GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

June 11, 2014

Southwick: More Wheeling & Dealing?

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

The following is taken verbatim from Tuesday’s publication of Hansard.

Caulfield Park Conservatory

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—I rise today to raise a matter with the Minister for Environment and Climate Change in regard to the Caulfield Park conservatory. The action I seek is for the minister to conditionally approve the relocation of the historic conservatory to the Rippon Lea estate, subject to the vacant space at Caulfield Park being appropriately utilised as a feature within the park. The conservatory was in fact originally located at Rippon Lea as a greenhouse, but the original burnt down in the 1920s. There has been a great level of community concern and a big local campaign to save the conservatory. Unfortunately the structure has been let to run down over the years, and the Glen Eira City Council surveyed residents to explore options of either developing, demolishing or refurbishing the site known as the conservatory. One of the proposals included a cafe, which was completely rejected by the community.

The building is in worse shape than originally thought, and even though the most preferred option from the community consultation was to refurbish the conservatory, the Glen Eira council has voted to demolish it. I am told the actual cost of refurbishing the conservatory is estimated to be in excess of $250 000, and council has only set aside $100 000 to do the work. As a result, due to the overwhelming community concern and the historical nature of the conservatory, the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) has offered to relocate the structure back to the Rippon Lea estate. I have been informed that the council supports this new approach and is willing to fund the relocation of the conservatory.

I believe this is a good option, as we will still retain the conservatory in the area and in fact return it to its original home. This also opens up the possibility of upgrading the space and better utilising it for local residents, who have been advocating for more seating for the elderly and families in Caulfield Park. I would be prepared to organise a meeting, under the minister’s direction, with council and the Department of Environment and Primary Industries to explore these possibilities and opportunities. It is on these grounds that I ask that the minister approve the relocation of the historic conservatory to the Rippon Lea estate, subject to discussion with the council, and to appropriately upgrade the vacant land and keep it as a unique feature within the park.

Caulfield Park is a great park. As I have said on many occasions, it is the jewel in the crown in our open space in Caulfield, and we are looking at relocating the depot to Booran Reserve and to be able to look at this particular conservatory as one of the key projects. It is certainly a historic building. It has historic significance, as I said, back to the 1920s. To take that building back to its original home at Rippon Lea gardens would be a great opportunity for all, and I ask the minister to consider this matter.

RESPONSE:

Mr R. SMITH (Minister for Environment and Climate Change)—I rise to respond to the members for Caulfield and Seymour. The member for Caulfield raised issues about the relocation of the Caulfield Park Conservatory. As the member representing a municipality that has the lowest amount of public open space in the metropolitan Melbourne I have to say that he has been a great advocate for the good use of the public space that is available. I have asked him to convene a group of people who have an interest in using the open space in his electorate, and he is doing a very good job in making sure that in discussing the moving of the Glen Eira council depot from Caulfield Park to the open space at Booran Road we get the very best outcomes we possibly can. In doing so he will be discussing that issue with a number of sporting clubs and other users in the area. I will certainly be happy to accommodate the meeting he has asked for to ensure we get a good outcome.

 

COMMENT

We note the:

  • alleged council involvement and contributing of funds – all done of course without a formal resolution, nor consultation, nor revealing the costs involved – if even known as yet. Does “council” in this instance mean officers, councillors, or a combination of both? If ‘discussed’, then where is the record of this discussion and who was involved?
  • emphases on discussion with sporting groups
  • what logistic analyses has been done to ensure that the size of Booran Park can in reality accommodate what is now the Caulfield Depot – the size of at least 8 house blocks and this land is only 984 square metres!
  • What road safety analyses has been done to ensure that trucks, etc. leaving Booran Park do not constitute any threat to traffic, pedestrians, cyclists?
  • If this becomes a depot, or even a sporting ground, what happens to those trees originally deemed ‘significant’?

All in all, lots and lots of questions and typically no answers and just more back room wheeling and dealing in secret.

 

 

May 20, 2014

Conservatory

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

Residents to rally to save Caulfield Park conservatory

  • Andrea Kellett
  • May 20, 2014 12:00PM

A PROTEST is planned at Glen Eira Council tonight by people angry about the council’s decision to demolish the Caulfield Park conservatory.

