GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

February 12, 2015

Why Is This Acceptable – #2

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

We’ve received the following letter of complaint that was sent to Council. As with most things connected with the racecourse and the MRC, residential amenity appears to be the last thing to worry either the Melbourne Racing Club, or for that matter, Council.

We have been asked to remove the sender’s name.

Dear sir,

I have been driven to write to you about the continual flouting of local law by the Melbourne Racing Club at Caulfield Racecourse with respect to illegal noise levels. These are illegal by virtue of the excessive volume that penetrates inside residential dwellings yet some distance from the racecourse itself – never mind those in the immediate vicinity (according to a resident of Fitzgibbon Crescent, for example. Name can be supplied upon request).

Although there are many examples on a relatively regular basis, today the racecourse rented out its premises to the “I dream all day” music event (rave/festival). The incessant bass pounded all day penetrating our home and garden. We were unable to relax the whole day. The children were unable to sleep. Now, don’t misunderstand, I LOVE electronic dance music, and attend the odd festival myself – but these are not held in a residential suburb. When I went to inspect the source of the noise, the walls of the racecourse along Station Street, cladded with corrugated iron, were reverberating from the amazing volume of sound.The noise level was entirely inappropriate for the residential surrounds of the racecourse (surrounded as it is on all sides by family homes), and was undoubtedly beyond any legal limit. It penetrated throughout my home far away in Eskdale Road. It went on and on all day with no respite.

Other events that the racecourse holds for its own profit at the expense of residents resulting in shattered neighbourhood amenity include funfairs with blaring music in the Western car-park adjacent to Kambrook road despite the residential nature of the area. That noise also goes all day and overwhelms us inside our dwellings as well as outside in our gardens.

While investigating these issues, it is vital that you ensure that the racecourse also respects local law regarding sound levels with respect to the incessant droning of the race commentators every Saturday. Residents have a right to peaceful amenity without the incessant droning of the commentator over the PA system at unacceptable levels. After all, if it is legal and acceptable for the racecourse to broadcast its ‘soundtrack’ such that it is heard clearly in surrounding dwellings, then it is just as legal for surrounding dwellings to broadcast their own soundtrack at the same levels which will be clearly heard at the racecourse! Not something decent residents do, but that doesn’t seem to matter a jot to the racing club which treats residents with contempt.

I respectfully request that you take the matter further with the Melbourne Racing Club, and please keep me informed of any developments in this area.

Yours

xxxxxxxxx

February 10, 2015

Rezoning The Zones

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

The Glen Eira Council approach –

Crs Okotel/Hyams

That a report be prepared detailing how the state government intends to review planning zones and how this might impact Glen Eira.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

The Bayside approach –

That Council:

Notes the published advice of Mr Brian Tee, former Shadow Minister for Planning received 25 November 2014 on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, confirming it will review the new residential zones to stop inappropriate development;
Writes to the Minister for Planning seeking a meeting to brief the Minister regarding its 18 November 2014 resolution, and obtain his support in approving an Amendment pursuant to Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, that introduces the changes to the Bayside Planning Scheme not approved as part of Amendment C106;
Write to the Hon Sue Pennicuik MLC, Member for the Southern Metropolitan Region seeking the support of the Australian Greens; and
Receives a report in March 2015 providing an update on the meeting with the Minister, and to consider a standard planning scheme amendment (C140) and resourcing implications, as resolved by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 25 November 2014.

February 5, 2015

Council Versus The Auditor General

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

On Tuesday night a public question was asked regarding what our councillor representatives on the Racecourse Reserve Trustees were doing to ensure that the Auditor General recommendations were being fully implemented. Council’s response to this question is quite literally astounding. What is even more astounding is that not one councillor had the courage to stand up and either query this response or, to disassociate him/herself from this nonsense.

The response is in direct conflict with the Auditor General’s report in all facets. Either the Auditor General does not know what he is talking about, or council does not have a clue as to its responsibilities to the community and to proper governance. Here are some quotes from the AG Report –

The management of the reserve was vested in a group of trustees who represented the government, the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and the local municipality—Glen Eira City Council. (page vii)

Under the Crown grant, 15 trustees are appointed by the Governor in Council to manage the reserve—six each representing government and the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and three representing Glen Eira City Council. (page ix)

More recently, the government and Glen Eira council trustee representatives have recognised that governance standards in line with contemporary practice should be introduced. (page xii)

The land was permanently reserved in the 19th century for three purposes—a racecourse, public recreation ground and public park. Management of the reserve is vested in 15 trustees—six government nominees, six Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) nominees and three council nominees representing the local municipality, Glen Eira City Council. (page 1)

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. (page 26)

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. (page 28)

Each and every one of these Auditor General statements establishes that Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff are REPRESENTATIVES of Glen Eira Council and therefore the local community. They are ‘directed’ by Council in the interests of the local community.

Yet, the response to the public question denies this obligation, and flies in the face of not only the Auditor General’s report, but community views and expectations. If Hyams, Lipshutz, and Esakoff do NOT represent the community via council, then they should be sacked immediately or have the good grace to resign forthwith.

Here is the question and the official Council ‘response’ – it cannot be deemed an ‘answer’!

“In September the Victorian Auditor General published the report on the Management and Oversight of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. I attach copy 3B of page 38 “Access and signage issues at the reserve” and I ask you to note that there are 22 out of 24 indicators of inadequate access. Please tell me what instructions our councillor members of the C.R.R.T., Cr Esakoff, Cr Hyams and Cr Lipshutz are being given at council to overcome this undesirable situation as the VAG in Clause 6 Page 39 recommended the need to “upgrade public access and improve signage at all entry access points and within the reserve to a standard that improves safety and encourages increased community use.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Although three councillors are trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, they serve as trustees in their own rights, not as representatives or delegates of Council, and therefore, Council does not instruct them.”

February 1, 2015

Agenda Items 2015 – #2

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

Item 9.2 – 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie – Heritage Protection

This item raises heaps of issues as to the value that council places on heritage. The property is Frogmore in Carnegie. The site has no heritage listing dating back to the 1996 Council assessment. The latest ‘review’ recommends Heritage listing via an overlay. The large site has been bought by Jewish Care and residents fear that demolition of the building would consequently ensue.

Officer reports are there to provide ‘guidance’ and ‘advice’ and ultimately we suggest, to proffer specific and clear recommendations. In this instance the recommendation is for ‘council to decide’. Perhaps, well and good, if the report is fair, unbiased, and comprehensive. We don’t believe that this is the case in this instance.

Basically, two ‘options’ are provided. But, it is in the wording of these options, that all semblance of objective, fair appraisal, is missing.

Recommendation ‘A’ reads –

One option would be to act on the recent reassessment and initiate a planning scheme amendment process to include the property in the heritage overlay.

Council would need to ask the Minister for Planning to place interim protection over the site. Given the previous assessment that heritage was not appropriate, no objections being raised for many years and that a new owner has acted in good faith on the basis of existing controls, there is no assurance that the Minister would grant such an interim control.

If interim controls were approved, the Council would need to exhibit an amendment to apply a heritage overlay. Submissions could be made for or against. The matter would go to an independent panel which could consider all submissions. Again, given the original process and that the owner has acted in good faith on Council’s decision not to place a heritage overlay, there is no assurance that the panel would support the amendment. Any amendment would need to be approved by the Minister. The process would take approximately 18 months.

COMMENT

‘heritage was not appropriate’. Quite misleading we suggest since the ‘criteria’ applied by council was that Heritage listings be part of ‘an identified historic area’. Yet all the legislation and even Council’s own Planning Scheme ostensibly contradicts this application of policy. Section 21.10 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme makes it absolutely clear that single sites may also be worthy of heritage protection – A number of areas and individual properties comprehensively demonstrate important eras in the growth of Glen Eira and survive in a reasonably intact state.
The officer report even admits that Frogmore received a 1996 rating of “C” – just not the C+ that placed it in a ‘historic area’. Readers should remember that this is Carnegie after all, and given land development history, ‘expendable’!
Repetition of the ‘owner acting in good faith’ is arguably entirely irrelevant to the question of whether a building is worthy of heritage protection or not.
The presence or absence of ‘objections’ is also entirely irrelevant. With little publicity, and certainly little opportunity for residents to have direct input into council matters it is not surprising that Frogmore and its potential heritage status has been enveloped by silence. Further, several other comments made in the officer report could also act as a major deterrent to public involvement– ie the expense of obtaining private heritage advice by any interested resident.
The Minister’s approval would be required regardless of the two options provided in the report. According to The Heritage Act, – After considering the report of the Heritage Council, the Minister may make any determination in relation to a recommendation that the Heritage Council could have made under Division 3. Hence, ‘there is no assurance’ that even with Heritage Council approval the Minister would give it the nod!

Recommendation ‘B’ states –

Option B: Not re-open the heritage issue at a municipal level but abide by whatever decision is made by the Heritage Council.

The heritage process of 1996 – 2003 considered all properties in Glen Eira. It placed 3,893 properties under heritage controls. It was a very public process with many stages of consultation. It provided opportunities for views to be put for or against heritage classification of any property in the municipality. The views being expressed now might more appropriately have been expressed during the seven year process and been taken into account and determined then or in the eleven years since then.

It is reasonable for prospective purchasers to act on the basis of the Council’s planning scheme, especially given that the heritage status of every property in the municipality had been considered and had been decided. It would be unreasonable to change the rules after the purchaser had acted in good faith and committed significant funds.

COMMENT

Is this Seaview revisited? Council stuff ups again?

The suggested wording of the ultimate motions also require comment. Here is what an Option ‘B’ resolution would contain –
That Council:

(a) note the heritage process over the period 1996 to 2003 which provided the appropriate opportunity to put views for or against the heritage status of 1Wahgoo Road, Carnegie;

(b) note that the current owner of the property has acted in good faith and committedsignificant funds on the basis of Council’s planning scheme; and

(c) forwards the attached consultant report to the Heritage Council and agrees toabide by the Heritage Council’s decision in this matter.

In our view parts (a) and (b) of this motion are inappropriate and entirely irrelevant. If anything, they undermine to a great extent the ‘neutrality’ of any potential Heritage Council decision and thus potentially sway the argument in favour of rejection. We also wonder whether the 1996 policy was simply an early version of Amendment C87, where sites for Significant Character Overlays were all selected by officers with no allowable input by councillors or residents!

There are many other comments scattered throughout this report that need to be questioned. The most glaring concerns the fact that Frogmore is not ‘visible’ from Wahgoo Road. This is an argument for not having a Heritage listing. Funnily enough many of the the most prized Heritage properties in Glen Eira are also not ‘visible’ from the main road – Ripponlea being the perfect example.

January 15, 2015

More From The MRC!

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

MRC lodges plan for outdoor cinema at Caulfield Racecourse

Andrea Kellett
January 15, 2015 12:00AM

The Melbourne Racing Club has asked Glen Eira Council for permission to run the summer cinema at Caulfield Racecourse.

It would be located between the racecourse administration building and the racetrack and cater for up to 500 people a session.

Consultants have lodged a planning permit application and details include:

— A mobile 7m high by 11m movie screen on the back of a flat deck truck which would be parked in position each screening night;

— Guests to view movies from the lawns between dusk and 1am;

— Parking to be provided in the Guineas carpark;

— Food and beverages to be available to buy and users to bring or buy picnic meals.

The consultants’ report describes the outdoor cinema as a “unique entertainment experience”.

Melbourne has a number of outdoor cinemas, among them the Moonlight cinema at the Royal Botanic Gardens, December — March; and Ben & Jerry’s open air Cinemas at St Kilda’s South Beach Reserve, November-December.

The MRC wants a permit to run its outdoor cinema between November and March, with an option to use the land for an outdoor cinema throughout the year.

MRC spokesman Jake Norton said ticket prices had not yet been decided.

“No. The concept, if the application is successful, would not be rolled out until next summer. Given that timing, as well as the fact that the application has yet to be approved, practical plans around ticketing, event logistics, dates and times, the product itself, content, associated food and beverage offering etc are still some way off,’’ Mr Norton said.

Glen Eira Council granted the MRC a permit for a permanent $3 million super screen at Caulfield Racecourse last year.

That screen displays race day activities including live video feeds, race replays, race day information and sponsor information.

++++++

COMMENT

The following sentences are taken directly from the formal application. We urge readers to carefully note the hyperbole, the spin, and what this could mean for residents. Most importantly, we have to again question what has happened to the so called ‘agreement’ between Council and the MRC and the role of the Minister and the Department in this entire episode. The standout issues as far as we can see are –

Public Transport does not operate till and after 1am weekdays
Does extending the area for a liquor license fly in the face of the alcohol ban and how would the local constabulary view this attempt?
Is Crown Land again being used for private commercial gain – especially when the MRC claims to be a ‘non-profit’ organisation?
Have the Trustees signed off on this latest effort? Did they give permission for the application to the Department?
Will the centre potentially be used for car parking?
And will council once again cave in – either on the night, or at VCAT?

Here are the quotes:

Access to and parking at the racecourse is available with minimal impact to the community

The proposed outdoor cinema makes use of an entertainment facility that would otherwise lie idle during the proposed hours of operation.

Melbourne Racing Club is the custodian of a range of land holdings associated with and including the Caulfield Racecourse. The land holdings are a combination of freehold and Crown Land. The site which is the subject of this application is known as 31 Station Street and is contained within Crown Land referred to as Allotment A as Caulfield, Parish of Prahran.

The (Glen Eira) MESS notes at clause 21.01-2 that Caulfield Racecourse and Monash University are facilities of metropolitan significance and both are of major importance to the local economy. Further, Clause 21.02-1 Key influences – Advantages and Opportunities, recognises Caulfield Racecourse as a landmark and regional facility that contributes to the attraction and ‘liveability’ of the municipality.

Clause 21.06-2 identifies the objectives and strategies in relation to Business within the municipality, including:

To encourage more local employment and attract more local spending in partnership with business
Encourage new and innovative retail and commercial activities to establish in the municipality having regard to the hierarchy of centres as well as opportunities to developer appropriate freestanding sites for suitable retail or commercial use.

It is submitted that the proposal will achieve the following key imperatives of the SPPF by:

Encouraging a sue that meets the communiy’s needs for entertainment and providing a net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.

With the event proposed at the northern end of the subject site, patrons are within walking sitance of the Caulfield Railway Station interchange (with train, tram and bus services available). The Guineas car park which adjoins the proposed event location will also be available to patrons who choose to drive.

…..any overflow parking requirements can be provided by Melbourne Racing Club’s numerous other car parks.

January 12, 2015

Compare & Contrast – #4

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

In Glen Eira contracts awarded under tender are invariably decided behind closed doors via the in camera provisions of council meetings. Residents are not even always provided with information as to the outcome of these tenders. Not only does Glen Eira not provide any information on WHY and HOW the tenders are awarded, nor why company ‘A’ was successful as opposed to company ‘B’, but the performance criteria themselves are kept secret, the officers involved are secret, and the voting is secret.

We’ve reported previously on how other councils go about their tender decisions. Many publish full accounts of the companies involved; the scores they achieved against the criteria, and the individuals involved. Further, these are published in full in council agendas and minutes. Glen Eira maintains its cloak of secrecy.

This recent tender from Monash council caught our eye for several reasons. Readers should note the following:

The relative speed with which flooding issues have been addressed, and
How developer levies on drainage lessen the cost to ratepayers.

We have uploaded the full report HERE

December 30, 2014

Councillors – Who Do They Really Represent?

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

We thought it fitting that for the final post of 2014, we revisit the secret introduction of the new residential zones. Fifteen months down the track readers can judge for themselves the total ineptitude and complicity of councillors in the duping their community.

The following extracts all come from statements made on the 13^th August 2013 Council Meeting.

HYAMS – Went on to speak about the 3 new zones and that together they ‘will cover 95% of Glen Eira’ and ‘every resident of those zones will have their amenity protected better than before’.

LIPSHUTZ – Glen eira is the first council to ‘adopt these plans’ and that’s because they have ‘vision’ and that’s because years ago Akehurst and ‘his team’ saw that ‘we neeed to have distinct areas to protect our suburbs’. Because these plans already exist they were ‘able to translate very quickly’ into the new zones ‘and that’s a credit to our officers’….The zones are ‘protecting our neighbourhood, we are protecting our municipality and that’s important’.

MAGEE: Apart from commercial zones, there is now a ‘sense of security’ for developers because they know what they can do and get a loan easier. Developers can therefore plan better. Said that the 4 storey buildings around tram lines is only 2.2% ‘of our city’ and ‘you might actually struggle to find a block big enough’ to build 4 storeys because of ‘setbacks’ on top floor. So a lot of these could ‘end up being 3 storeys’. Said it was a ‘really good outcome for the residents of Glen Eira’…..Congratulated officers on ‘getting this through’ and didn’t think it ‘was a surprise because that’s the sort of work we do here’…’we are very good at what we do’. In the future council can say ‘no, it’s wrong’ and ‘go away’ to developers because they haven’t got it right. Also have to thank the state government in ‘being proactive and helping us get this in place’. ‘I think the outcome for Glen Eira is superb’

DELAHUNTY: ‘generally’ supports that this is a ‘good outcome’ but the ‘Minister sought different zoning’ for the Alma Club site and ‘that was done without any consultation with Council’ and she ‘finds this a little bit disappointing’ because he zoned differently there and could have also looked at the ‘old Open Space Strategy’. ‘It would have been a fantastic opportunity to have had that conversation’ with the Minister. The same goes for the ABC site. Also ‘at the start’ she had ‘reservations’ about the ‘lack of public consultation’. She ‘lost the argument’ on that one but ‘I have to say I deserved to lose the argument’ but since she wasn’t part of the 2010 consultation and ‘that doesn’t mean that the community’s views have necessarily changed’ so people got what they wanted. She’s just left with the ‘inkling of bad taste’ about the Alma Club and ABC sites

OKOTEL: congratulated for the ‘very hard work’ by Newton and Akehurst and team. It was a ‘very quick turnaround to make sure this happened’. The old system was ‘plagued by inefficiencies and uncertainties’ for planners and residents so it’s ‘pleasing’ that there are now height limits and that will ‘certainly’ eliminate the uncertainty. This is ‘exciting and well overdue step’. Said that she ‘maintains’ that a ‘consultation process would have been appropriate’ and that since this was in 2010 this wasn’t the direction prior to the ‘submission being made to government’ and it ‘was a submission put to government and ultimately it was the government’s decision in terms of what the new zones look like’. But ‘despite that’ the decision is ‘very pleasing’

AND HERE’S PART OF COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO A PUBLIC QUESTION

It is our firm belief that further consultation could not have resulted in a better outcome, and may well have had the opposite effect.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

December 28, 2014

The Year In Review

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[21] Comments

Important decisions were made in 2014. Very, very few could be said to have been in line with community views or aspirations.

Granting the MRC its wishes with the passing of the Caulfield Village Development plan for at least 2046 dwellings. At the subsequent VCAT appeal council once again caved in and basically watered down the few conditions it had imposed with the permit.
Permit after permit has been granted for major developments largely as a result of the introduction of the new zones with no progress whatsoever on parking management plans, environmental sustainable design, or in fact, introducing any amendments that would address the flow on effects of development.
Interest rate hikes still way above the CPI with another 6.5% increase – far more than neighbouring councils.
Back flips on the Caulfield Park conservatory indicating how little council resolutions mean and how much money is wasted on bogus ‘consultations’.
Still no local law that was promised a year and a half ago. All quiet on the western front in terms of: tree register; notice of motion; recording of council meetings.
More destruction of open space and trees for car parks – Centenary Park
Whilst Stonnington with the second least amount of open space is looking for an open space levy of 8%, Glen Eira with the least amount of open space only sought 5.7%. Council also did a back flip on its much publicised policy that all monies collected would be used for the ACQUISITION and improvement of new open space. Residents can now expect more of the same – ie. funds largely expended on capital works for existing open space and little or no purchase of additional open space.
More delays in major capital works and budget blowouts – Duncan Mackinnon Pavilion – with no explanation of real costs provided to the community.

We are sure that readers can add to this list. As for the ‘positives’ and the future, we simply note that the gallery is now full of residents protesting development after development. It has taken a year for the impacts of the new zones to become clear and the result is that more and more residents are finding voice. We believe that this trend will continue, ensuring that councillors will eventually be held to account.

Best wishes to all for 2015!