will councillors allow residents in Housing Diversity to be the sacrificial lamb to a flawed vision that desperately needs to be jettisoned?
  • How much longer will councillors sit in silence and permit shoddy reports to pass without comment, without serious questioning, and without proper analysis?
  • Are we right in assuming that this council has no respect for residents and ostensibly no respect for the legal requirements? If they did, then such incidents would not happen or would certainly not be allowed to continue!

If you know of any other incidents along similar lines then please contact us!

 

 

March 29, 2013

GESAC Car Park

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

A reminder!

  • No councillor uttered the word ‘tree’, ‘open space’ when the decision was made
  • No mention by councillors or officers of the further loss of public open space
  • No consultation with residents
  • No mention of the destruction of huge gums
  • No mention that recently planted trees and shrubs would be ripped out
  • No preliminary traffic report or investigation
  • No clear and decipherable architect’s drawings revealing the extent of incursion into public open space
  • No upfront honesty from anyone!

We’ve visited the site again in recent days and found:

  • One huge gum is now dying because its roots have been torn to shreds. Certainly not a surprise when trenches are dug to at least 30 cm around it. That leaves the question as to whether or not a fully qualified arborist was called in to ensure that the excavations would not damage the few remaining trees left along Gardener’s Rd.
  • No change to the bus route to East Boundary Road. So much for years of ‘advocating’!
  • No costing on what the destruction of newly planted trees and shrubs will be and what it will cost to replace them

P1000074

Bailley 11Mar13 IMG_1243sm

P1000073

P1000075

IMG_1255

 

March 27, 2013

The ‘Clayton’s Agreement’ Carries On!

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

We’ve received numerous comments and emails from residents as to the failure of both Council, the MRC and/or Trustees to ensure that the terms of the ‘agreement’ are adhered to – especially in terms of ACCESS to the Racecourse. Time after time gates, which are supposed to be open from 9.30 to sunset are locked.  Not good enough! What has council been doing to ensure that access is available? Why is this situation being allowed to drag on for years and years? Why has there been no public comment from this council demanding that all terms of the agreement are met – especially the removal of fences and access.

We’ve revisited the January 2011 VCAT decision on the 7 lot subdivision and note that the member made explicit comments as to the Section 173 ‘agreement’ regarding access. It is now 14 months later and residents still cannot enter the racecourse as determined. Why has council allowed such a situation to continue? Here are some extracts from the decision –

“Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner of Lot 5 must enter into a section 173 agreement which provides that public access across Lot 5 to the entrance to the tunnel to the centre of the racecourse must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The Tribunal understands that it is the Trustees of the Crown Land that set conditions relating to public access to the Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse and whilst the MRC has control over its own land that abuts the racecourse, as well as occupying the Centre of the Racecourse, it does not control or set in place the conditions for public access to the Crown Land. MRC can therefore only control access over its land from Glen Eira Road to the entrance to the Tunnel.

The Club will reconfigure all horse movement to enable the tunnel from Glen Eira Road to be open 9.30am to sunset.

Public access to the Centre will be provided as follows.

On all days excluding scheduled race days and 10 event days as above:

a. by vehicle through the Tunnel from Glen Eira Road

b. by a footpath created in the tunnel from Glen Eira Road – the footpath will be separated from the vehicle pathway by post-and- rail fence with the tunnel having enhanced lighting

c. by the pedestrian tunnel from the Guineas car park

d. by new surface pedestrian access from Glen Huntly Park across the race tracks into precinct 4 by providing gates or gaps in all the rails. The Club reserves the right to modify, suspend or change access after consultation with the Council in the event of damage to the racing surface

e. by foot via the existing gate from Queen’s Avenue

On all days excluding 3 scheduled race days and 10 event days as above:

a. by vehicle through the tunnel from Glen Eira Road

b. by a footpath created in the tunnel from Glen Eira Road – the footpath will be separated from the vehicle pathway by post-and- rail fence with the tunnel having enhanced lighting.