The Friends of Caulfield Park say the council have thumbed their collective noses at the community by dumping plans last month to restore and repair the ageing glasshouse because it would cost too much.

Protesters are being urged to gather 15 minutes before tonight’s meeting at the town hall.

Organisers say they want the community to “demonstrate through your presence your disgust at the hypocrisy of a council who pretend to consult us, the community, and then decide it is a bit expensive, even though they are willing to pay hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars on open space elsewhere’’.

Last month’s council backflip came seven months after councillors voted unanimously to restore and repair the ageing public building and replant its gardens after a survey found that was what the community preferred.

Friends president David Wilde said councillors had let the community down and labelled the decision an “act of destruction’’.

“The community’s least preferred option was demolition but, for comparatively modest cost reasons, this is what the council has opted to do,’’ Mr Wilde said.

“The conservatory is an historic artefact, purchased from Rippon Lea in 1949, but allowed to fall into disrepair over many years.’’

The council received eight tenders to restore the conservatory; their average was almost double the budget to do the work; and Mayor Neil Pilling said those costs had to be weighed up.

The nearby amphitheatre will also be demolished.

Tonight’s meeting starts at 7.30pm, at the town hall on Hawthorn Rd

 

May 8, 2014

Hansard – Southwick

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

City of Glen Eira Crown land

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—I rise to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change regarding the Caulfield Park council depot and some Crown land located near the intersection of Glen Eira, Booran and Kambrook Roads, Caulfield, known as the Booran Road reserve. The action I seek is for the minister to explore with Glen Eira City Council the opportunity to relocate the Caulfield depot to the currently unused Crown land site of Booran reserve adjacent to the racecourse to free up parkland in Caulfield Park. The Caulfield depot is a large allotment within Caulfield Park on Inkerman Road and is used to store heavy maintenance vehicles and other equipment. Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space of any Victorian municipality, and therefore the opportunity to create more recreational space must be explored.

I have spoken with local ward councillor, Michael Lipshutz, who regards this proposition very favourably. I am aware that council has in the past been agreeable to exploring options to move the depot on the premise it will not take away from recreational parkland at another site. I am also aware that Glen Eira City Council has rejected our offer for it to use the land for parkland. In addition, I have had discussions with Friends of Caulfield Park representatives who agree that shifting the Caulfield depot to the unused Booran reserve would free up further premium open space in Caulfield Park; which would be a big win for the Caulfield community. Glen Eira Debates, a community blog site, has had many locals voice their strong opinions on the matter. There has been overwhelming support from locals for the Caulfield Park depot to be relocated to free up additional open space. Caulfield Park is used and loved by all locals, and to open up additional recreational space in this suburban oasis would be fantastic.

I would greatly appreciate the minister exploring the opportunity with Glen Eira council to provide Caulfield residents with additional recreational open space by examining this opportunity, which would also allow the Caulfield Park depot to be located at the unutilised Booran reserve Crown land and free up much-needed space in the beautiful Caulfield Park, the jewel of open space in Caulfield.

 

April 25, 2014

Agenda Items #1

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments 

Included in the agenda items for Tuesday night’s Council Meeting, there is a letter from the Valuer General’s office in response to Council’s missive. The letter provides an affirmative response to Magee’s motion that the Valuer General become involved in the Trustee/MRC lease negotiations. All well and good and certainly a step forward. However the letter basically concentrates only on the current lease negotiations and remains quite taciturn (and evasive?) on the request to REVIEW ALL LEASES.  Whether this is intentional, or merely an oversight, we leave readers to decide for themselves.

Duration of the ‘new’ lease and the implications it has for the removal of training is yet another element that does not feature but which is vital if the Reserve is to fulfill its function as a racecourse, public park and recreation area.

We also wonder what has happened to the rest of the Magee resolution of March 18th – ie to involve the Auditor General re the landswap and hence the potential conflict of interest issues. Has Council had any response(s) to this component of the resolution? Why isn’t this mentioned in the report?Pages from APRIL29-2014-AGENDA

 

 

April 22, 2014

The Leader

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments 

bigscreesfees

 

April 9, 2014

The Backroom Boys & Hidden Agendas?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[35] Comments 

URGENT BUSINESS

Magee moved a motion that Council that sports grounds in the centre of the racecourse be considered as URGENT BUSINESS. Hyams declared a conflict of interest as did Esakoff. LIPSHUTZ DID NOT DECLARE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND REMAINED IN THE CHAMBER. No councillor challenged his presence. (Delahunty was absent).

MAGEE: moved the motion that council’s position was that the centre should be used for sporting grounds; that on the 7.30 Report the MRC CEO stated that ‘community sport would be welcomed’; that council writes to the Trustees and that they ‘ensure’ that community sport be developed in the centre and that a copy of the letter go to the Minister for Crown Lands , the minister for sports and to the minister for racing. Motion seconded by Sounness.

Magee went over council’s resolution for the centre of the racecourse where many sporting teams were missing out and that the ’54 hectares of land’ could be used for sportsgrounds. Said that this ‘vision’ was presented to the community and ‘accepted widely’ and that all councillors have ‘worked tirelessly’ to get this done. Magee said that it was good to hear that the MRC CEO ’embraced this vision’ and that it’s the first time they have said anything like this. Magee welcomed this statement. At the moment there’s a ‘lease being prepared’ and Magee thought it was ‘incumbent on us to work with the’ MRC and to write to the trustees and ‘inform them of this agreement’ and how the MRC ‘have now embraced’ this vision. The trustees have to now ‘take this advice’ and work it into ‘any lease agreements that are before them at the moment’. Said that the MRC should ‘only ever be given a lease’ for areas outside the actual racetrack and not the racetrack itself nor the centre of the racecourse. Stated that this is the ‘first time in 150 years’ that the ‘two groups can actually work together’. The turstees job is to administer the racecourse ‘for the benefit of all Victorians’. Claimed that here’s the perfect time to do all this ‘given that there is an agreement’ and that the MRC spokesman has ‘made it very clear on national television’ that sport is ‘very clear to the’ MRC and ‘we welcome that’. Said that since they’ve stated this that all that’s left is to ‘inform the minister’ to ‘let them know there is an agreement in place’.

SOUNNESS: asked Magee if he would accept a change in wording from ‘community sports grounds’ to ‘organised sport’. Magee refused to accept change in wording. Sounness still accepted the motion and said that he ‘copped it in the neck’ about lack of sporting ovals, lack of off leash dog areas because of organised sports, and lack of passive areas. Said that this is an opportunity and should be followed up. Open space for sports grounds can’t be found that easily in a built up city so the centre could be the solution.

LIPSHUTZ: said he didn’t declare a conflict of interest because he didn’t think there was one but that it is ‘appropriate’ that he ‘report’ on what’s been happening in ‘recent times’. Claimed that the trust ‘has not been sitting on its hands’. Said that for the first time the ‘non MRC trustees as of one voice’ and that there have been ‘ongoing lease negotiations with the MRC’ for the past 2 years but these negotiations haven’t as yet ‘reached fruition’.   Said the lease is about the Tabaret and the grandstand and not to the ‘infield and the tracks’. Said that the MRC ‘does not have any legal right’ to anything in the infield. Said that the trustees are therefore committed to a ‘license agreement’ for the infield so the MRC ‘knows precisely what it can do and what it can’t do’. Went on to say that the trustees have got a valuation for the land rental and have put that to the MRC. Claimed that the trustees had ‘always taken the view’ that the valuation should be done by the Valuer General and that the chairman has asked for this. Said that he had been at a meeting today with Greg Sword and the governor executives and that the ‘valuer general will get a brief’ and that if there’s disagreement the Minister will ‘arbitrate’. He didn’t ‘expect that agreement will be reached’.

Said that he didn’t declare a conflict of interest because the trust ‘has taken a very strong view’ that the ‘centre of the racecourse should be used for sport’. Didn’t think that even though the MRC CEO said he welcomed sport, he wasn’t that sure that the MRC itself would endorse this view. Said that the ‘government has also advised’ that there should be sport in the infield but that boils down to the ‘license’ negotiations. Thhere is training and he didn’t think that ‘in reality’ training would go ‘any time soon’ and this would be in the ‘scope of 10 to 15 years’. So if training remains there are ‘safety’ issues both to the public and to the animals. Thus claimed that ‘this motion itself does not actually further anything’ since there is ‘already a commitment by the trust’ to have sport and that won’t happen very soon because they still have to negotiate the ‘license arrangement’. And if there’s no agreement then the ‘minister will step in’. Reassured everyone that ‘the trust has been very active’. Stated that at his morning meeting with the MRC they discussed the issue about opening up access to the racecourse. Said that ‘everyone’ recognises that entrance through the tunnel ‘is not satisfactory’ but ‘equally it is an issue of safety’. Claimed that the MRC has now ‘committed to looking at those issues’ and seeing where there could be ‘palisade fencing’ so that there could be the ‘visual entrance’. Didn’t know whether these things would ‘come true’ but reiterated that the trust is ‘committed’ to having sport, but unsure of the ‘extent’ of this. Therefore he didn’t see that there’s any conflict of interest since the Magee motion ‘is in accord’ with the ‘wishes’ of the trustees.

OKOTEL: asked Magee if he would consider writing to the trustees asking for their position on sport in the centre. Magee didn’t accept this proposal. Okotel then queried the value of writing to the trust asking them to state a position that they are already taking. Thought it ‘would be better’ to have the trust put their ‘position in writing’ so that it would be public and council might ‘utilise’ whatever is written to them as an ‘advocacy tool’.

PILLING: thought that Magee’s motion is only what council is asking for and is ‘complementary’ to ‘what’s going on behind the scenes’.

MAGEE: thanked Lipshutz for remaining in the room since he thought it’s important that people know what the trustees and councillor reps on the trustees are doing. Said that he wasn’t surprised that when Lipshutz became a trustee ‘he would always be acting in the best interests of Glen Eira’. Stated that he thought that Greg Sword was trying ‘to do his best’. Two years ago the trust’s position was a ’64 year lease with no conditions’ and now ‘they’re looking at the same things we are’. Now the MRC CEO wants ‘the same thing’ and the government ‘wants sport in the centre of the racecourse’. ‘Everybody’s together. There’s nobody opposing this’. Wanted his motion to ‘stay the same’ because it sends ‘a strong message’ that council ‘wants to work with them’. Conceded that ‘no one is saying’ that training should go ‘tomorrow’ but important to say that a ‘section of the racecourse’ can be ‘given up’ such as ‘3 ovals’ and then build on that’ and ‘phase out training’. Said he ‘wanted to see racing stay there forever’ but that training is ‘not a permitted use’ and it’s not written anywhere that it is a ‘permitted use’. Concluded by saying that Tang and he first moved the motion that the lease be reduced from 61 years to 21 and that this motion was defeated by 9 to 2. So they never wanted a 21 year lease . ‘We’re not going to tolerate the exclusion of Glen Eira residents’. Said that the 21 year lease ‘is pivotal’ to the future. Quoted the president of Ajax about the lack of space for sport and that 75% of his team can’t play in Glen Eira and ‘that’s a shame’. So there are about 130 or 140 kids who can’t play sport where their ‘parents pay rates’. ‘No one in this room thinks that’s acceptable’ and here’s the ‘opporunity’ to do something. Everyone (trustees, mrc, community) is ‘all on board’ with this.

MOTION PUT TO VOTE. OKOTEL VOTED AGAINST. LIPSHUTZ DID NOT RAISE HIS HAND IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSING THE MOTION. TECHNICALLY THIS MEANS AN ABSENTION!

 

April 4, 2014

Agenda: Delays, Conflict of Interest & Open Space Levy

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

WHY THE DELAY?

Contrary to what Mayor Pilling stated at the Caulfield Village planning conference, namely that council would make its decision on the development plan on April 8th, there is no item set down for decision this coming Tuesday night. What makes this omission even more fascinating is that Schedule 2 of the C60 amendment states – 

The responsible authority must make a decision on the development plan or amendment to the development plan within 60 days after the completion of the display.

The submission/advertising period ended on the 26th of February. The next scheduled council meeting exceeds this 60 day limit – admittedly by only one day. However, given the ‘legalities’ that this council is so keen on, we have to wonder what is really going on. Surely 4 months (at least) to ‘assess’ the submitted plans should be sufficient for our fabulous planning department? Or is there possible dissension in the ranks? Perhaps another conveniently supplied ‘loophole’ for the MRC to ‘negotiate’ to their advantage? All conjecture of course, but given Council’s track record (pun intended) on this issue we have to wonder. Perhaps council might for once furnish residents with an explanation?

RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY

The Records of Assembly make for some more interesting conjecture on the Valuer-General item from the previous two council meetings.

At the 11th March meeting both Hyams and Esakoff declared a conflict of interest. Lipshutz (who was present) DID NOT DECLARE AN INTEREST. Presumably he therefore partook in the discussion.

A week later, on the 18th March meeting on the same item, he apparently changed his mind and did declare a conflict of interest.

OPEN SPACE LEVY

Council is finally making a move after 11 years in hiking up its open space levy to 5.7% across the board by seeking permission to ‘prepare and exhibit’ Amendment C102. Whilst most welcome, and certainly a vast improvement on what the Open Space strategy initially proposed (ie 4 to 5%) we have to note the following:

  • Stonnington, which has the second lowest proportion of open space, is currently seeking an 8% levy and more for its commercial precincts. Glen Eira with the lowest proportion of open space is, in contrast, only seeking a 5.7% levy for all developments – commercial, residential or mixed use.
  • Instead of clapping themselves on the back in relation to the $4m levy achieved from the proposed Caulfield Village we have to wonder why this council settled for so little given that this 5 hectare bit of land is going to be the most densely populated area in the municipality.
  • There are claims of ‘analysis’ in a paper that is mooted to become a ‘reference document’ to the Amendment. That of course has not as yet been made public. Other councils (ie Whitehorse, Bayside) don’t seem to have had any problems in publishing their detailed analysis prior to the actual Amendment process. Even worse is that the officer’s report claims that the objective is to meld the Open Space Strategy with the proposed Amendment when there was absolutely no detailed discussion, nor analysis provided in the now accepted Open Space Strategy.

PS: And for the sheer heck of it we’ve pinched the following (slightly edited) from Abbattoir Facebook.  

fraser

 

March 17, 2014

More Smoke & Mirrors & Policy On The Run

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance
[7] Comments 

Tomorrow night’s agenda features Item 9.7 – Redan Road proposed ‘restructuring’ and the removal of 11 car parking spots; installation of a bike path, and preference for “landscaped kerbs”. We have been informed of the following:

  • 92% of residents living in the street are NOT in favour of the landscaped kerbs since they argue that the street cannot afford to lose these parking spots. They are not opposed to speed humps, just the removal of invaluable parking spots. This has resulted in two separate petitions to councillors
  • The plan provided to residents is factually incorrect in terms of its measurements according to residents. Council refuses to acknowledge this.
  • Nowhere in the extant Bicycle Strategy is there any mention of the need to install bike paths in Redan St.
  • Countless other streets throughout the municipality also have cars ‘speeding’ and are hence unsafe according to council’s definition. Yet, despite numerous and ongoing resident complaints regarding countless other streets with far higher volumes of traffic, these have remained untouched for years – so why the sudden interest in Redan St?
  • Repeated letters and emails to individual councillors such as Delahunty have not been answered.
  • Pilling appears to be content to sign off on faulty and inaccurate information – raising the question as to the quality of councillors’ decision making when the information they are provided with is highly dubious.

But there’s much, much more involved in this sudden need to change Redan St and we believe it fits in very nicely with the Caulfield Village proposal. The entire emphases of the Development Plan focuses on Caulfield Park as providing the necessary open space. (The Centre of the Racecourse barely rates a mention). Hence Redan St. as access to Caulfield Park becomes vital. More questions then become necessary – ie why ratepayers instead of the MRC/developer should be footing the bill for any works that ‘complement’ the Caulfield Village proposals? We’re already witnessing millions upon millions being spent on drainage in the immediate vicinity. Is this just another ‘expense’ that has been landed in residents’ laps via a fully compliant council?

 

March 14, 2014

Open Space Strategy

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

One must really wonder why council has spent over $100,000 of ratepayer funds on a consultancy that delivers pre-determined outcomes and maintains the status quo in all important areas. The policy contains nothing of import that is new or that will change the course of what this administration and its lackey councillors have rubber stamped for eons and eons. But the most glaring omission relates to the manner in which open space levies are to be used.

