GE Consultation/Communication

Archived Posts from this Category

November 11, 2011

A State First?

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

It looks like Glen Eira residents are taking the matter of the CEO appointment process into their own hands. A petition (to be tabled at the 22^nd November meeting), calls upon councillors to advertise the position prior to any appointment. The relevant wording of the petition is:

“This petition of certain residents of the City of Glen Eira draws to the attention of the Council the firm conviction that that in order to ensure that the best possible candidate is selected for the position of Chief Executive Officer of Glen Eira, councillors should “test the waters” by advertising the position. Your petitioners therefore pray and demand that the position of CEO is advertised widely”.

In support of this action we’ve uploaded the petition form and ask those readers interested in either signing or helping out to:

Print off the requisite form
Get your friends, neighbours, and others who agree with the proposition to sign, and
Forward completed forms to: PO.BOX 322, ELSTERNWICK. 3185.

Please note that signed sheets need to be completed by next Thursday in order to be collated and then submitted to Council for the 22nd November.

November 9, 2011

Thank God For The Cleaners!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[6] Comments

History does repeat itself, but this is definitely becoming an all-time farce. The front doors leading to council chambers were again locked last night. The side doors from the car park were also locked. Only the acute hearing of a cleaner prevented a total lock out.

As per usual, the meeting last approximately 3 minutes. A little stumble by Lipshutz over accepting the previous minutes, and then the big one – motion to move in camera. Moved Lipshutz and seconded (surprise? surprise?) by Lobo.

October 25, 2011

Annual Report: Fact Or Fiction?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments

From Officer’s Report for tonight’s Special Council Meeting –

Public open space

We increased public open space by purchasing two properties for $1.92 million to enlarge Packer Park, Carnegie. We also decided to return the former Packer Park bowls green to public open space and consulted the community on the landscaping to be provided. We reached agreement with the Melbourne Racing Club for greater public use of the centre of Caulfield Racecourse, including a playground and picnic area, dog off-leash area and junior soccer pitch.

Responsiveness

We achieved an approval rate of 86 per cent in the independent survey of community satisfaction, including first in the state for interaction and responsiveness in dealing with the public. We conducted a public review of the Planning Scheme and are implementing improvements including the transition between housing diversity areas and minimal change areas.

Our staff members

We continued to invest in development, leadership and wellbeing programs for our staff members. Fifty staff members were recognised for their performance against our values — Teamwork, Initiative, Leadership, Customer Service and Respect. Staff turnover remained low at 8.87 per cent.

October 18, 2011

Censorship In The Guise Of ‘Harassment’

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[21] Comments

Last Council Meeting saw one public question declared inappropriate on the grounds of ‘harassment’. We’ve just received a copy of this question. It asked:

“1. The last REC meeting determined that the situation with unauthorised sporting groups and in particular the Frisbee group would be monitored. Under this monitoring regime: (a) were any further breaches of the Local Law observed? Was any action taken as a result? (b) will council publish its findings on this continued monitoring?

2. Does any frisbee group have a current ground allocation?”

That such a question could in any shape or form be considered ‘harassment’ is beyond belief. It is every resident’s right to ask about the outcomes resulting from a council resolution. The Recreation Advisory committee recommended further ‘monitoring’ of the situation. This was accepted by Council. It is now nearly two years that constant ‘monitoring’ is in progress. We assume that such monitoring has taken up officers’ time (and hence part of our rates) and therefore it is in the public interest for any outcomes to be reported back to those who pay for such activities. Residents would like to know what ‘progress’ has been made on the issue and whether the Frisbee group that has continually flouted Local Law 326, (and which has lead to accusations of ‘conflict of interest by Lipshutz and Tang) has in fact applied and gained a ground allocation. To label such a question as harassment again reveals:

the failure of this council to be transparent and upfront about costs, policies, and treating all groups and individuals equally and impartially
the attempt to avoid scrutiny
the attempt to cover up an issue which has been in the spotlight for far too long and remains unresolved
the continued recourse to highly questionable interpretations of meeting procedures
the failure to be accountable and transparent

We challenge this council to finally come clean and to provide an explanation to residents as to why

this question was deemed to be harassment
and why the public should not simply assume that the refusal to answer this question implies that council processes and ‘laws’ are used as tools of convenience whenever uncomfortable questions are asked.

Finally, the central question is: who determined this was ‘harassment’? Esakoff, or did she merely do the bidding of Lipshutz, Hyams and Tang? How many more times will this ruse of ‘harassment’ be used to deflect residents’ questions and maintain the veil of secrecy over so much that goes on in this council?

October 10, 2011

Caulfield Park Conservatory

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments

Neil Pilling has highlighted another important item on Tuesday night’s agenda (9.3) – the call for Expressions of Interest to convert the conservatory at Caulfield Park into an 80 seat café/restaurant. We applaud Cr. Pilling for his stance that instead of wasting more money on such EOI processes, the funds would be better spent on actually fixing and conserving the building!

The current state of the conservatory requires full investigation and answers to these questions:

Why has this important historical building been allowed to deteriorate to the extent that it has? Why have priorities been given to ‘concrete plinthing’ ahead of preservation?
How many more times will the old and spurious argument that something will cost too much to renovate/develop/preserve, so let’s get rid of it, be used to justify a pre-planned agenda – ie. swimming pools, maternal centres, libraries, etc. etc.?
Why is ‘consultation’ following the call for ‘expressions of interest’ and not the other way around? Previous ‘consultation’ (ie survey) is now obsolete, skewed, and irrelevant – especially since no real proposal was featured in this ‘survey’.
How does this support the already existing businesses in the area?
What environmental and social impact will this have on the park and its surrounds?
How much open space will be lost?
Can the area accommodate more parking?
What happens if there are no bona fide EOIs? Will council allow this site to simply perish?

October 7, 2011

More Hide & Seek!!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments

An alarming new trend in Council decision making has become increasingly obvious over the past few months. Major issues are suddenly not being handled by full council but are introduced, discussed, and deliberated upon through the secret and unaccountable advisory committees! Even worse, is that Officer’s reports presented to these committees never see the light of day! Apart from the Environment Committee, none have external representation, agendas aren’t published beforehand, and the public are definitely not invited. This is again highlighted in the agenda for Tuesday night’s council meeting.

It strikes us as strange that important Planning Scheme matters such as ‘impervious surfaces’, ‘Open space strategy’, ‘Environmentally Sound Design’ should be relegated to the Environment Committee alone and not full council so that proper debate, motions, resolutions and most importantly, officers’ reports are available for public scrutiny. We present the following
extracts from the Environment Committee ‘minutes’ and direct readers attention to:

Reports are to come back to the Committee, not council
Presentations are to the Committee alone. Why not to the public as well?
Note the failure to (include the) answer CL’s query on C60!
Note the dampeners always seem to come from Officers!

We do however acknowledge the efforts made by Cr. Pilling in relation to these issues!

“Open Space Strategy

Cr Pilling noted that Council had endorsed the Committee recommendation to consider a report on this matter.

CL (resident) sought information on population growth and enquired if the impact of the proposed Caulfield development had
been considered.

Action: Officers will enquire as to progress on preparing the report with the relevant Director and advise the Committee. Officers will provide the Committee with Glen Eira’s latest population projections.

9.0 Sustainable Design in Planning Process

Cr Pilling suggested that a broader approach is needed to be in step with surrounding Councils who have already implemented some form of voluntary ESD requirements in their planning processes.

RR (resident) circulated a separate report on the matter.

The Chair acknowledged the challenges of using what is currently a voluntary scheme noting that having adequate provisions in the state policy section of the Planning Scheme would be far more effective as it would be enforceable.

DAF (Peter Waite: officer) noted there had historically been some concern in the community over councils using the planning application process to introduce matters outside of the scope of the Planning Scheme.

JG (resident) stated that the introduction of a voluntary scheme would provide relevant information to developers which may not be readily available and developers could promote the ESD benefits at the point of sale.

Cr Pilling felt that as most neighbouring councils where using STEPs, Council should also.

Councillors carried unanimously the following recommendation to Council (moved by Cr Pilling, seconded by Cr Tang)

Action: Officers will invite a representative from a council that has recently introduced ESD controls (within last five years e.g. Boroondara, Bayside) to address the Committee at the next meeting. Officers will seek to provide further information to the next meeting about the effectiveness of voluntary ESD schemes at other
councils.

COMMUNITY PLAN & ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY

This is another example where major decisions have primarily been channelled through a committee. Residents have not seen any of the public submissions, nor the rationale for the selection of community reps on the Steering Committee. Worse still is the proposed timeline and terms of reference for this latter committee. No mention of voting rights, community reps outnumbered by councillors, and inexplicably, the committee will CEASE IN FEBRUARY 2012 (unless reinvigorated by council) when the overall consultation proposals are still ongoing – especially the first draft, review, and dissemination. Further, there is no plan to include community reps on the Consultation Committee!

The terms of reference for both are:

“Community Consultation Committee Terms of Reference

Role of the Committee

The role and function of the Advisory Committee is to act as a steering committee to assist Council by providing recommendations in relation to reviewing, improving and broadening the ways Council consults with all residents, ratepayers and other stakeholders to ensure maximum participation, communication and value to the community.

Membership

Council will appoint members on an annual basis. The Advisory Committee will comprise:

Four Councillors
(including Chairperson)

Mayor – ex-officio

Meetings

Meetings shall be held at least four times annually.

Reporting

Advisory Committee recommendations will be submitted to the next appropriate Ordinary Council Meeting for determination.

Community Plan Steering Committee

A steering committee shall be established to oversee the development of a new Community Plan consisting of the Community Consultation Committee and representation of up to three external members.

Sunset Clause

Unless extended by Council Resolution, this advisory committee shall cease to exist on 28 February 2012.”

Last but not least, there is the NON APPEARANCE of the minutes of the Special Committee regarding CEO reappointment. For a 3 minute meeting, it shouldn’t take this long to put up some palty minutes! But even stranger is the fact that the entire AGENDA for this meeting has now disappeared from the Council website. It seems that this no longer exists!

September 27, 2011

Public Questions & Non-Answers

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

The minutes from last Council Meeting have finally made an appearance. Two questions were asked in relation to the initially proposed pedestrian ‘refuge’ in Alma Rd. We find these queries particularly informative – especially when they are compared to the announcement in the September Glen Eira News which stated:

“Alma Road, Caulfield

pedestrian refuge

Council sought submissions regarding a proposed pedestrian refuge in Alma Road, Caulfield North.The pedestrian refuge is planned to be installed just east of Wilks Street and is designed to facilitate walking and improve pedestrian safety in line with Council’s Towards Sustainable Transport 2011–2014 Strategy”.

The ensuing public questions were –

Subject: Pedestrian refuge in Alma Road

“What, if any is the justification for Councils proposal to put a pedestrian refuge in Alma Road Caulfield North? What if any investigations have been made with regard to the need for such a pedestrian refuge in the suggested position?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. She said: “Following public consultation Council’s Transport Planning department has decided not to proceed with this pedestrian refuge at this stage.”

Subject: Pedestrian refuge in Alma Road

“How does council justify spending money on an unnecessary pedestrian refuge in Alma Road North Caulfield? What if any evidence does Council have of any danger posed to pedesrian traffic which might outweigh the justification of denying residents adequate access to their homes? What evdience does council have to justify the comment that there is no demand for parking in the area? How does council justify written promises made to residents that parking in the area would not be affected by the addition of new bicycle lanes and then 6 weeks later write to resident with a completely opposite proposal? How does Council justify the inconsistancies in the implimentation of its own Glen Eira Road safety strategy?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. She said: “Following public consultation Council’s Transport Planning department has decided not to proceed with this pedestrian refuge at this stage”.

COMMENTS:

Residents reading the Glen Eira News could be forgiven for thinking that the refuge installation was a fait accompli.
Second question on ‘evidence/research/statistics’ remains typically unanswered
Residents are no clearer as to WHY Alma Rd was first chosen, and now, why it has been disgarded.

September 24, 2011

Councils & Secrecy

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[5] Comments

Secret agenda riles ex-lord mayor

Craig Cobbin

September 24, 2011

Melbourne City Council is making too many decisions without the glare of public scrutiny, according to a former lord mayor.

The agenda for next Tuesday’s council meeting lists seven items for discussion as ”confidential” with only one item disclosed to the public.

Former lord mayor Kevin Chamberlin said the council, in charge of an annual budget worth hundreds of millions of dollars, was operating too much in secrecy.
‘When you look at a council meeting agenda you get the distinct impression the real business is done behind closed doors,” Mr Chamberlin said.

The closed shop at Tuesday’s council meeting comes after The Age reported in May the lord mayor was conducting ”councillor-only meetings” that did not require minutes to be taken or councillors to declare a conflict of interest because no council staff were present.

Cr Carl Jetter, who said he represented business interests in the council, said it was a long-standing convention for the past three to four terms to have more internal discussions on operations.

”It’s not for the public or ratepayers to know,” Cr Jetter said.

But lord mayor Robert Doyle said the council was more transparent than State Parliament – despite debates in Parliament being open to the public.

”Tuesday’s meeting agenda with so many confidential items is unusual,” Cr Doyle said.

”All nine councillors, regardless of how long they have been a councillor, are free to bring up discussions to question the confidential nature of matters.”

City of Melbourne chief executive Dr Kathy Alexander said in a prepared statement: ”The City of Melbourne understands the importance of being open and transparent with its ratepayers, however there are some specific matters as outlined in the Local Government Act that cannot be discussed in open council.”

August 24, 2011

Where To From Here?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

Cr. Hyams’ reference to the Leader pre-election blurbs by the various candidates has been the catalyst for this post. Just over a year out from the next election, we thought it would be opportune to consider where we’ve come from, what’s been achieved, and what still needs doing.

The rhetoric that we continually hear is that councillors run the show and that administrators administer. Reading the promises below, a total rethink on this proposition is in order. Nearly every councillor opposed ‘inappropriate development’; nearly every councillor promised better consultation; nearly every councillor thought that carbon reduction was important as was keeping rates ‘reined in’. Three years down the track and very, very few of these promises have materialised into concrete achievements. So what’s gone wrong? Why can’t councillors deliver on their promises – especially since they’re supposed to be in control? Have we simply elected the wrong people? Why have many of these initial worthwhile promises simply bitten the dust? What is the reason for the failure of vision, the failure of real initiative, and the failure to fully engage and represent the wishes of the community? All your views are welcomed!

Councillors’ comments (including those from our ‘dearly departed’) are cited below from the Leader (November, 2008)

TANG: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Environmental, financial and social sustainability. We need to invest in community assets and community building whilst minimising our environmental impact. This can be achieved while keeping our rates below peer councils.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

I can deliver record investment in community infrastructure such as roads, footpaths, drains and buildings. Top of the list is the Duncan MacKinnon Pavilion and Booran Rd Reservoir Park.

ESAKOFF: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Having a responsive, service-oriented, financially and environmentally responsible Council that governs well and fully consults the community to make the best possible decisions for the people of Glen Eira.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

Making Glen Eira even more liveable by keeping rates low, retaining the pensioner rebate, improving services, facilities, safety, shopping strips and open space, whilst protecting our environment and residential amenity.

PILLING: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Genuine community consultation. We need to build a better council that genuinely listens and acts on what the community needs. I will conduct quarterly open focus forums to discuss concerns and issues.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

Our present council doesn’t take climate change seriously! I will advocate strongly for Glen Eira Council to become carbon neutral by 2018 with a 40% reduction in carbon pollution by 2012.

PENHALLURIACK: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Gaining a financial and recreational benefit from the Caulfield Racecourse Crown Land, which is a jewel hidden behind a gulag-style fence and used for only 20 race meetings a year.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

My experience as the owner of Penhalluriack’s Building Supplies will enable me to bring local knowledge and business efficiencies to council, thereby enabling lower rates and better services and facilities.

FORGE: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

Develop Caulfield Racecourse into a world standard sporting and recreational complex; reform State planning rules in the best interest of ratepayers; and make greater progress of greening our city with canopy trees.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

I attended over 90 per cent of Glen Eira Council meetings in past three years, so am well aware of how I can contribute. I am a skilful negotiator and have experience lobbying.

WHITESIDE: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

My priority issue during the past three years in council has been and remains town planning, particularly inappropriate development, protection of heritage properties and streetscapes, especially at boundaries of minimal change areas.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

I am committed to good governance and to a council that listens to people. I believe that the high standard of governance can be continued in Glen Eira with my influence.

LIPSHUTZ: What do you see as the most important issue in Glen Eira?

We must have balanced development but at the same time preserve streetscape and period homes. Additionally rate increases must be contained, Glen Eira must be a leader in environmental matters.
What is one thing you think you can achieve if elected to council?

I can assure voters that responsible and decisive governance will continue. Rates will be reigned in and Glen Eira will become a much greener municipality. Planning will be reviewed.

HYAMS: Why should the electorate vote for you?

Council is about community, and helping residents and ratepayers. As President of the Moorabbin Historical Society, Vice President of Glen Eira Community Associations, local Bendigo Community Bank committee member and until earlier this year cricket club president and Neighbourhood Watch Area Secretary, and as a former councillor, I have a strong history of community involvement. I will work for low rates and a high pensioner rebate, improved community and sporting facilities, better support for sporting and other clubs, improved services for families and the aged, better community consultation, improved safety and better representation to State Government. I will strongly oppose over-development.

STAIKOS: Why should the electorate vote for you?

As a Tucker Ward councillor for the last three years, I have worked to ensure that Bentleigh and East Bentleigh are not forgotten. Some positive outcomes for our local community include the redevelopment of the East Bentleigh Pool, keeping the McKinnon Maternal and Child Health Centre open as well as expanding services at the Bentleigh Centre, committing to the rebuild
of the Centenary Park Pavilion and ensuring that the Home and Community Care Service is as efficient as possible. Looking forward, I want to ensure that Council opposes inappropriate development, establishes a child care centre in East Bentleigh, reduces carbon emissions and fights graffiti.

MAGEE: Why should the electorate vote for you?

I have lived in East Bentleigh with my wife Claire and two children since 1988. I have watched our area grow year by year. The number of double, even triple, dwellings on single blocks has started to change the very look and feel of Tucker Ward. The pressure for places at our kindergartens, child and maternal health centres and schools shows how popular this area is. We need our parks and playgrounds to be safe, our streets well lit and footpaths in good order. I am committed to the redevelopment of the East Bentleigh Pool.

LOBO: Why should the electorate vote for you?

As a Justice of the Peace for Victoria, I believe I am community spirited. By the nature of my professional background I am result oriented. My commitment to the residents of Bentleigh, East Bentleigh and McKinnon is to give our suburbs a strong voice on the council and put community safety and welfare before council’s surplus. I will oppose inappropriate developments; ensure that senior citizens are properly supported; support parents with young children and give young people opportunities to express their creativity in positive ways. A vote for me is a vote for someone who cares with heart and mind.

August 23, 2011

MRC Planning Conference: Part 2

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

SPEAKER #8: stated that he was present to learn and this was an issue that he felt the community should be ‘very concerned’ about.
SPEAKER #9 – stated that this meeting is like the first meeting over the Caulfield Park pavilion, ‘when we had some technical matters only that we could discuss’ ….(what been determined here as discussion points is) ‘compliance of the toilet block and the carpark’. So if that’s the case ‘what is there really to discuss at all?’…..’What is the purpose of having us all here to talk about nonsense?’….’We are very concerned about what goes on in the centre of the racecourse……(unless there’s communication)’ what is the point of meetings like this?. They’re a farce!’ Urged council to get some ‘decent consultation going’ because ‘there seems to be a lack of consultation in all areas of open space’. reminded audience of a comment by John Patrick at the VCAT hearing over the pavilion when Patrick said ‘well, car parks are open space’! ‘Now is this an opinion the council holds generally?…..
Hyams interjected and said that no, council wouldn’t define a car park as open space. Speaker said ‘Well John Patrick did in front of four of us here’.

SPEAKER #10 – asked about the fence and if ‘tangalakis could give us an idea of some of the town planning considerations’ in relation to the fence. Asked if this would impact on amenity of enjoyment and whether this was another ground for consideration of the application.

TANGALAKIS responded that ‘appearance’ is what’s important about the fence. ‘How it looks…..and whether it’s appropriate for a park’. Hyams then said that they could modify the fence as part of their considerations.

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.

SPEAKER #12 – Questioned whether council looked at safety and who (either MRC OR COUNCIL) is ultimately responsible?

TANGALAKIS: ‘SAFETY ISN’T A TOWN PLANNING MATTER’!!!!!!!!! (uproar) repeated ‘Unfortunately safety is not a town planning matter’. Hyams then stated that they would need to get a permit to build the toilets and that’s when safety comes into it. speaker then asked ‘so that’s a separate issue and we have another meeting about it then?”. Answer from Hyams was ‘yes’. Speaker also related that she had rung council this morning seeking information and that since this was a planning application, ‘planning applications are not advertised’. Stated that it’s a really important issue so ‘would you be legally compromised if you put this meeting on your website?’ Hyams talked about putting up notices around the racecourse but speaker exclaimed ‘this affects everybody’ not just people around the racecourse. ‘This is a community issue for 40 square km of Glen Eira’….I couldn’t find out about this meeting I had to ring around’ when there are advertisements for everything else. Brought up C60, subdivision and the centre of the racecourse and ‘no body knows from one meeting to the other ….I am reasonably intelligent; I have followed this issue….completely and utterly confused….and I still am 3 to 4 years later’. (Applause)

SPEAKER #12 – ‘confusion is the name of the game’. Stated that original notices outside racecourse listed 31 Station St so not clear about the centre of the racecourse. Asked people to put up their hands if anyone received a letter from the MRC. Asked to come via the clocktower but dooor was locked. ‘do you realise there is 2km of concretised path to take cars’…..’application to park 1600 cars on event days and there’s no mention of it’. Hyams interrupted saying that this isn’t part of the application!….Speaker responded ‘well it’s on here and I’ve come tonight and this is what I’m going to say’. ‘No mention on original plan….car parking ‘area’. Fence – ‘do people think that we visually want to look at that?’…..’we go to have visual relief….we want to look at green open space….this council doesn’t really understand that’. …’.agree with trainers to improve visibility of the horses….the tenants of the tenants…’. Asked about the lake extension and whether they could have 10 megalitres of dam there since this is ‘another land grab’ since it will increase the size of the current lake. The MRC has also ‘sneaked in….too much roadway’ for ‘maintenance’. ‘That’s another 3 metre wide and probably 400 metres long’ – maybe they can simply drive around the circle?….’we don’t want all those things going through our park. I’ve never heard of such nonsense’. There’s also a description of a light pole ‘how many lightpoles are there going to be?’. ‘I think this needs throwing out and redoing’. With c60 we got a 3 dimension plan. ‘I came to look at this last week and none of this was here – it’s all just being added to every minute’. ‘Give us something to look at, something proper’. No scale anywhere. ‘Redesign this. Get rid of the roads and be honest about how many cars are going to’ be parked in centre. (APPLAUSE)

SPEAKER #13 Noted that he was here last week, banged on the door, ‘jumped in the car’ and raced down to caulfield pavilion. Frstrated that no notice on door that meeting was cancelled.’It’s just courtesy’. Hyams apologised. Speaker said ‘not you, it’s got nothing to do with you it’s administration’. Hyams then said that notices were hand delivered to all objectors. Outcry from audience at this point. Speaker stated he lives near but hasn’t received any of the 431 notices. ‘so somebody’s giving you porkies and be very careful of them’….there is no letters there is nothing’. ‘There’s always secrecy. People aren’t informed at major issues…..I talk to people….when I say come to the meeting they say ‘what for? What the MRC wants, council gives’….’Am I boring you (to Hyams and Tangalakis) I can stop if you like?’ (Hyams no’). Brought up the tetanus issue via a letter from Vic Health website which said that tetanus lives particularly in ‘horse manure’. ‘We have 150 years of horse droppings at that racecourse….tetanus will enter through the smallest break of skin’. The MRC wants tunnel used by people and horses. ‘That is really playing Russian Roulette’…I think you should first get a health clearance on this whole issue before you start building things….have to remove 4 inches of topsoil and put topsoil everywhere….

Audience asked for a response and whether the health issue had been assessed by council. Hyams said ‘we will refer it to our health department’.

SPEAKER #14: stated he was a local resident and only became aware of this in last couple of weeks. ‘I’m leaving this meeting concerned, very concerned about the appropriateness of communication….is the health issue that has just been raised part of the planning? Hyams: ‘we will look at that one’. Speaker then asked whether it was appropriate for the planning department to look at it. Hyams responded ‘kind of not’…..’Can you call for interested parties….to give alternatives(to the plan)?’ Spoke about other countries and how residents can make application for ‘a different type of plan’ for open space. Hyams said that when its council land ‘we do have quite an extensive consultation process’, but in this case it’s ‘not one of our parks, its the MRC, sorry racecourse’. Discussion over MRC, trustees and why power was ceded to MRC. Hyams said he doesn’t know because he has never been a trustee. Question: ‘can we understand why the trsutees have abrogated their responsibility to the MRC?’ Speaker asked that application be set aside and residents give council something else to consider apart from this application.

SPEAKER #15: Asked where this application came from since there’s been an ‘agreement’ between council and the MRC. Was this part of the agreement? Hyams ‘The plans we have are in accordance with the agreement we have between Council and the MRC’ Speakder then said that ‘there hasn’t been any input from the community’. Asked Tangalakis which notes she has taken that ‘will affect the planning issues’. Wanted to know from everything that’s been said, what is ‘useful’? Tangalakis: ‘Just (first speakers comments) to tell you the honest truth’. Asked about health and Tangalakis responded that health is not a planning matter and ‘that’s why we have a health department here’. she would refer it to them. Speaker then asked why a meeting wasn’t held prior to the planning conference? another speaker then said ‘there should have been community input to the scheme that you, the council agreed with the MRC….it happens over and over that the thing that the community is really interested in ….agreed prior….’the horse has bolted. the thing that we are really interested in has already been decided’. speakers asked ‘where to from here?’. Hyams responded that ‘this is the most they(MRC) were prepared to give us, the most they were prepared to give us’. Speaker – ‘so are you saying that this is simply a statutory process and everything we’ve said is pointless?’

Hyams reiterated that he set out the parameters and that ‘these are not things we can consider when we decide’ on the planning permit.

SPEAKER #16: asked about planning law and what can be considered such as the fence. Wanted to know ‘on what basis, or what kind of criteria…..will you recommend that the fence be either 2.5 metres high or 1.5 metres high….on what criteria will you recommend that it be black mesh, or white mesh….on what criteria will you accept ….a dog exercise park smack in the middle of a jogging track….what criteria will you be using and…will that be explained to the community?’ Tangalakis said that she hasn’t assessed anything yet, so ‘you’ll find you’re answers in the council report’.

SPEAKER #17: Forge spoke about her role as a trustee and that she ‘will take the ideas’ from tonight to the next trustee meeting.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates