GE Open Space

Archived Posts from this Category

July 31, 2013

Another Chain-Saw Massacre?

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

Council has announced another community consultation for a landscape plan at Koornang Park. The accompanying blurb states: “The plan sees the removal of the predominant row of over-mature Cupressus macrocarpa trees (Monterey Cypress) which are at high-risk of tree limb failure.” The blurb then goes on to say: “The development of the landscape plan has been guided by principles which prioritise safety, increase useable open space and promote environmental sustainability.”

Council has also provided a link to their ‘Have Your Say’ on their webpage. We acknowledge the fact that this time there is at least some form of ‘consultation’ (unlike the Duncan McKinnon episode) and the questions are open-ended. However, we are entirely sceptical as to the claim that ALL OF THESE TREES represent a physical danger, or if in fact, any of them do.

We ventured down to Koornang Park today and spoke with numerous residents who had no idea of what was going on. They also expressed alarm at the prospect of losing so many of these cypress trees. Please note that the ‘landscape concept’ does not indicate anywhere how many of these trees are to be removed.

What many of these residents did say was:

  • The trees provide a terrific sound barrier to block out the traffic noise from busy Koornang Rd
  • The trees also provide a natural barrier from the playground to the street so that young children cannot run onto the road – the playground is not fenced.

Apart from the fact of losing valuable and we maintain healthy trees, the safety issues in the above points would appear to go against council’s claim of ‘prioritising safety’. Rather, we are at a loss to understand why cypress trees have suddenly become public enemy number one for this council!

P1000163

P1000164P1000161

 

July 16, 2013

What Lipshutz Wants Lipshutz Gets?

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

What Lipshutz wants, Lipshutz gets and to hell with the cost! That’s the only plausible view that residents can take on the Conservatory Affair. Lipshutz and his mates want a café instead of restoring and maintaining the site as the previous council resolution decreed. So, all the resources of council are put at his and his mates’ disposal. For example:

  1. A dubious and far from ‘objective’ set of survey questions
  2. The printing of thousands of glossy sheets containing the survey
  3. The hiring of consultants to ring people and ask the same nonsense questions
  4. The pre-paid postage for return of said surveys
  5. The ‘Have Your Say’ online version where even though residents are told they can “discuss ideas and opinions with the community” that option is not provided. All that’s there is the same old boring and rigged survey.

And last but not least, there’s the REPRINTING of large and prominent advertisements in the Caulfield Leader. Not once, but at least twice. Quite remarkable when considered against the advertisements for really important issues such as the Budget, the Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) or Council Plan or even the notification of the Special Council Meeting that would determine the budget and SRP. Here there was no ‘Have Your Say’; no repeat advertisements prominently placed. In short, no real attempt to do more than the legal requirement even though these ‘consultations’ are arguably the most important for the entire year.

Even when advertising the SRP in the Leader residents were only given 9 DAYS NOTICE since the ad appeared on the 28th May and submissions closed on the 6th June! In contrast, the Conservatory Survey is featured on council’s home page, appeared this week as part of ‘community news’ on page 2 and then a separate 3 column ad on page 4. This was a repeat of the 2nd July advertisement (albeit smaller)!

Given all of this, we must therefore query:

  • How much is being spent on a really dubious consultation process on something that has already come up 3 times previously?
  • Why isn’t this same effort and amount spent on the really crucial consultations?
  • Would this emphases on publicity be different if Lipshutz didn’t fear that there would be strong opposition to the idea of granting public open space to commercial interests and as the Friends of Caulfield Park point out, the countless ‘unknowns’ as to costs of ‘development’ and the potential to destroy the heritage area of the park?
  • How far will council go in order to subvert and create the responses that they want and at what cost to ratepayers? Why is the ‘survey’ so reprehensively skewed?
  • To what extent does the principle of ‘winky pop’ apply here since both Lipshutz and Hyams have made it absolutely clear that they favour cafes and hence are they guilty of ‘pre-judgement’?
  • What else is there that the public isn’t being told? We repeat our earlier comments – who will pay for ‘developments’ such as roads, toilets, sewerage, lighting, outfitting kitchens, etc. And the $64 dollar question – why is one man’s wishes being pandered to to such an extent at the probable cost of tens of thousands of ratepayers’ money?