We remind readers that on June 25th 2013 council adopted a policy which stated:

Council will only spend Public Open Space contributions it receives after 1 July 2013 to acquire and improve land to serve as additional public open space.1 (including the former Glen Huntly Reservoir)

Council will not spend Public Open Space contributions it receives after 1 July 2013 to improve land which is already public open space.

From June 2013, each Council Budget, Strategic Resource Plan and Annual Report will disclose the revenue and expenditure of public open space contributions.

Suddenly this policy is ignored and morphs into the following:

As described in the Strategy and in this report, the open space contribution program is based around the provision of additional land area for open space and also for capital works cots (sic) to establish new open space and upgrade facilities in existing open space where appropriate to meet the additional needs of the forecast population. 

Use of the Reserve fund

Cash contributions toward land acquisition and open space development should be held in a Reserve fund until a suitable site is located and sufficient funds are available to assist Council with purchase or resulting capital works. Funds will also need to be held for upgrades to existing open space

As for ‘monitoring’ and ‘review’ of this long term strategy, residents should not be holding their breaths that their views will be solicited and carefully considered. It will again be more of the same as is made apparent by this one liner – Internal review the Strategy every 4 years for the duration of its operation.

 

March 6, 2014

Beck & Probuild: ‘Suck It Up’?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

The following summary was in many respects the ‘highlight’ of the evening. It involved the developer’s representative (Amanda Ring) who did not ‘speak’ but rather read out a prepared statement.

AMANDA RING: introduced herself as a planner with SJB Planning and that she was ‘speaking on behalf of the developer of the land’. Said that the ‘MRC is not the developer of this land’ and that they have ‘effectively sold the land’ to Beck and Probuild so ‘the community is no longer dealing with the MRC’. Went on to say that as the ‘new owners of the land’ Beck and Probuild were looking ‘froward to being part of the community for the next 10 to 15 years’. The aim is ‘to integrate’ a site that is currently ‘grossly underused’ and to develop this land ‘consistent with government policy’. Said that she ‘gathered’ that people don’t support ‘intensification’ of housing in the neighbourhood but the ‘reality’ is that the ‘decision has been made with the approval of amendment C60’. Whilst Beck and Probuild weren’t involved at that stage they now share the hope that the controls set by the Amendment and the incorporated plan will be ‘implemented’ appropriately. Said that they and council would now be ‘working together’ to ensure that the outcomes are of ‘high standard’. Admitted that the neighbourhood would change and that it would become a ‘thriving mixed use centre’. Said that the ‘consortium is committed to keep you up to date with its development activities’. Introduced ‘George’ as the place manager and who would be dealing with all public liaison issues. Went through the basics of what the Development Plan proposes. Then said ‘I’ve noted your point that there has been a change to dwelling numbers’ but that this has been ‘offset’ by reduction in commercial ‘floor space’ because they couldn’t be ‘confident in putting that into a future plan’. Admitted that there ‘has been change to dwelling numbers’ but that the traffic engineering ‘outcome is absolutely minor‘ and as ‘Rocky pointed out‘ if there are other changes then there will have to be another submission plan to council. Went on to say that the consortium ‘to the best of its ability’ is trying to ‘predict’ how the land can ‘feasibly’ be developed.

Said that these plans have taken about 9 months to ‘pull together’ since the C60 ‘sets high standards for building design’ and ‘as of right height and setback controls’. These controls (plus landscaping, etc)of the C60 set the standards so that large projects like this can be undertaken properly. Whilst council hasn’t yet decided anything Camera’s ‘job is to ensure that’ the development plan is ‘generally in accordance’ with the C60 demands. Said that incorporated plans give the ‘parameters’ of the project but ‘not to the extent that every t is crossed and every i is dotted’ – that’s the job of the development plan. They are ‘confident’ that all the issues have been addressed in the documentation and they concede that ‘not everyone is going to be happy with the plan generally’ or even with some aspects of it. Accepted that some people will continue to be ‘unhappy’ especially about the MRC and the ‘land at the north of the course’ but the developers are not the MRC now and both are ‘highly regarded’ for their ‘residential work’. They’re looking forward to council ‘considering’ the plans and work starting ‘later this year’.

Pilling then asked for questions but Ring said she wasn’t ‘planning to take questions this evening’ and was ‘fearful’ that it would end up in a ‘debate which is not going to end anytime soon’. Pilling said he would be happy to facilitate and that people ask questions and not make statements.

Questions then came about about childcare and what they would do with their children, tradesmen and how they would manoeuvre in and out without parking on carriageways.

MAGEE: ‘as soon as my heart stops beating…..from what I’ve just heard’. Asked Ring to ‘explain to us when the Melbourne Racing Club sold the property?’

RING: said she ‘can’t answer but probably about 12 months ago’.

MAGEE: ‘was council aware of that?’ and ‘how much did the MRC get for the land?’ No real response so Magee said ‘so it’s a secret’. Pilling then intervened and basically wanted Magee to stop, saying ‘these are the applicants’. Magee responded by saying that he’s ‘too angry’ to continue with ‘the debate’. Pilling said it wasn’t a debate but about asking ‘courteous questions’ . Magee claimed that he thought it was a fair question and apologised if he offended.

Another member of the audience then asked if it’s already been ‘established’ that the development plan is in ‘accordance’ with the Incorporated pLan.Pilling replied that it’s still to be ‘determined’. They will consider everything and the officer’s report will be available on the Friday before council decides (April 4th)

Another member quoted from the Town Planning Assessment document that wrote about street frontages being ‘articulated by strong vertical elements to reflect the rhythm of neighbouring residential landscape’. Resident asked how this reflects neighbouring residential landscapes that are basically single storey. Said he objects to this development that doesn’t ‘make any attempt to blend’ in with the residential landscape.

RING: said she would ‘like to answer that’. Acknowledged that many people were ‘expressing’ concerns about height and intensity and she ‘understands that’ but people need to be ‘mindful’ of the fact that ‘strategic decisions how this land will be developed’ (ie height and intensity) ‘were made a long time ago’.’The decision has been made’. Even though people might think they got ‘short shrift’, ‘the reality is the Minister has approved a planning control’ that will mean major change and high rise buildings. Resident interjected and said that she isn’t answering the question. Ring responded by saying ‘I believe I have’. ‘As a result of strategic decisions to develop this land’, the end result will be ‘typological variation from single dwellings’. The resident again insisted that his question hasn’t been answered. Pilling intervened saying that ‘Amanda has’. Resident went on to say that he doesn’t ‘care about strategic planning’ but wants an answer to how a ‘6 storey building blends into a landscape of one and two storey’ buildings. ‘It’s language, it’s rubbish’. Another resident said that if these planners have ‘written those words they should be able to explain them’.

Another resident asked for the number of on street car parking spaces are available within the site. 164 are ‘being removed’  but there are no figures for numbers of on street car parking. A mumbled answer from planners that they haven’t got the figures. Another resident asked ‘you haven’t got them now, or you haven’t got them full stop?’

Cheryl Forge then said as a former Trustee the land sale had never been discussed up until 2012 and she wanted to ask the current trustees if and when  they knew about the land sale.

HYAMS: said that the ‘land in question’ isn’t under the Trust so it didn’t come up and he’s only been a trustee since April 2013 so wouldn’t know what happened before. Said that everyone knew that there had been a partnership between Beck & Probuild and the MRC but that he wasn’t aware of the ‘exact details’. Questions then arose from audience as to whether this was sold or a ‘partnership’. Answers were that this was ‘commercial in confidence’. Hyams then said that the Trust governs crown land and this was ‘land owned by the MRC’ and ‘none of the land comes under the jurisdiction of the Trust’.

FORGE: noted that 8 members of the Trust are also members of the MRC.

HYAMS: repeated that ‘it doesn’t come under land governed by the trust’.

There were several more questions about car parking and renting of car parking. One resident wanted to know if Council was going to do something about the MRC using the centre for car parking more than 5 times a year and whether council was going to charge them for this since it was ‘land that belongs to us’. More questions started coming up and Pilling then wanted to close the meeting, claiming that ‘we’ve all had a good say’. People disagreed and wanted to continue but Pilling closed the meeting.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »