CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE
GE Governance
Archived Posts from this Category
September 29, 2015
The Zones – If It Quacks Like A Duck……..
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[18] Comments
September 26, 2015
Public Questions & Caulfield Racecourse Trustees
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[10] Comments
At last council meeting one public question was declared ‘inappropriate’ and not read out. It related to the role of councillor representatives on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees. Before we publish the question and the answer, some history.
- Esakoff, Lipshutz & Hyams were appointed by the Liberal Government as councillor reps on the trustees. There were 8 councillor nominees but magically these three got the nod.
- All three had formed part of the Special Committee deciding on the Caulfield Village proposal.
- A petition containing 64 signatures was tabled at council in February 2013, asking that the Minister review the appointments.
- The petition was rejected (a first in Glen Eira). Those voting against acceptance of the petition were Pilling, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Sounness & Okotel
- Lobo raised the issue of conflict of interest since Lipshutz, Hyams, & Esakoff were directly involved in the petition. None declared a conflict of interest.
In the discussion that took place, both Hyams and Lipshutz declared their role as trustees to be one of working, representing, and advancing the cause of their constituents. Here is what they said –
HYAMS: thought that the petition was ‘pathetic’ and didn’t want to ‘set a precedent’ where ‘we’re rehashing council decisions because some people don’t like it’ and that would lead to petitions on all council decisions.Said that the government appointed the 3 councillors ‘who came first in their wards’. Read out the numbers of first preference votes for each of the three councillors that people ‘are happy to have those councillors representing them’ and ’64 people come along and think they are more important’ and this ‘shows at the very least an exaggerated sense of their own importance’. Went on to say that it was ‘very sad’ that people can be ‘so spiteful’ and that he knows what’s ‘behind it’ and the ‘people behind it’ and it doesn’t ‘surprise’ him at all.
LIPSHUTZ: said the petition was ‘ridiculous’ but that ‘when any member of this council’ is appointed that they’re appointed as ‘representatives of council’ and ‘we in fact act on behalf of the community’. Spoke about the Leader article and Magee and ‘what he tried to achieve’ and that was following council policy and he’s (Lipshutz) asked for the same things since ‘2005’. This wasn’t ‘something new’ it was what ‘council has approved’. Council doesn’t want training at the racecourse which is what Magee was advocating and it’s what council wants too. The petition is ‘ridiculous’ and just ‘shows the small minded people’…’we’re councillors and we’re here for the benefit of the community’. People mightn’t like every decision but the choice is ‘vote us out’. Voters had ‘confidence’ about all 9 councillors and even though they’ve got different views on things ‘we are a councillor group as one’ and as trustees they ‘will be there to support the community’
So to the inadmissible public question –
If councillors on the Board of trustees for the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust do not represent the council, or the citizens of Glen Eira, who do they represent?
Response: On the basis of your own statement in part 3 of your Public Question Part 3 is deemed inappropriate pursuant to Clause 12 (b) of Council’s ‘Guidelines for Public Question Time’ and clause 232(2)(j)(ii) of the Local Law which states: “does not relate to the business of Council or otherwise relates to a Councillor or staff member other than in their Council capacity;”
CONCLUSION
- Either councillor trustees do not know what their role is, or they will say anything that will further their spurious arguments – even if this contradicts the ‘advice’ provided by Newton in both 2003 and in 2006 – ie Council is not “represented” on the Trust. The duty of a trustee is to the Trust. A trustee, who is also a Councillor, is under a legal obligation to make Trust decisions
in the best interests of the Trust. - How valid such Newton advice is, needs to be challenged, as it has been by the Auditor General –
The make-up of the trust enables MRC, Glen Eira City Council and state government views to be considered as part of its decision-making processes. Until recently, however, members of the local community had no direct means of engaging with trustees on matters of importance to them. They had to rely on council representatives to present their views.
Within the trust, there have been differing views about how these competing uses can be reconciled. More recently, this has created tensions between trustees representing the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and those representing the government and Glen Eira City Council.
- How many more times will this council denigrate and refuse to answer genuine public questions? Please note that the role of the trustees is to serve the public interest. That means the residents of Glen Eira. If the local community cannot have any faith that Lipshutz, Esakoff and Hyams are in fact truly representing their best interests, then they should not be trustees.
September 22, 2015
Some More Comparisons!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[7] Comments
The General Residential Zone, schedule 2 is, according to our wonderful council, supposed to provide the necessary ‘buffer zones’ between properties in housing diversity and minimal change (ie NRZ) because of the upper level setbacks included in the schedule. No other limitations, apart from the deficient ResCode numbers, have been enforced on this zone. For example – in Glen Eira we find:
Site Coverage – 60%
Permeability – 20%
Height – 10.5 metres
Private Open Space – minimum of 25 square metres (ResCode) and
Nothing about tree protection or landscape plans.
Other councils in their ‘negotiations’ and subsequent amendments just happened to be far more successful in introducing limits on what can be build in the GRZ2 zone. Here are some examples that are gazetted and in operation.
Banyule –
Site coverage 40%
Landscaping – Landscape plans will provide 1 tree for every 400 square metres of site area, including 1 large tree in the front setback – A Landscape Concept Plan must be submitted which considers the Banyule Tree Planting Zone Guidelines. It should distinguish landscaped garden areas from useable private open space, show tree planting locations and the extent of the mature canopies.
Geelong –
Landscaping – One canopy tree per dwelling
Private Open space – An area of 60 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with minimum area of 40 square metres, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room. It cannot include a balcony or roof top terrace.
Height – 9 metres
Knox –
Height – 9 metres
Private open space – Private open space consisting of an area of 80 square metres or 20 per cent of the area of the lot, whichever is the lesser, but not less than 60 square metres. At least one part of the private open space should consist of secluded private open space with a minimum area of 40 square metres and a minimum dimension of 5 metres at the side or rear of the dwelling with convenient access from a living room.
Monash –
Front setback – 7.6 metres.
Private Open Space – A dwelling or residential building should have private open space consisting of:
An area of 75 square metres, with one part of the private open space at the side or the rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 35 square metres, a minimum width of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room
Stonnington –
Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.
Walls on boundaries – Walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street.
Whitehorse
Site coverage – 40%
Permeability 40%
Provision of at least two canopy trees with a minimum mature height of 12 metres. At least one of those trees should be in the secluded private open space of the dwelling. The species of canopy trees should be native, preferably indigenous.
Development should provide for the retention and/or planting of trees, where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood.
Walls on boundaries – Walls should only be constructed on one side boundary.
Yarra – height 9 metres
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 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 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.
August 27, 2015
Movement At The Station – But Where To?
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[6] Comments
Our thanks to an alert reader for notifying us of the following. For the full statement, please see: http://www.crrt.org.au/Notices/Upcomingmeetings.aspx
Glen Eira Debates 