Finally, there was one resolution carried at another council recently which basically clipped the wings of administrators in that any consultation (ie hired consultants) worth over $10,000 had to come to council for approval. Not a bad idea we say!

 

July 16, 2013

Compare & Contrast – Again & Again!

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

plazaCOMMENT: The irony of this situation should not be lost on anyone. How ‘unreasonable’ that the land owner should want to know what the tenant has in store for their land! Pity that when council hands out carte blanche to the MRC and the Alma Club it doesn’t insist on the same processes. Instead vague, nebulous, and airy-fairy ideas that are likely to change ten times over, get the go ahead!

++++++++++++++++++

And from The Stonnington Leader –

car share

COMMENT: Readers will remember the fiasco of the ‘debate’ on car sharing in Glen Eira. The same old arguments were trotted out – ‘let’s think about it in the distant future’. Hardly any concrete evidence was provided in the officer’s report and when it did come back to council the resolution was to look at the issue again in a year’s time. Stonnington takes it even one step further – draft papers, and full consultation with their community. Well done Stonnington!

 

July 1, 2013

‘Consultation’ Glen Eira Style!

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

Residents beware! Council is pretending to undergo a ‘community consultation’ process on the Caulfield Park Conservatory. Despite the fact that the ill-named Community Plan endorses and emphasises the need for multiple methods of consultation, all that is being done in this case is a ‘survey’ with preset and predetermined questions. Far from being a ‘neutral’ set of questions, here we have questions that are not placed in context and completely fail to provide residents with the information that is essential in order for them to ‘prioritise’ a single thing. Grandiose statements such as “Council is asking residents to express their views via a survey” (from website) ignores the simple fact that there simply is no avenue for residents to write a single word about their views. It is all ‘tick the box’ approach to a predetermined and slanted set of questions.

Following a few demographic questions such as what use do you make of the park and whether the respondent is a resident or trader, the heart of the issue is presented as a series of ‘options’ that residents are requested to grade from 1 (most preferred) to 10 (least preferred). How convenient that ‘cafe’ is first in the alphabet and ‘repair/restore’ comes last!

Here are the relevant questions in the order they are presented:

Please list your preferred options for the Conservatory from 1 to 10 (1=most preferred to 10=least preferred).

  1. Cafe – indoor/outdoor – capacity 50
  2. Cafe/tearooms – indoor/outdoor – capacity 80-100
  3. Children’s garden/playspace
  4. Community room/s
  5. Native/sustainable garden/environmental education hub
  6. Plant nursery
  7. Recreational/exercise area
  8. Remove Conservatory and return to open space
  9. Repair, restore and replant gardens
  10. Other

No real definition of anything is provided nor the implications. If the ‘capacity’ of 80 -100 is chosen as Number 1, then what does this mean in terms of ‘footprint’ of the ‘café’. How much open space will be lost to accommodate this number since it is certain that the current conservatory size will never be capable of seating this number within its walls. And exactly what is a ‘café’? Will full meals be served? Will the place remain open until late at night? Will there be a liquor license? And what of toilets/sewerage, kitchens, loading bays, parking and general access? Will we have roads built into the park to enable access for all service deliveries? How much more land will be lost? How many trees will be placed in jeopardy?

Asking residents to ‘prioritise’ when they have absolutely no idea of what it is they are prioritising is devious, deceptive, and deliberately misleading. Yet, council has no qualms in spending ratepayers’ money on glossy, meaningless ‘surveys’ if they know it will get the Lipshutz’s of this world the result that he and the other ‘conservatives’ want!

Another issue – apart from the question of using public open space for commercial purposes – : who will pay for this ‘redevelopment’? Will council outfit the place and then simply lease it to some commercial operator as it has done with the café at GESAC for the princely sum of over $300,000? Will Council and therefore ratepayers pay for sewerage connections? Will we pay for access roads or will the lessee have to cover ALL the costs?