All the above applies up to 352 days per year as above, 9.30am – sunset, as set pout in section 2.1.

The improvements in a – e above will be established by the MRC within 3 months of this agreement being executed subject to formal planning approval, the Trustees approval and Public Land Manager consent.

The Responsible Authority agreed that MRC’s recommendation of the entering into of a section 173 agreement between MRC, as owner of lot 5 and the Responsible Authority would allow for an assurance that public access would continue to be available over this portion of land.

In particular the entering into of a section 173 agreement that is required to be placed on the title to lot 5 will ensure that public access can be continued in this location.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/104.html

 

March 24, 2013

80/20 And The 20 Don’t Count!

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

This is an exceedingly long post but one which is arguably the most important we have ever put up. It features the events surrounding the planning application for an Ormond 3 storey, 11 dwelling development at the last council meeting. The officer’s recommendation was to grant a NOD for 10 dwellings.

We believe the ‘debate’ that occurred on this application epitomises all that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira. It reveals the usual bogus and contradictory claims made by all and sundry, as well as the full inadequacies of the current planning scheme and its total disregard for residents in Housing Diversity Areas. We also wonder if Pilling and Sounness in particular, have the foggiest idea about planning or they are just there to support whatever is dished up to them. We can only shake our heads at the naivety, if not straight out stupidity of various councillors.

This will become obvious upon reading. We remind residents that the Emmy Monash development mentioned throughout, involved the granting of a permit for a 4 storey development on Hawthorn Rd. Lipshutz moved the motion about removing setbacks and this was supported by the majority. It also came to light that the developer just happened to be the same individual who was handing out How To Vote cards for the gang! (No conflict of interest was declared!).

We urge all residents concerned about the future of their neighbourhoods to pay careful attention to what transpired last Tuesday night. Our ‘commentary’ on this fiasco will feature in a future post – this is just a blow by blow description of our councillors ‘at work’!

Esakoff moved to reject the application. Seconded by Okotel.

ESAKOFF: refusal based on on ‘visual bulk’, ‘excessive height’, doesn’t meet ResCode standards of the planning scheme and doesn’t respect ‘neighbourhood character’ and Housing Diversity policy. Said that there are ‘several factors’ that fail to meet requirements here and that couldn’t be addressed by merely adding conditions. Spoke about ‘amenity impact on neighbours’ and ‘intensity of development’ as well as ‘set backs’ – especially building right on a laneway where bedrooms would be overlooking the laneway. It’s an ‘overdevelopment’ and therefore not ‘appropriate’ or ‘fits into’ this position in Ormond.

OKOTEL: started by saying that everyone thinks that ‘appropriate development’ should happen in Glen Eira but that the ‘key word is appropriate’. The planning scheme she claimed ‘sets out for everyone’…..‘what is considered appropriate’ and that this application ‘doesn’t meet those standards’. It ‘falls outside the upper limits’ of height, site coverage, and neighbourhood character.

PILLING: whilst he ‘appreciated’ the arguments put up so far, he was supporting the recommendation. The property is in a neighbourhood centre and a retail centre, and ‘within a very short distance’ there’s the railway station. Policy is to ‘encourage development in these areas’ and therefore ‘not in minimal change areas’. Thought that council therefore ‘had to be consistent’ since they were ‘trying to get appropriate increased development in these areas’. The application shouldn’t be refused even though it is slightly over specifications and there are ‘some detrimental aspects’ but this still shouldn’t ‘sink’ an application ‘like this’. If the motion to refuse failed then he would be moving a motion to accept the recommendations.

DELAHUNTY: said she didn’t ‘like’ the setbacks of the proposal and ‘I’m confused by my fellow councillors’ by applying the criteria of setbacks to ‘knock back applications on the one hand’ and then ‘not in another’. Referred back to the Emmy Monash 4 storey application on Hawthorn Rd that was passed and ‘some councillors’ argued then that setbacks didn’t matter. Now they’re arguing that it does matter. Said she was ‘confused’ about the setbacks and the ‘different directions this is taking’.

MAGEE: admitted that he had ‘no idea which way I was going to vote tonight’ and was hoping ‘to get persuaded by some really good arguments’ but that ‘so far all speakers have failed to engage me’. The laneway ‘probably saves it’ and then it starts to ‘encroach’ into residential. Asked then ‘where to draw the line’? ‘If nothing else, we have to be consistent’. Was hoping that someone could convince him but he told councillors that they’d just have to wait to ‘see which way my hand goes up’.

SOUNNESS: said he’d try to be ‘inspirational’ but that Magee ‘was a hard act to follow’. From a single house ‘we’re going to stick 11 dwelling on there’..’that’s a lot’…’a big up’ in density. But he’d ‘rather have a bunch of people’ that are close to transport and shops than put ‘in the middle of minimal change areas’. Asked where all the ‘extra people’ can go and what can be protected. Here, ‘they’re next to shops, they’re next to public transport’. Further, ‘it’s not a beautiful place to live’ and he wouldn’t like to live there, but ‘it’s not meant to be a luxurious’ garden area. ‘This is a place for dense living’ and you put this where ‘services and facilities are’. This application ‘might have issues with design’ but that’s the job of council’s urban designer and there are conditions that will deal with trees and access. Said that the ‘issue’ that the application ‘fails on is height’ but the rise of the land makes this about landscaping. He supports the recommendation.

HYAMS: agreed with Sounness and Pilling that ‘this is the right place for increased development’. Overall he wouldn’t ‘have a problem’ but he doesn’t ‘particularly like’ this proposal. Said there’s a difference between saying that we can have increased development and that ‘this is the building that should go there’. Thought that ‘too many issues’ on this application ‘required rectification’. Mentioned site coverage and ‘up the road from a flood zone’. Said that ‘we have rules’ and these ‘rules say 60% site coverage’ so this should be ‘60% site coverage’. It’s also 9.6 metres high and should only be ‘9 metres maximum’. Also that it’s right on the laneway also ‘concerns’ him. Trucks use the laneway and he wouldn’t like to have trucks going ‘thundering’ down outside his bedroom window so that ‘also concerns me’. ‘Generally’ he doesn’t mind tinkering with application because individually all these things wouldn’t necessary occasion a refusal, but taken together ‘there are too many of these things’.

Said that Delahunty’s view of lack of consistency over the Emmy Monash decision but that the setbacks there were ‘the front setbacks’ and ‘still quite a few metres off Hawthorn Rd’  unlike this one which would be right ‘up against the laneway. Said that Pilling and Sounness’s  foreshadowed motion doesn’t deal with the issues he’s outlined and ‘doesn’t make those adjustments’ so if councillors want ‘adjustments’ they should vote for the motion to refuse.

ESAKOFF: ‘an application either meets policy or it doesn’t. This clearly doesn’t’. Reiterated the argument about ‘too much’ site coverage and height and said that ‘if there was a way to address this via conditions that would have been done’ but here it would require a ‘total redesign’. No application like this would come in for a minimal change area. ‘It is in the right spot, housing diversity’ but ‘it has to meet policy’. ‘Increased development is right for this street’ but ‘it has to fit’. Urged councillors ‘not to look at the address’ but as an ‘application for anywhere in Glen Eira and vote with your conscience’.

HYAMS put the motion. Voting in favour of refusal were – HYAMS, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL. Voting against – MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, PILLING, SOUNNESS, LOBO. Motion lost.

Pilling then moved the motion to accept ‘as printed’ and Sounness seconded. Neither Pilling nor Sounness spoke to the motion.

OKOTEL: said that what worries her is that this suggests that ‘it is acceptable to push the limits of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme’ and also to ‘exceed them’. Said that there’s a policy in place because after consultation with residents that ‘was seen to be what was needed’ for the area and ‘if we don’t apply and uphold our planning policy’ then the question is whether ‘we can blame VCAT for not upholding our policy’? Said that it’s important for councillors to ‘stick to our policy’ and don’t allow applications that go beyond height and site coverage or set backs. Since these standards have been set they should be supported. This application just says that ‘it is acceptable to push those boundaries’ and that ‘anything goes’ in Glen Eira. Went on to say that the planning scheme developed in ‘consultation with residents’ is ‘what they want’ and councillors should stick to that. “I think it’s a sorry day when councillors cannot uphold their own scheme’ and then ‘look to vcat’ when it says that council doesn’t care about its own scheme.

DELAHUNTY: asked Akehurst a question. Since both Okotel and Esakoff had said that the application doesn’t meet ‘planning policy’ she wanted to know whether ‘this application meets planning policy or does not meet planning policy’?

AKEHURST: said he was caught in ‘crossfire’ here and that the application ‘demonstrated’ the problems with people not understanding town planning. Stated that there’s the government code called ResCode which is how the government thinks ‘Victorians should live’ and that has ‘prescriptive standards’ and in this application some have been met which Okotel and Esakoff pointed out and some haven’t such as the 9.6 height which should be 9 metres. ‘There have been other standards which have been breached in this application’ – ie site coverage. ‘But this is where it gets difficult’ since Rescode is ‘interpreted as a guide’ and councils are being asked to ‘have overall’ views on the ‘objectives’ of each of these standards. So, ‘it is possible to say that objectives of certain measures of ResCode have been met’…’even though the prescription has been clearly breached’.

DELAHUNTY: said that she is again ‘expressing my confusion’. Quoted Okotel in saying that it would be a sad day when council doesn’t apply its policy. ‘I stood here and I argued as hard as I could about the setbacks on Hawthorn Road’. Disagreed that ‘it doesn’t affect people’s amenity’ and that people complained ‘directly to the applicant’ and to council about the setbacks ‘and we didn’t enforce’ it. ‘That was a sorry day!’ ‘This is in line with policy’.

ESAKOFF: agreed that it is a ‘sorry day when we can’t uphold our policy’ and when they do what vcat is criticised for doing.‘ Our policy is supposed to be superior to all other municipalities’ and that ‘we protect our residents more than all other municipalities’. Said there’s policy and that ‘we need to be upholding those’.

MAGEE: said that policies ‘are not laws, policies are guidelines’ and it’s up to councillors to accept, reject or modify the proposal and that ‘we’ve had several weeks to do that’. If it’s all about just policy ‘then we might as well not be here’ since they’re superfluous. Asked why councillors who ‘do not have a 4 year degree in town planning’ are necessary if the policy should dictate everything. Said councillors are just ‘mums and dads’ who ‘live next door to developments’ and the decisions are based on asking oneself whether they’d like to live next door to something like this. ‘We will always interpret a guideline the way we need to interpret a guidelines’. Rescode and the planning scheme has to be looked at by officers and then councillors. Said that councillors have to make the decision based on what they think after digesting all the information and not just according to the guildelines or policy because there’s no need for councillors if that’s all they had to do.

HYAMS: said that in planning some things are ‘objective’ and some things ‘subjective’. Some things are ‘measures’ like site coverage and ‘easy to apply’ but other things like neighborhood character and front setbacks ‘are a bit harder to apply’. Setbacks are ‘measured by the average of other houses in the street’. Emmy Monash has got one nearby property right on the street and another one across the road, ‘right back’ ‘so there’s room for interpretation’. This is also true for neighbourhood character. What councillors should be doing is that ‘where it’s prescriptive you apply it’ and ‘where there’s room for interpretation you interpret it’. Referred back to last council meeting and the sign that was applied for the Kittens car wash. Here ‘policy was very clear’ in that there was ‘nothing in planning policy that said you couldn’t have that sign’ but some councillors were worried about the content of the sign and its influence on gender issues. These arguments he claimed ‘weren’t relevant’ but that some councillors ‘used their subjectivity on that’. And ‘a couple of those same councillors are saying that we should let this’ application go through. Mentioned another decision about alcohol for lawn bowls club and some councillors again voting against this but are ‘somehow managing to vote’ in favour of the application ‘tonight’. So he doesn’t want to hear ‘lectures on consistency’ from those councillors.

MAGEE then asked ‘which ones’?

DELAHUNTY: then said ‘I think Okotel because she also voted against the sign. Is that right?’

HYAMS: said that since Okotel is opposing the motion she’s being ‘consistent’

OKOTEL: asked Delahunty to withdraw her remarks.

HYAMS: said that Delahunty’s comment ‘was out of order’ since she ‘didn’t have the floor’ but didn’t say ‘anything that goes against the Local Law’. Went on to say that there are subjective elements and that ‘it’s up to each councillor to apply them as they see fit’. This application has some breaches which ‘are a lot less’ capable of involving ‘subjectivity’ and because ‘this breaches so many prescriptive measures we should refuse it’.

PILLING: thought that everyone’s got the ‘best intentions’ and that’s why these sorts of applications come to council since there are always ‘two sides’ to the issue. ‘On balance’ he’s recommending accepting the recommendation.

MOTION PUT: Esakoff called for a division. In favour: Delahunty, Sounness, Pilling, Magee, Lobo. Against: Esakoff, Okotel, Hyams. Motion carried.

 

March 20, 2013

Is Hyams Fit To Be Mayor?

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

Below is an exchange that occurred at last night’s council meeting under the guise of ‘Councillor Questions’. Readers should note:

  • The item on the Caulfield Racecourse had already been decided. If Hyams wished to ask or question anything that was the time that it should have been asked as he has himself ruled for other councillors in the past – especially Penhalluriack.
  • How can a Mayor rule on a point of order on himself? Hyams should have stood down
  • Hyams did not declare the section of the Local Law that governed his ruling as required
  • This was nothing more than an attempt to gain a cheap and irrelevant shot at the Labor party. There was no explanation of what was ‘misleading’ in Magee’s statements.
  • Once again governance is the victim in Glen Eira.
  • Once again the entire truth is never uttered. The special committee gave the initial go-ahead for the C60 of which Hyams was a part of. The Minister simply endorsed what he said (erroneously) at the time was a ‘council decision’. In reality it was a decision of 4 councillors only!

COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS

HYAMS: said he had a question for Newton ‘on very short notice’ and hoped that he ‘could handle it’. Hyams said that on the Racecourse item Magee had been talking about the landswap which ‘was quite scandalous’ and that the government has since then allowed the C60 so he wondered if Newton could tell ‘us which government was actually in power and approved’ the land swap.

DELAHUNTY: ‘Point of order Mr Mayor’. Said that she didn’t think this was ‘relevant’ to any point that Hyams was making.

Hyams then turned to ‘Mr Newton’ but Delahunty asked that ‘he rule on the point of order’.

HYAMS: thought that it was ‘relevant’ because there were ‘points made during the debate which might be misleading’ and that ‘I wish to get a clarification’

NEWTON: said that the landswap ‘required legislation’ and this was passed in the ‘last term of parliament’ and it was supported by both the Libs and Labor and opposed by the Greens’.

 

March 20, 2013

The Racecourse ‘Vision’

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

MAGEE moved to accept. Delahunty seconded.

MAGEE: said that the document sets out council’s ‘reasonable expectations’ on the use of Crown Land. Went over the history and that the reserve was set aside for ‘racing, recreation’ and park. Stated that racing is ‘well and truly catered for’ and that recreation and park isn’t.

Didn’t think that trustees should be in control but a committee of management since it was gazetted in 1886 as a committee of management but this was abolished in the 1920’s. Went on to talk about the Guidelines put out by DSE on committees of management and that the trustees are seen as such a committee. But these trustees don’t produce an Annual report, nor a financial statement, nor publish their minutes. Members of the public are also excluded. Went on to explain composition – ie 6 members of the MRC, 6 government appointed members and 3 councillor representatives. Said that the 6 MRC members can basically ‘adjudicate’ on everything. Gave the example of the trustees ‘about to lease the racecourse to the MRC’. Said he wanted to clarify that the trustees are ‘very honourable’ people but that perceptions from the community are ‘hard to’ argue against when 6 trustees aren’t just members of the MRC, but on the ‘committee’ of the MRC. The Chair of the Trustees  is vice chair of the MRC and the Chair of the MRC is also a trustee (McDonald). Stated that there’s therefore the situation where the trustees are leasing land to themselves for $71,000 per year. ‘The court of public opinion is what matters here’. Magee said that he ‘raised a lot of these concerns’ last year and that conflict of interest is ‘something that’s very dear to us’ and that council has to abide by these rules. Said that he asked for 3 things: advice from Auditor General, valuer general and DSE. He wanted to know the ‘value of the racecourse and what we’re leasing’; also wanted legal advice on conflict of interest and solictor general’s advice ‘came back….you have a conflict of interest’ and the ‘trustees said No I don’t’.

People also raise issues about ‘business’ running on Crown Land. The trust leases this to the MRC ‘for about $10,000 per year’. That’s then leased to the Aquinita stables. The people who run these stables (Symonds etc.) are MRC people. So question people might ask is ‘is it right or is it wrong’? Wants Napthine to ‘answer these questions’. Said he’d written letters previously but got no answers. He thought that some of these people have ‘conflict of interest’ and people want this looked at.

DELAHUNTY: said that it’s important that ‘council speak in one voice’ and that she thought it is ‘the biggest issue’ that the council would have to ‘deal with’. Said that the current governance ‘arrangements’ are ‘an absolute insult to us as citizens’. The 3 purposes for the land (racing, park, recreation) ‘is paramount’ to ‘restoring supply issues’ (ie sport). Getting rid of training is important for this to occur. The creation of the synthetic training track ‘seems to be at odds with their statements of 2009’ where the position then was quite ‘collaborative’ – read bits from the statement especially the bit about the MRC providing council with an annual update. ‘Well I think we just got our update!’  ….’2.8 million dollars says that training is there to stay and that’s not good enough for the people of Glen Eira’. The money spent on the training track is ‘one million more than they managed to scrape together’ for the centre and that in their media release they ‘use a comparison to sporting grounds’ explaining to people ‘just how big this bloody track is’…’65 tennis courts they say….(this is their version of) ‘flicking the bird at the people of Glen Eira’.

Getting rid of parking is a necessity ‘because it’s a public park’. She agrees with the position but that’s irrelevant because when passed the resolution becomes ‘our position as councillors’ and ‘this is a position I will uuphold, even though it might be difficult’ (family functions). Said that whomever she speaks with that this will be ‘my position’ whether it’s speaking with local MPs or perhaps attending the fun run and ‘I know this might be difficult for some of my council colleagues’ but they understand that ‘they must uphold this position at every reasonable opportunity’. This puts ‘what the public’s position is’ and isn’t ‘asking for anything that’s unfair’. Saw this as a ‘rebalancing act’ which has been ‘tried in the past’. Mentioned Esakoff being here for 10 years and ‘putting up with these issues’ but with no ‘resolution’. Supports the motion and will support it fully at fun-runs and any liberal functions even though she doubts she’ll get an invite and if she didn’t fully advocate this position that she would have to ‘seriously consider’ her role as a councillor. Asserted that ‘to do her job properly as a councillor’ she’ll use all the ‘political influence I can muster’. Challenged other councillors to ‘do the same’. Said that unless all councillors were willing ‘to advance this position’ that they would not be ‘acting in the best interests’ of those people who elected them.

PILLING: endorsed Magee’s ‘passion’ and acknowledged that the issue ‘has been around for a long time’. Thought that this position was better than previous ones because it’s ‘more defined’ and ‘appropriate’. Said that the issue was a result of both sides of politics not ‘addressing’ the issue and that the new council was committed to this. Removing horse training was a ‘key part’.

LOBO: Spoke about the lack of open space in Glen Eira and that population increase as predicted would put further stress on Glen Eira’s lack of open space. Said that ‘extensive developments’ had occured at the racecourse ‘resulting in the exclusion’ of residents to land that ‘have been legally accessible’ for ages. Said that much of the  2 billion dollars of land is now behind fences and people are excluded. ‘Even Berlin got their wall down 23 years ago’ but the MRC are just continuing to ‘put their walls up’. With high rise and increasing population the need for more open space is crucial. This means that people are turned away from sporting clubs. Called ‘upon the MRC to release the grounds to the rightful owners’. Said he hoped that the new councillor trustees would ‘put up a very passionate fight’. Stated that is the government wanted more people in Glen Eira that they should ‘stop shaking hands’ with the MRC management.

Went on to talk about the money the MRC makes from gambling and how this isn’t shared with the community.

OKOTEL: said it was ‘exciting’ to see council taking the issue on ‘so seriously’. It was ‘wonderful’ to see how ‘committed’ the council is to ‘advocate’ for the position put in the motion and how the views of residents are ‘being considered for the use of the land’. Asked a question about whether the stables are on crown land or freehold. Was told that the Aquinita was on crown land. Hyams said that she might have been thinking about the heritage stables and not Aquinita.

HYAMS: said as a new trustee he wrestled with the question of whether there’s a conflict of interest and ‘came down on the side’ that he doesn’t have a conflict of interest. Reason was that there’s a law about ‘conflicting duties’ which says that if you’re an officer that has a ‘direct interest’ then there’s an ‘indirect interest’. Said that ‘direct interest’ means that there’s a possibility of benefiting the opportunities (in this instance the Trust) ‘would be directly altered’ if decisions were made in a specific way. (Hyams cited the Local Government Act on all this). Said that he ‘would love it’ if circumstances could be altered by their decisions because then the trust would be doing ‘what it was meant to do’. But didn’t think that council taking this decision would have ‘a direct affect’ on the Trust and therefore he didn’t think that he’s got a conflict of interest.

Said that his position on the MRC is different because their job is to ‘promote racing’ and that’s what they’re doing. The ‘scandal’ is that the ‘MRC has been allowed to do this’ as a result of trustees ‘abrogating their duty’. The trust gave control to the MRC and that ‘should no longer’ go on. Said that he’d been ‘invited to speak at the opening’ but wasn’t sure whether ‘after tonight’ the invitation would still be there. Said that ‘there is a park in the middle of the racecourse’ and that’s a ‘good first step’ but that ‘people will expect more’.

Referred to Delahunty saying that this has been ‘going on for a long time’. He then mentioned the Select Committee hearing of 2008 and how council ‘articulated’ their position through Esakoff as Deputy Mayor. Said that that position was ‘very similar’ to this motion and even the Select Committee’s report ‘was very similar’. Said that when Magee asked all councillors to support that Hyams is sure that Magee ‘in no way intended to infer that this was not the position of all councillors’ nor that ‘any of us needed to be persuaded’.

Stated that the existence of racing is ‘accepted’ but that it’s time that ‘other uses had equal acceptance’ and that he wouldn’t have any problem putting this position forward as a trustee. Said that the trustees are an ‘anachronomism’ and would like to see a committee of management and the MRC charged a commercial rate.

MAGEE: started to ‘defend’ the MRC because ‘they do what they’re allowed to do’. The trustees haven’t got any ‘guidance’, ‘rules’ or ‘policies’. The only thing that’s in place is that the public are excluded from meetings, no annualj report, no minutes, etc. Said he asked for documentation on the ‘rules’ and was told by one trustee ‘think I saw a little red book once’! So a ‘2 billion dollar asset being run by a little red book’ that ‘may or may not exist’. Stated that he wanted the Caulfield Cup ‘run there for the next 100 years’ but he also wanted to see the place opened up.

Talked about the land swap and how the role of the trustees was to protect the land and they decided that it was no longer needed and the MRC bought it and last year the Minister ‘announced a 1 billion dollar development on that land’ and that the developer is the MRC. They are now ‘one of the largest commercial developers in Victoria’. Also that the Minister ‘decided that I’m not worthy of being a trustee anymore’ and that it could have ‘something to do with the letter’ he wrote to Baillieu. The MRC is classified as ‘non-profit’ but here they are as a major developer. They own 11 hotels, 3 racecourses, tabarets and are ‘into gambling’….’all we want is some land in the centre of the racecourse which is ours’. Said that at the trustee meetings he argued against the landswap because the trustees ‘were getting nothing’ because ‘the land never came back to the trust. It belongs to the DSE’. Said their, the trustee’s  land is now 8,500 metres smaller and the trustees themselves did this. They did this because there isn’t any documented policy. Wanted to know how the trustees ‘could give this land to the MRC….not knowing that there is conflict of interest’ and how could the 6 MRC members buy the land and then ‘announce a development of 1 billion’ without seeing this conflict of interest. This happened because ‘there are no rules’. The result is that residents are locked out and that whenever something is on they need the land for parking so people are again losing out.

HYAMS PUT THE MOTION. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

PS: THE LEADER VIEW!

Melbourne Racing Club, Black Caviar booted from Caulfield Racecourse Reserve

  • Andrea Kellett
  • March 20, 2013 11:48AM
Black Caviar

Champion mare Black Caviar with strapper Vanessa Bartlett at Caulfield. Picture: Michael Klein Herald Sun

GLEN Eira Council last night sent an explosive message to the Melbourne Racing Club and horse trainers at the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve – move horse training elsewhere.

Caulfield Racecourse is home to world champion mare Black Caviar.

Councillors voted unanimously to adopt a 10-point position statement that commits all councillors to advocating for horse training to be phased out so the Crown land is open for more public use.

Should the reserve be used for different purposes? Have your say below.

The nine-point statement demands massive change, including phasing out all racehorse training.

Other key demands:

  • Equal land for community sport and racetracks;
  • Leases or licences put in place for each of the reserve’s three main uses;
  • Horse training to be phased out;
  • Public use to take precedence over car parking;
  • Commercial rent charged for all commercial activities; and
  • Governance by committee of management.

 

Glen Eira has the smallest amount of public open space of any Melbourne council.

 

March 19, 2013

A (Very) Brief Report

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s)
1 Comment 

Here’s a very brief rundown on tonight’s council meeting. A full report will be forthcoming – we’re just highlighting the decisions. As predicted, and after much huffing and puffing by certain councillors, it was decided:

  • The Special Racecourse Committee is now defunct – unanimous
  • The council ‘position’ on the racecourse is affirmed – unanimous
  • The planning application went through after the motion to refuse was defeated.
  • Plenty of public questions on Ajax footy club, Gardener’s Rd incursion into public open space. As usual, pathetic non-answers to the vast majority!
  • Hyams declared that he does not have a conflict of interest as a Trustee. Tried his usual little Dorothy Dixer to Newton to score a point against the Labor Party but was called on a point of order by Delahunty.
  • Lipshutz was absent but well ‘deputised’ by Pilling!

All in all a fascinating evening of selective memory, chest beating, and playing to the gallery and posterity.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »