Councillor Performance
Archived Posts from this Category
September 15, 2015
More Carnegie Pain – 2364 Sqm Worth!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[4] Comments
September 11, 2015
Financial Review & The MRC
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[16] Comments
Secret plans to develop Caulfield and Sandown race courses
Confidential plans for multi-billion dollar residential, commercial and retail property developments at Caulfield and Sandown race courses are being considered by the Victorian State Government.
The ‘master plans’, which have been commissioned by the Melbourne Racing Club, one of the nation’s most powerful sporting bodies, are expected to involve joint ventures with development and property companies to design, build and run the projects.
But the plans are likely to become another flashpoint between the MRC, state government and some councils about the impact of high density developments on local communities and public amenities.
Sandown Park, about 30 kilometres south-east of Melbourne, is a 112-hectare horse and car racing track located in a major growth and transport hub that is fully-owned by the MRC, a not-for-profit organisation.
The park is in the electorate of Premier Daniel Andrews.
The MRC also owns more than 152,000 square metres of land surrounding the Caulfield Race Track, 13 kilometres south-east of central Melbourne, in addition to leased stable and training areas within the race course.
It is already undertaking a controversial $1 billion development opposite the entrance to the racecourse and close to a railway station that has been rezoned from a car park to 1200 apartments, 10,000 square metres of office space and 15,000 square metres of retail space.
“We are aiming to develop a plan for land-use, upgrades and development for the next 15-20 years,” said Josh Blanksby, general manager of the MRC, about the redevelopment plans.
Mr Blanksby said the racing club was looking at the “best ways to utilise its strong assets”, which in addition to hosting meetings was expanding into other forms of entertainment, gaming and property development.
He said no decision has been made.
State government officials have been briefed about the proposals devised by Hassall, a global consultancy and architecture group.
But the MRC, which leases the Crown Land occupied by Caulfield Race Course, is under fire from the local Glen Eira Council and landlord, Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, for failing to consult.
“It is totally inappropriate that the tenant is proposing a master plan for what is probably one of the biggest development sites of prime inner-Melbourne land,” said Jim Magee, a former racecourse trustee and current mayor of Glen Eira, the local council for the area surrounding the course.
Mr Blanksby said the council was approached but declined to comment.
The trust, which is chaired by Greg Sword, former national president of the Australian Labor Party, has launched a separate ‘master plan’ into the use of the 54-hectare site that is legally meant to be divided between public recreation, a public park and the racecourse.
“The balance is a little skewed,” Mr Sword told a local community last week about the MRC’s influence over the use of the site.
The business of running racing clubs has been rapidly evolving in recent years from hosting race days into a multi-billion entertainment, gaming, land development and hotel business.
In the past four years MRC’s revenues from course admissions have remained static around $1.5 million as gaming revenue more than doubled to $34 million and telecasting rights rose 20 per cent to more than $9 million.
Victoria’s Attorney-General and Racing Minister Martin Pakula is among those reviewing the plans. Developments involving Caulfield Racecourse will also need the approval of the board of trustees, which has six council appointed members, six MRC members and three independents.
It is 12 months this week since the state’s auditor-general recommended full disclosure of the MRC’s benefits from the course, criticised the state government’s oversight and recommended improved disclosure of finances, performance and management of ‘perceived conflicts of interest’ in the course’s management.
Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/secret-plans-to-develop-caulfield-and-sandown-race-courses-20150911-gjkcac#ixzz3lQ9uUhtG
September 9, 2015
Another Clayton’s ‘Consultation’?
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[12] Comments
About 50 to 60 people showed up for the Caulfield Racecourse Trustee Community Consultation evening. In short, it was a total farce and far from being the open and ‘progressive’ change that many residents hoped for. Here’s why –
- The Melbourne Racing Club has already completed their own Master Plan for the racecourse and it is now sitting on the Minister’s desk, waiting for his rubber stamp. Hence, as Greg Sword later admitted, the Trustee’s version of a Land Management Plan may be a waste of time and money if the MRC trustees happen not to endorse it – or presumably, if the Minister decides to accept the MRC version.
- After originally deciding not to split the audience into groups for the butcher paper exercise so common to trendy ‘consultations’, and to allow questions, it was decided on a straw vote, and after some ‘uncomfortable’ queries, to split into groups – with a fair amount of public disagreement. There was however a compromise of a ten minute Q and A with far from satisfactory answers. For example: Mr Patrick in his opening slides had stated that it ‘was a given’ that the fences and training would remain but later stated he would ‘consult’ with the MRC on these matters!
- Most disappointing was that all questions of governance, risk management were deemed as ‘irrelevant’ to the evening. Hardly, we say since the Auditor General’s report specified these issues as central to determining the future of public use of the racecourse land.
- Readers will also be interested to know that the Trustee decision to award the contract to Patricks was not done via a formal meeting, but via email – hence no need for minutes, and transparency! We must also assume that Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff were also privy to these emails but not a peep out of any of them!
Greg Sword’s final comments are of great concern. He several times stated that the Trustees basically have no control over the MRC. It would seem that the Auditor General has different ideas about the role and function of the Trustees, who are charged with the management of the reserve. The department has oversight of the trustees. Here are some extracts from the Auditor General’s report that clearly show the role of the trustees –
sections 17B and 17D (of the Crown Land Reserves Act) provide the trustees, with the approval of the minister, with the power to grant licences/leases, enter into tenancy arrangements, and to reach agreement to operate services and facilities
The Crown grant, clause 21, states ‘that no improvements shall be effected on the site by the said Club without first obtaining the approval of the trustees’. However, there is no documentary evidence that certain works undertaken in recent years were approved by the trustees
Section 13 of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 provides the trustees with the power to make regulations for the care, protection and management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve with the approval of the Governor in Council. The Crown grant also allows trustees to create regulations over the reserve.
Finally, we reiterate, that if the Trustees were really that keen to receive input from the COMMUNITY, then why was it only sports clubs (via council), schools, and aged care facilities who were ‘invited’ to attend? Surely a decent advertisement in the Leader would not have gone astray? And since council is spruiking for the Trustees via their letters to sporting groups, it also would not have been amiss for council to place an announcement on their website – especially when council can write to sporting groups and state-
Caulfield Racecourse is Crown Land reserved for recreation and is the only significant opportunity to provide more sports grounds in Glen Eira. It is assumed that any Club which intends to seek any increase in ground allocations at any time in the future will take part. A few years ago Council produced a concept plan of how sports grounds could be established on the Crown Land in the centre of the racecourse. The concept plan appears on page 10 of Council’s ‘Community Sport – Management of Grounds Policy’. The page is attached for your convenience.
Sadly both Council and the Trustees would appear to have a very limited definition of ‘community’.
September 9, 2015
The ‘How To Fob Off Residents Handbook’!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[4] Comments
A resident wrote to all councillors complaining about the lack of adequate parking in the Carnegie shopping centre. Issues highlighted were:
- Use of car parking spots by tradies and developers thereby reducing those areas available for shoppers
- Increase in restaurants thus bringing in more people and more cars
- Traders’ concerns about lack of sufficient clientele parking which is therefore impacting on their businesses.
Council, via Mayor Magee, provided the following response. Please note carefully:
- The ‘solution’ that shoppers should resort to walking, cycling, and car sharing! Too bad about all the elderly who are unable to walk, cycle, or car share!
- The woeful self promotion instead of responding directly to the resident’s claims
- The failure of councillors to initiate any positive action and their abysmal willingness to sign any crap that is put under their noses!
Some other considerations:
- How many parking fines have been issued to developers in this area?
- When was the last time a ‘traffic survey’ was undertaken and why, oh why, is it ‘traders’ responsibility to work out ‘solutions’?
- When was the last time any decent statistics were published by council on parking in general?
- Why, when the planning scheme states that property will be bought and turned into car parks council has failed to purchase one single property. Rather they have granted council car parking land to developers in exchange for a toilet which is still not there (ie Centre Road, East Bentleigh)!
- Readers should also note how this response typifies the modus operandi of this Council – how to fob off residents with what can only be described as total and insulting nonsense.
September 7, 2015
And The Winner Is? – Ormond!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[11] Comments
Announcing Plan Melbourne, Mr Guy promised 50 per cent of suburbs would be protected from development. Glen Eira got much more. Nearly 80 per cent of the city, which includes Bentleigh, McKinnon, Ormond, Elsternwick and Carnegie, would be protected from apartment and unit-style development, Ms Crozier declared, setting an ”enormously positive example for other councils to follow.
Source: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/not-all-going-to-plan-in-tale-of-two-cities-20140628-3b0pj.html#ixzz3kxUMrkZ0 (June 29th, 2014)
So much for the spin, the propaganda, and the misinformation. We certainly take issue with the 80% of Glen Eira as ‘protected’. But even more offensive is the claim that ‘Bentleigh, McKinnon, Ormond, Elsternwick and Carnegie’ would not suffer from ‘apartment and unit-style development’. The reality is that huge swathes of these suburbs are now geared towards facilitating 3, 4 and even higher storey developments – and it’s all thanks to the new residential zones and council’s woeful record in strategic planning.
Ormond, in particular, is testimony to the falsity of the above claims. The suburb is barely 2 square km in its entirety. Exclude those areas designated as ‘parkland’ or public utilily zones, then the area available for development shrinks to about 1.83 square km. Then there’s another 25 or so hectares zoned Heritage, but this hasn’t stopped council from giving the green light to development by zoning large parts of such areas as GRZ1. In addition, large sections of these areas are also under a Special Building Overlay because of flooding concerns. What all this means is that in Ormond, just under 42% of the suburb is zoned as appropriate for 3 storey dwellings. Another 8% of land is zoned either C1Z or MUZ with no height limits at all. That makes Ormond the most potentially overdeveloped suburb in Glen Eira with over 50% of its land designated for 3 storeys or higher.
Readers also need to remember that Ormond is NOT an Urban Village. It is a Neighbourhood Centre, where there is supposed to be less development. How that is possible with such zoning beggars belief. But this is planning in Glen Eira – inept, pro-development, and with no thought as to the long term impact on people’s lives. When over 50% of a suburb (which is not a major activity centre) is geared towards high density development, then there’s something drastically wrong with planners, and the councillors who allowed this to happen.
Here are the figures upon which the above calculations have been derived –
C1Z – 54,329 sqm
GRZ1 – 745,837 (THE LARGEST GRZ1 AREA IN GLEN EIRA)
GRZ2 – 21,182
MUZ – 10,113
RDZ – 97,740
September 4, 2015
Bayside Versus Glen Eira & The Development Industry
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[5] Comments
Bayside City Council is attempting to protect and preserve its existing neighbourhood character via draft Amendment C140 which is now out for consultation. In short, the amendment proposes to:
- Limit subdivision to sites that are over 800 square metres thus creating a default subdivision size of 400 sqm per unit. In Glen Eira, there is no minimum subdivision size and permits have been granted for subdivisions of under 200 square metres.
- Increase permeability to 35%. In Glen Eira it is 25%
- Increase open space requirements to 75 square metres. Glen Eira has 60 square metres.
Add on the number of Design & Development Overlays that exist in Bayside, an updated Housing Strategy, plus tree protection clauses, and Bayside is streaks ahead of Glen Eira in strategic planning. Of course, this proposed amendment does not sit well with the development industry, real estate agents, and others.
Thus we have this publicity campaign by Takle Developments – who also happen to have an office in Centre Road. Clearly such a campaign is largely unnecessary in Glen Eira, since this council has bent over backwards to facilitate development via its inaction and sub-standard strategic planning.
September 3, 2015
Ironies & Magee
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Planning, Miscellaneous[11] Comments
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (IMPROVED GOVERNANCE) BILL 2015
Introduction and first reading
Ms HUTCHINS (Minister for Local Government)—I move:
That I have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1989 to improve the governance standards of councils, amend arrangements for local government elections and provide for other matters, to amend the City of Melbourne Act 2001 to repeal part 4A of that act and to consequentially amend the City of Greater Geelong Act 1993, the City of Melbourne Act 2001, the Electoral Act 2002 and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and for other purposes.
Mr CLARK (Box Hill)—I ask the minister to provide a brief explanation of the bill, further to the long title.
Ms HUTCHINS (Minister for Local Government)—This bill will raise the standards of behaviour by councillors and generally improve——
Honourable members interjecting.
The SPEAKER—Order! I remind members to remain silent while the Chair is on his feet. That applies at all times during parliamentary proceedings. I request members to comply with that.
Ms HUTCHINS—The bill will raise standards of behaviour by councillors——
Mr R. Smith interjected.
The SPEAKER—Order! I warn the member for Warrandyte!
Ms HUTCHINS—It will generally improve council governance in Victoria and improve the conduct of the general council elections to be held in 2016.
Motion agreed to.
Read first time.
++++++
SouthernMetropolitan Region
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan)—My constituency question is to the Minister for Education, Mr Merlino. Recent reports have suggested that a local councillor is campaigning for a third secondary school in the Glen Eira area, very close to two existing secondary schools. The land which the Labor mayor of the City of Glen Eira, Cr Jim Magee, is campaigning for the government to acquire in order to build a secondary school is in Virginia Park. Virginia Park is only 500 metres from the existing Bentleigh Secondary College.
The shadow Minister for Education, Nick Wakeling, and I visited Bentleigh Secondary College only last week to meet with the newly appointed principal. Bentleigh Secondary College has an excellent reputation and we were both fortunate enough to meet the dedicated teachers and a number of students. It was confirmed to Mr Wakeling and myself that Bentleigh Secondary College has capacity for further student enrolments. Nearby McKinnon Secondary College also has additional capacity and the principals of both McKinnon and Bentleigh secondary colleges do not think a third secondary school in such close proximity is necessary.
Constituents are confused and concerned about comments from the mayor. Does the government support the campaign by Cr Magee and what is the government’s position on acquiring the land at Virginia Park, as suggested by Cr Magee?
NOTE: no response to this query from Minister Noonan (Minister for Police)
September 1, 2015
Racecourse, Governance & Council
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[6] Comments
The latest announcement on the Caulfield Racecourse raises a myriad of questions:
- If the MRC is so very committed to comprehensive ‘public consultation’ then why is there no widespread advertising of this? A tiny paragraph was all that was in today’s Caulfield Leader and there is nothing up on Council’s website. In the past, Council has notified readers of Trustee Meetings. This time – nothing!
- The announcement states that the Trustees have appointed Patrick Pty Ltd. Thus, has there been a Trustee meeting to ratify this appointment? If so, where are the minutes?
- Was this appointment tendered?
- What are Patrick’s terms of reference? Who determined these?
- Who is paying John Patrick – the MRC, or the Trustees? How much are they paying?
- Is it sheer coincidence that the consultant just happens to be the same consultant who has worked extensively for Glen Eira City Council? (ie Caulfield Park pavilion, Centenary Park pavilion, Booran Road Reservoir, etc)
- What role, if any, will council have in the final decision making? Does a Land Management Plan require formal council approval as any development application might?
- Exactly what does “inner landscape portion” mean? And what is the SIZE of this ‘inner’ section? Does it assume the current size, where fences have persisted in their relentless encroachment onto public land?
- Will the mushrooming fences in the centre now be removed?
- Is the removal of training now a forgotten item?
- Is the creation of sporting fields in the centre dead and buried? Was it ever feasible and likely? Will we see one token soccer pitch and that’s it?
- What does ‘Strategic Land Management Plan’, really mean? Are we talking buildings? Does this cover freehold as well as crown land?
- Is it the MRC’s intent to finally ‘solve’ the ‘park issue’ at the top of Glen Eira Road by turning it into a multi level car park? Will this ‘plan’ indicate this?
- Is Monash Uni and Stonnington involved in this plan? If not, why not, given the intensity of proposed residential development in the area?
A year has now passed since the Auditor General delivered his report. The creation of the Land Management Plan was one of his recommendations. What of the others? What is happening regarding:
- Lease negotiations
- Governance
- Resolving conflicts of interest
- Regular Trustee meetings that adhere to governance practices
- Why has no parliamentarian (apart from Sue Pennicuik) raised these issues in parliament?
- Why have our council representatives also been silent?
- Given the failure to implement the vast majority of the Auditor General’s recommendations, why has the Minister not dissolved the trustees and appointed a Committee of Management?
- Why has the Department continually rubber stamped the MRC applications in agreeing to a 4 storey screen on crown land, a cinema and now 31 antennaes that will be over 15 metres high but deemed as not ‘visually obtrusive’?
- And why oh why have our councillor reps (Lipshutz, Hyams & Esakoff) been utterly silent on what is going on when it is council, on behalf of the MRC and John Patrick, who emailed sporting groups about the ‘consultation’. If Council knows and is acting as the ‘middle man’, then why haven’t our illustrious reps spoken out and informed their constituents of what they know. A fair question might also be – have they even bothered to inform their fellow councillors? Do all councillors know what is going on with the ‘consultation’ and council’s role?
- All of which leads to the even broader question of what proportion of resident and sporting group ‘suggestions’ will be taken up by the MRC? And what recourse do residents have if the hired help (Patrick) comes up with a ‘design’ that continues to exclude and ignore the ‘public park’ aspect of the racecourse but continues to allow the MRC to reap millions from Crown land?
August 31, 2015
Tightening The Leash
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance[6] Comments
August 28, 2015
The Battle For Total Control?
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance[5] Comments
Why is everything made so impossibly difficult to achieve in Glen Eira? Why is this administration so obstructionist and so determined to scuttle any councillor or resident suggestion? Why does no councillor take this administration to task and refuse to accept skewed, inaccurate and/or substandard officer reports?
The latest agenda is typical. In response to a Request for A Report on ‘Public parks & private memorials’ we have a total of two pages plus a draft ‘policy’. The wording of the Request for a Report as presented in this latest version is:
- That Council draft a policy to provide for individuals, corporations and unincorporated bodies to donate park furniture.
- The Policy must address and provide for the following:
2.1 That any park furniture be supplied by the Council;
2.2 Whether the Donor can nominate the park and where in the park the furniture is to be situated;
2.3 That notwithstanding 2.2 above, the Council be the final arbiter of where in the park the furniture is to be situate;
2.4 The size and type of plaque to be affixed to the donated park furniture;
2.5 Whether Council may re-site donated park furniture
2.6 What is to occur in relation to the plaque in the event that the donated park furniture is damaged, destroyed or permanently removed;
2.7 The period of time that the plaque shall remain;
2.8 The right of the Council to reject donations
2.9 Any Administration fee;
2.10 Any other matter Officers consider appropriate.
- The Policy must be presented by the last Council Meeting in June.
First off, it is now the end of August and not June! The ‘escape clause’ for not meeting the time line set by the resolution is this gem: A paper was considered at the Assembly of Councillors on 7 July 2015. We note that discussion on this issue was only recorded in that Records of Assembly meeting. Hence, not only was the resolution ignored, delayed, but it specifically noted the requirement for tabling at an open council meeting – not the behind the scenes secrecy of an assembly meeting! Further, in March 2015 another resolution had been passed asking that a policy be drawn up. Thus, an issue which is so minor has taken up countless hours of ‘discussion’, officer time, and verbal diarrhea in council meetings.
Readers should also note that ‘park furniture’ has now been reduced to simply ‘park benches’ and nothing else. Not what the councillors’ request for a report stated. ‘Park furniture’ is surely more than a mere ‘bench’.
The barely two page ANONYMOUS report is as always, short on facts and figures, short on substantiated argument, and big on scare mongering. There has not even been the attempt to cut and paste from the equally skewed report of March 2015. Here is an example: –
If the Draft is implemented, it is foreseeable that it may be the basis for disputation including over, cost, placement, wording etc. It may detract from the implementation of the Open Space Strategy.
How amazing that countless other councils throughout the state do not adhere to this fear. Some examples:
Port Phillip –
This Policy applies to structures, public open space, memorials, urban art, plaques, named civic buildings or rooms and other entities, where the naming is intended to commemorate a person, organisation or event.
http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/default/o29962.pdf
Moorabool
Memorial – Park furniture (i.e. park bench, seat or picnic setting), garden, art works, artefacts, tree, stone/rock or etched paving designed to preserve the memory of a person or group. This may also include memorials in the interior of buildings i.e. Halls. Memorials may also include donations to build facilities (i.e. clubrooms) as a memorial to a community member. (http://www.moorabool.vic.gov.au/CA257489001FD37D/Lookup/policies2015/$file/Memorials%20Policy%20jan15.pdf
Melbourne City council – https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ParksandActivities/Parks/Documents/policies_plaques_memorials.pdf
There are many more that we could have cited such as Bayside, Greater Dandenong and Hobson’s Bay. What is undeniable, is that the siege mentality of this administration means that any perceived threat to its unilateral control and power must be opposed – despite formal council resolutions. Note – that by demanding the drafting of a policy (not once, but twice), it is implicit, that Council should accept donations for ‘park furniture’ and ‘memorials’. The anonymous author’s recommendation to reject the policy as an option is thus entirely inappropriate.
Glen Eira Debates 