We reiterate! None of the answers to these questions have been included in the bogus ‘survey’. It is akin to asking people to vote on something that they have no idea of what they’re voting for. Only when residents can evaluate the options based on a full understanding of what they actually mean can we call this ‘consultation’. Only when residents are offered the opportunity to actually express their individual views as they wish, can we have any faith in any of the ‘consultation process’ that this council introduces.

 

June 24, 2013

Agenda: Budget, Council Plan & Open Space

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

There are several items of interest for the Special Council Meeting on Tuesday night –

  • As expected no real changes to the ‘draft’ budget and strategic resource documents. In other words, the recommendations and requests from residents have once more fallen on deaf ears.
  • Worse still is that no thorough explanation is provided for fee hikes. One recent public question queried why aged care residential bonds should jump an incredible $100,000 in one hit. The answer? – in line with the average for private operations. Questions as to fee increases for child care, also received the silent treatment.
  • Community plan (circa 2011) remains untouched except for an ‘addendum’ that is tacked on about 2011 census figures. No attempt to integrate these latest figures with what was written nearly 3 years ago!

Open Space Policy

  • Half a page is all that Glen Eira can produce as far as ‘policy’ goes on this issue.
  • Yes, open space levies will now be used for the acquisition of further open space, and/or its ‘development’, but this includes the Booran Road Reservoir which won’t have a penny spent on it until at least 2015/16. In fact the entire budgeted amount for the next financial year in this category is the development of Elsternwick Park at a measly $250,000.
  • Not a word about increasing the open space levy to at least 5% across all areas of the municipality when land is subdivided. Nor has this council made any attempt to introduce an amendment to give such a policy legal effect. Other councils such as Bayside, Stonnington, Port Phillip and many, many others already have such amendments passed or well on the way. The likely excuse for this inaction is that council is awaiting the Open Space Strategy Review! Reviews and Amendments are not mutually exclusive – the process should have been initiated years ago if the intent was to really ensure that developers paid their fair share.

Defined Benefits Scheme

Here’s the Swabey recommendation –

“That Council endorses the repayment of the defined benefit call ($7.120mil) by June

2015 in accordance with the following schedule:

– 2012-13 – $2.4mil by 30 June 2013;

– 2013-14 – $2.4mil (+ interest) by 30 June 2014; and

– 2014-15 – $2.32mil (+ interest) by 30 June 2015”.

We draw readers’ attention to the fact that here is an official council document that spectacularly fails to declare both the AMOUNT AND RATE OF INTEREST that residents will be forced to pay. We can only speculate as to where and how these sums will be buried in any further official documents.

As for up front disclosure of monies the ‘declaration of rates and charges’ is another case in point. On the issue of pensioner rebate all that we’re told is: Council Pensioner Rebate -$0.557M AND It be recorded that Council grants to each ratepayer who is an “eligible recipient”within the meaning of the State Concessions Act 2004 a combined rebate up to a maximum of $270 (being an amount contributed by State Government & Council) in respect of that land. Hence there is no admission of exactly how much Council is contributing and whether or not this subsidy has risen, declined, or remained static.

Port Phillip is far more forthcoming with its equivalent agenda item –

The City of Port Phillip offers a council rebate of up to $144.00 in addition to the State Government Rebate of $202.90 to all eligible pension card holders. (Agenda items – 25th June 2013)

On the actual rate increase itself, Glen Eira writes only in terms of the cents in the dollar. Anything to help disguise the fact that it’s another 6.5% increase. Port Phillip states clearly – The proposed rate in the dollar will result in an increase of 4.5% in Council’s rate in the dollar.

Whilst these last examples might be seen as trivial, we believe that they represent the entire approach of a council determined to continually downplay all the potential ‘negatives’ and to make it as difficult as possible for residents to decipher what is really happening.

 

June 20, 2013

Racecourse, Council & Government: The ‘Unholy Alliance’!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Open Space
[7] Comments 

We’ve received an email from a resident regarding a complaint sent into the Minister. Here is the response. Please note that the final sentence of this letter should read: “It is hoped that the Trust and the MRC will continue to work with Glen Eira City Council to monitor the use, and if required, improve the community facilities provided in the centre of the track.”

Racecourse Centre0001

 

June 18, 2013

ABC Studios

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning
[5] Comments 

abc

PS: The potential sale of the ABC studios is nothing new. In fact, it has been on the cards for at least ten years. That raises the question of what Council has been doing in the meantime? Is it another instance of too little, too late? The horse has already bolted? Below are some media reports that will interest residents. Please note one real estate agent’s comments regarding the lack of height limits set by council!

The Rippon Lea Estate point of view – http://www.nattrust.com.au/advocacy/campaigns/abc_for_rippon_lea

PLUS

ABC’s Slice of Rippon Lea Estate, Elsternwick, Expected to Sell For More than $25 Million

Written by Marc Pallisco

Monday, 26 October 2009 23:16
 

Rippon Lea

AN 8,000 square metre slice of Elsternwick’s historic Rippon Lea estate, compulsorily acquired by the State Government in the 1950s for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation – is likely to be sold to residential developers, if the ABC vacates the property in 2012.

ABC project director Ray Moore told Secret Agent it is considering selling two Elsternwick properties, currently occupied as studios and offices, including a major complex on Gordon Street abutting Rippon Lea – built on what was once the property’s southern boundary.

Moneys raised from the sales will fund the development of a new $90 million studio at 102 Sturt Street in Southbank, Mr Moore said. The Sturt Street development, which would be next door to an existing ABC office at 120 Southbank Boulevard, is subject to parliamentary approval, but expected to occur.

Sources estimate the value of ABC’s outgoing Gordon Street office to be about $25 million.

They say the land could make way for an apartment complex, similar to that being proposed around the Stonington mansion in Malvern, or a lower density subdivision, as occurred behind Canterbury’s Frognall mansion in the early 1990s.

At close to a hectare, the site could also make way for several apartment towers offering Port Phillip and CBD views, over Rippon Lea’s established gardens.

ABC offices and studios were developed on part of the Rippon Lea estate, prior to the opening of the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games. Popular television shows including Countdown, The Big Gig and The Late Show were later recorded at what is known as the “Rippon Lea studio”.

The land occupied by the ABC is not on the Victorian Heritage Register, but a Heritage Victoria spokeswoman said the ABC could still return the land to the estate, if it wanted. The imposing Rippon Lea property is managed by the National Trust, and open to the public.

Source: http://www.realestatesource.com.au/abcs-slice-of-rippon-lea-estate-elsternwick-expected-to-sell-for-more-than-25-million.html

 

PLUS

 

ABC set to leave home

Phillip Hudson and Nathan Mawby

3 May 2013

Herald-Sun

THE ABC will be leaving its historic TV studios at Ripponlea and the valuable property may be sold for high-rise residential development under plans to build a new headquarters for the national broadcaster in Southbank.

Famous ABC programs such as Countdown were produced at the Gordon St studios, which opened in 1956 with the introduction of television.

In recent years, it has been home to programs such as Adam Hills chat show In Gordon Street Tonight and filming for the series Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries.

Under the plan, the ABC will build a five-storey headquarters next to its existing Southbank offices, where its TV news moved in 2001.

It will include new TV studios and a major TV production centre.

The overhaul is aimed at guaranteeing jobs and production in Victoria.

The Federal Government will loan the ABC $90 million, which it has to repay by 2020.

ABC managing director Mark Scott said the new building would be designed to put the ABC’s many services on show.

“All the plans for this area are to make it more visible, more highly trafficked by pedestrians, make it more of a centrepoint of the centre,” he said.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the new building would be home to the ABC’s radio, television and digital production operations as well as its broadcasting and support services.

Senator Conroy said consolidating operations would allow the ABC to achieve operational savings and productivity benefits.

Local architect Robert Mills said the Ripponlea site’s proximity to the CBD, transport, schools and shopping meant that while a feasibility study would be done, it would likely become a residential site.

“It will be controversial, but I predict the final outcome will be a high-rise,” he said.

Mr Mills said that while the building had no council height restrictions, its height would likely be limited by shading.

The former Channel 9 studios in Bendigo St, Richmond, are being transformed into apartments and townhouses, selling for up to $1.2 million.

 

 

May 6, 2013

The Alma Club: Bye Bye Open Space!

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

Alma Club

PS: As a footnote to the entire issue of planning and the failure of this council to not only implement but have any strategic vision for the city, we thought that residents would be interested in the following comments from one VCAT member in a recent decision.  This concerns a Dudley St application which has been making the rounds for nigh on 6 years. The area is listed as MINIMAL CHANGE, yet application after application has been rubber stamped for 5 storey student accommodation and other developments. Here’s what the member stated in his decision –

It is perhaps unfortunate that the future of this area is being considered on an ad hoc basis through multiple permits and amendments to permits when the locality has offered a real opportunity for a strategic planning exercise to acknowledge the land’s relationship to the Phoenix Precinct and other attributes. Sadly, the street interface along Gibson Street with garages, a substation and an extensive area of encased fire services, is an example, in my view, of a lost opportunity to achieve a quality and integrated solution for an area that could have had a much higher level of street amenity. Having said that, there is a strategic context provided by the Scheme within which decisions about individual applications can be made and the lack of a specific position in policy about the area’s future direction does not provide a reason to refuse the current amendment request.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/512.html

 

May 3, 2013

The Budget

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

This is our first preliminary look at the proposed budget. It is admittedly a very pleasant surprise that the rate increase will be kept to 6.5%. It is however worth pointing out the rate increases at neighbouring councils –

Manningham – 4.8%

Whitehorse – 4.1%

Kingston – 4.45%

Port Phillip – 4.5%

Bayside – 3.5%

Stonnington – 4.3%

Boroondara – 4.7%

SUPERANNUATION LIABILITY

Glen Eira has decided on the following strategy – “ The Defined Benefit Superannuation Call will be paid off over three years (before the next Review comes into effect) without reducing services of capital investment or increasing Rates”. This is presented as $2.4 million repayment the coming financial year and then $2.3 for the following 2 years. We do not know the interest rate on this debt!

Other councils have opted for different strategies and their comments are worthy of note –

Council’s Budget and Strategic Resource Plan shows that Council has forecast to borrow $7.90 million during 2013/14 to repay a liability Council has to the Vision Super Fund for a shortfall in earnings by Vision Super to meet its actuarial forecast for payments to defined benefits superannuants. This borrowing is consistent with the Financial Strategy as the alternative to borrowing is a debt repayment schedule offered by Vision Super with an effective interest rate of 8.82%: bank loans are lower than the Vision Super rate and therefore are an economic alternative. (Manningham)

The increase in net cash inflows from operating activities is primarily due Council paying $9.78 million to Vision Super in August 2012, being the discounted call amount for Council’s share of the Local Authorities Superannuation Defined Benefits Scheme liability shortfall.

In August 2012 the Local Government Defined Benefit Superannuation Scheme sent us an invoice for $14.3 million to cover our share of the shortfall in employee superannuation. It is payable immediately after 1 July 2013. This impost presents us with a major financial challenge not of our own making. While a likely shortfall was noted in last year’s budget the actual amount was well beyond what we expected. Because we don’t keep that sort of surplus cash in the bank, we will borrow to repay the liability in full – taking advantage of the relatively low interest rates currently available. In addition, we will repay the loan in just five years at an annual cost of $3.3 million. This strategy will save ratepayers over $9 million in interest compared to a standard twenty year loan. Our rate rise this year could have been a little lower but the savings we achieve with our approach will give the community a much better result (Boroondara).

There’s therefore much that is not revealed. Is Glen Eira ‘borrowing’ from the Vision Fund at 8.82% per annum? Did they investigate any cheaper bank loans? Would any bank even give them a loan since recent borrowings totalled $25 million? Clearly Glen Eira was never in a position to pay out up front. The result is probably millions in further interest repayments.

FEES AND CHARGES

  • Many of GESAC user costs have increased. What impact will this have on membership and attendance? Why the need for these increases? Isn’t this a case of killing the goose that laid the golden egg? Is this why there’s the neat little rider in the budget about handing control to increase prices to the Manager of GESAC?
  • Bin charges go up and up again – 240 litre bin up by another $17 to $377 pa and the 120 litre bin up by $8 to $173 pa.
  • Child care fees up again – $5 per day for 3 to 5 year olds to $100 per day.
  • No figure provided for council’s actual contribution to pensioner rebate. Has it gone down?
  • Staff numbers keep increasing – another $5million in staff costs and numbers up by 28 for EFT

OPEN SPACE

There’s a welcome addition in terms of open space via the statement: “As part of the current budget process, Council will adopt a Policy that all Public Open Space Contributions will be used solely for the acquisition of additional public open space or the upgrading of additional public open space for community use. Contributions would not be spent on existing open space. (Additional open space includes the disused Glen Huntly Reservoir)….In 2013-14, the Budget provides $250K for the upgrading of Elsternwick Plaza, owned by VicTrack”.

The budget also contains this plan – $5 million in 2015/6 and $4.5 million in 2016/17 for the Booran Rd Reservoir. Last year the budget papers had it down as – 4 million in 2017/18 and 3.5 million in 2018/19. So, the ‘redevelopment’ has been moved forward a year or so, but the estimated cost has escalated another 1.5 million. In other words, all that has been gained by this ‘policy’ is not MORE open space in the next financial year but some neat account balancing.

We ask: is the above more sleight of hand, especially since only $250,000 has been made available in the upcoming financial year. What happens if a property does suddenly become available? Will council even consider its purchase?

This is our most important comment however. Council estimates that the open space levies for the coming year will only bring in $2 million. Last year the figure was $1.9 million. Given that there are over 1000 subdivisions in Glen Eira per year, and at least 20 to 30% of these would be for 3 subdivisions and more, then an increase of a piddling $100,000 is quite unbelievable. So how many developers are thus being let off the hook? And why is there no mention of the potential increase in the open space levy given that countless other councils are exacting at least 5% across all of their municipalities.

We will comment further in the days ahead once we’ve had a chance to go through the budget in greater detail.

PS: there is one current ‘innovation’ in this budget that rears its head for the first time. In all previous budgets Council saw fit to include after each category the FINAL FINANCIAL FIGURES for that category in the User Fees & Charges – for example: “Total Asset Management”; “Total Glen Works”; “Total Property and Facilities” etc. This year, no such figures are provided! Hence residents have absolutely no idea how much revenue is brought in for each of these individual categories. Transparency and accountability have again taken a huge hit, despite the Auditor General’s recent report on the need for councils to justify every single cent in language that is accessible, and comprehensible!

 

May 1, 2013

The Conservatory ‘Debate’

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space
[14] Comments 

Prior to reporting on this ‘debate’ we wish to highlight these points:

  • For some councillors the conservatory has been allowed to become ‘dilapidated’. For others it has been ‘preserved’ and ‘fixed up’.
  • Only one councillor mentioned long term consequences such as ‘water, electricity, sewerage’ if this becomes a cafe. What has not been mentioned is ACCESS to serve a cafe – ie will we have loading bays? will more parkland be ripped up for roads and carparks?
  • If a cafe, no councillor mentioned outfitting costs and who will pay for this – council or lessee. For example at GESAC $300,000+ was spent on outfitting the cafe!
  • Lipshutz’s inconsistency continues – in 2011 he called the conservatory ‘an icon’!!!!!!!!

LIPSHUTZ: Read out the officer recommendations. Stated that the conservatory issue is ‘vexed’ and has come up several times. Previous survey was ‘inconclusive’, Said that ‘many people’ including himself have got ‘concepts’ about what should happen including a ‘cafe/tea rooms or other uses’. ‘There’s no suggestion’ that the place would be ‘demolished’. The motion ‘ensures’ that ‘concepts are brought before the community’ and that people can then come to council after ‘consultation’ and then council would decide. Went on to say that there are plenty of ways that this ‘can be used’ such as cafe or simply ‘flowers and gardens’. The conservatory is ‘much loved’ but also ‘maligned’ building and people want to make sure that it’s used properly and that the motion will make this happen. Didn’t want to see ‘a patch up job’ on the place. Important that the ‘community come in and tell us what they want’. Stated that there are ‘beautiful’ areas to the east, then the lake, and the western side which is ‘not used at all’. Wants to see that part ‘developed’ so it ‘can be used for recreation’.

DELAHUNTY: important that community has input to get this ‘right’ but the question is what’s ‘right’. It’s always been her ‘ethos’ that the role of a councillor is to ‘represent’ and there are strong views about this issue and community groups such as Friends of Caulfield Park ‘can inform us’ and ‘own this process’ as to what it will look like down the track and not ‘spend the community’s money’ on what mightn’t ‘be the end result’. Said that previous consultation wasn’t about concepts and ‘possibly didn’t ask the right questions’ nor ‘broad enough’. Thus she thought that ‘we have to take the lead’ and tell people ‘these are the options’ and ‘hoped’ that community groups ‘take hold of this’. They should ‘inform us’ and ‘help us deliver’ the outcomes. Previous survey ‘only heard from 312 people’ and that’s ‘possibly not enough’ and wanted a ‘more ringing endorsement’ about what to do. ‘Will cop’ that this (ie consultation) has been ‘done before’ but ‘let this be the last time’.

PILLING: said that the motion was a ‘mish-mash’, not clear and ‘confusing’. Said that the last resolution was to fix up the conservatory and ‘protect’ it and that this motion just ‘delays that’ . Accepted the ‘good will’ of councillors but said that it should be fixed up and then consult. ‘Opening it up to commercialisation’ is bringing up a ‘can of worms’. Said the motion ‘was confusing everyone’ and that it’s a ‘mish-mash’. Said he was in favour of community groups coming in, but this motion doesn’t ‘seek to do’ that. Also, there’s ‘a precedent here about commercialising our parks’ and mentioned surrounding, existing cafes and competition and ‘that’s not our role’.

MAGEE: admitted that he’d been in favour of a cafe for many years and went past that morning and asking himself ‘how can this go forward’. Then he realised that over the last 4 years he’d been ‘fighting’ the MRC for ‘overcapitalising and commercialising’ crown land. So he felt like a ‘real hypocrite’ because favouring a cafe in the park was ‘exactly what I was criticising others for’. Therefore he ‘can’t support commercial activities on crown land’. Read out the 2011 motion about ‘full restoration’ of the conservatory and then said ‘here we are two years later’ debating about consultation. Said that what they’re trying to do is ‘give back’ to the community what they were given in the seventies. Wanted a ‘full restoration’ and then going back to the people. He ‘liked’ the idea of plants being there. ‘we have to restore it to its former glory’ and remember why it ‘was put there in the first place’…..’I won’t be supporting anything that goes as far as commercialising any land’ in parks.

LOBO: thought about this for a long time and it involves an ‘icon’ in the park. Said he’d visited last week and received ‘half a dozen’ phone calls from people asking ‘not to dilly dally this process’ any longer because it’s already been ‘considered’ on 3 previous occasions – 2006, 2010 and 2011. Said that if they’d already considered the issues when they sent out the survey and only got 312 responses then ‘maybe at the time they did not realise the importance of this place’ . Handing this over to ‘money making’ businesses is akin to the MRC using ‘crown land to make money’ . Council should go ahead with ‘full restoration’. ‘What we are achieving by sending another costly survey is beyond my reasoning’. If the results are similar to previous surveys then it’s ’embarrassing’ and a ‘futile exercise’.  Cited Einstein about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a ‘sign of insanity’. When the city is crying out for open space building something on the open space is the opposite. Said that it looks like council is heading down the track of ‘encouraging cafes, two dollar shops and massage parlours’. Wanted to ‘get on with the job or restoring this icon’.

SOUNNESS: stated that this building came from Rippon Lea where they had lovely gardens, much open space, high ceilings. This conservatory in comparison to that is ‘small and squalid’. Accepted that ‘it’s got a lot of history’ but was ‘rejected from Rippon Lea’. The question then becomes what’s the best use? Admitted that ‘I do not know’. Said that this is like grit in the eye in that ‘it’s a small matter for Glen Eira’ – ‘it’s not a GESAC’; it’s a ‘small thing’ but it’s ‘hung around and irritated’ a lot of people. It’s never going to become the best conservatory and win awards. If it’s a teahouse then you’ve got to think about power lines, sewerage, and water and whether ‘this is the best use for our park’. Went on to say it’s a ‘lot of money to spend on something’ if the returns are small either way.

OKOTEL: said that since the last consultation was in 2006 there had been a ‘sufficient gap’ for this now to be ‘relooked at’. Basically repeated the officer’s report on numbers for and against from the 2006 survey.  Commented that the petition that also ‘went out’ doesn’t say if those people who signed also filled out the survey so there could have been duplication and she didn’t think that since this was ‘seven years ago we don’t have those records anymore’. Said that in 2006 there was support for a cafe so community recognised that there was need for development and that currently and ‘unfortunately’ the conservatory is ‘falling further and further into dilapidation’. Thought it was important that councillors take into view the community’s wishes and don’t just follow their own perceptions. That they need to ‘take direction from the community’. Hoped that this was true on ‘every issue’ and ‘take direction from consultation we have with the community’. “Consultation is a fundamental job for council to undertake’.

ESAKOFF: ‘looked forward’ to community views even though different comnmunity. Said that the motion ‘opened it up to more opportunity’ and ‘not just a cafe’ but ‘other uses as well’. Responded to Lobo’s comment about 2 dollar shops saying that they wouldn’t survive without community support.

HYAMS: didn’t ‘think’ that this was commercialisation of parks since tea rooms would add to the park by getting people to come into the parks as in other parts of the world. Objective isn’t to ‘work for the benefit of the operator’ but to ‘bring further life to the area’.  Said that in 2006 ‘the majority was in favour’ of a cafe. And that with the petition you ‘can’t put the petition on the same level’ as ‘a neutral community survey’.  ‘When you put out a neutral question’ via the consultation survey then ‘you get back the response of the community’ which isn’t true for a petition which also doesn’t capture all those people who refused to sign a petition. ‘so all you get is one side of the argument’. Said that the ‘equivalent’ would be like getting the survey and then discarding all those ‘that say they don’t want a cafe’. Said in 2006 council decided to ‘push ahead’ with tendering although ‘for some reason that didn’t proceed’ and in 2010 officers thought it should come ‘to new council’ and then a year later ‘council changed its mind’. So it’s not a question of coming back again and again on the issue until they get the tea room. Said that suggestions to ‘do the work and then consult’ doesn’t make sense because it ‘may well end up as a waste of money’ if people want a ‘tea room’ and they’ve ‘already put on a roof’ that’s appropriate for a ‘green house’.

LIPSHUTZ: compared Lobo’s and Sounness’ comments and ‘wondered whether we’re talking about the same building’ – ‘in this particular case’ he agrees with Sounness. ‘It’s not an icon. It is a small and squalid building’. But people are concerned about it and that’s why the motion is as it is.

Argued that the motion isn’t saying ‘commercialising the park’. It says that ‘we may’ if that’s ‘what the community want’. Motion is all about ‘seeking consultation’ about what people want. Also said that ‘we have protected’ the conservatory; ‘we have fixed it up’ and that ‘we’ve done the works’ and that the motion isn’t about ‘protecting’ but ‘deciding where we go from here’. It’s not a ‘mish-mash’ because all it’s saying is going to people and asking what they want. He’s not afraid to say that a cafe is something that he’s wanted for ‘some time’ and that ‘it’s an excellent idea’. ‘Our role’ is to ensure that parks are used to the fullest potential and it’s silly to ‘have open space that nobody uses’. If in the end it’s about flowers then that’s ‘wonderful’ – ‘it’s for the community to decide’. Not enough to think that ‘let’s build it and they will come’. They didn’t build GESAC and then ask the community what they wanted. ‘we came with a concept’ and then invited the community. ‘This is what this motion is all about’. ‘It is not an icon. It is a small and squalid building’. ‘Let’s get the community involved and end it once and for all’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED 5 TO 4.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »