GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

April 29, 2014

Shop Local? – If You Can Get There!

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

Paul Burke states that there is “no evidence that businesses would be adversely affected.” Research by Monash University certainly casts major doubt on such a statement!

Driving a changed approach to shopping

11 April 2013

Parking restrictions, single lanes, local council controlled parking areas, higher parking fees, train crossings and traffic lights were seen as barriers to shopping at local centres.

Small suburban shopping centres are disproportionately threatened by policies on climate change and traffic congestion that discourage consumers from using their cars, research shows.

The Monash University study found many people already favour larger shopping malls over local centres because of the perceived ease of parking and access.

Dr Vaughan Reimers from the Department of Marketing examined the importance shoppers gave to car convenience, recognising that urban sprawl and decentralised retail options had contributed to reliance on the car. He found that irrespective of age, gender or income, shoppers regarded access and parking as important determinants of where they chose to shop.

He also assessed perceptions of shopping malls and shopping strips, and then compared the actual level of convenience provided by both for people travelling by car. The results were published in Transportation Research Part A.

Dr Reimers’ study showed that although shopping malls had more parking than local centres, people were more likely to be able to park close to desired stores at their local centre. However, it was commonly believed that large shopping complexes always had better parking options – a belief that has helped contribute to the rise of the mall.

Parking restrictions, single lanes, local council controlled parking areas, higher parking fees, train crossings and traffic lights were seen as barriers to shopping at the smaller centres by respondents.

“On the basis of the results of this study, any strategies designed to deter car-usage are likely to tip the balance even further in favour of the mall,” Dr Reimers said.

“Many policies related to tackling climate change have not only failed to achieve their objective but have also had a negative effect on the retail sector.”

Dr Reimers said modern transport systems needed to find a balance between environmental sustainability and economic growth, a fact that was particularly significant in light of the competitive disadvantage faced by suburban shopping centres.

“Policy makers and urban planners must give careful consideration to the negative consequences that may stem from strategies designed to deter car-based shopping,” Dr Reimers said.

Source: http://monash.edu/news/show/driving-a-changed-approach-to-shopping

April 28, 2014

Caulfield Park Conservatory – Again, & Again, & Again & Again!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

Here we go again, with the continuing saga of the Caulfield Park Conservatory. The Council agenda for Tuesday night contains this set of recommendations/’options’ authored by that ubiquitous entity – Mr Nobody!

Options include, but are not limited to:

a. select a tender for the restoration of the conservatory and accept the significantly increased cost;

b. remove the conservatory and return the area to open space including new plantings of exotic species – estimated cost $75k;

c. remove the conservatory and amphitheatre and return both areas to open space including new plantings of exotic species –estimated cost $140k;

d. undertake consultation on alternative proposals;

e. other action as directed.

7. Recommendation

That Council give direction.

Residents may well ask:

Didn’t Council really know that the cost of refurbishment would be more than the amount budgeted for less than a year ago? Or is this officer’s report just another example of fudging the truth? For example we urge readers to return to somee of our earlier posts (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/council-meeting-caulfield-park-conservatory/ and https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/the-conservatory-debate/) where Lipshutz , arguing for the café option, states that ‘keeping the conservatory’ would be $300,000 to $400,000. That was October 2011!
Since when has the realisation of increased cost been a deterrent to find extra money by this council? We note the 2 GESAC car park extensions; the blow out from 6 million to ten million for the Duncan MacKinnon Pavilion and now the mooted 7 million to 9 million for the Booran Road Reservoir! Finding extra money for these mega palaces has never been a problem in the past.
Why has the conservatory been allowed to become so run down year after year? To the best of our knowledge the only funds allocated to any kind of work on the conservatory was $100k in 2007/8. Since then it’s basically been allowed to rot!
How many more goes should residents expect on the issue of the conservatory? How many more resolutions regarding ‘full restoration’ need to be carried before anything is done?
As the minutes of April 2013 tells us –

Council has considered the matter at its Ordinary Meetings of 13 December 2006, 14 December 2010 and 11 October 2011. On the last occasion Council resolved:

“(a) That Council recognises the heritage value of the Caulfield Park Conservatory

(b) That Council determine not to proceed with and Expression of Interest campaign for the Caulfield Park Conservatory

(c) That Council considers funding in the 2012/13 budget for the repairs and full restoration of the Caulfield Park Conservatory.

Carried”

That resolution of course went nowhere since the cafe option reared its ugly head once more only to be soundly trounced by community views in the ensuing ‘consultation’. It’s certainly time that councillors accept what the community wants and that they ensure that ‘full restoration’ and adequate maintenance is carried out immediately. Eight years of neglect and pussy footing around has to stop.

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?

April 23, 2014

Council – So ‘Community Minded’!

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

We’ve received an email from a resident which in our view epitomises everything that is wrong with the Glen Eira City Council administration and, in particular, its penchant for secrecy and putting every single obstacle it can in the way of residents.

Here’s what happened.

A resident went down to council offices and asked to see the Melbourne Transport Victoria submission on the Caulfield Village Development Plan.
An officer finally came down with the submission and told the resident that photographs or copies were verboten.
The resident, not to be put off, then started to transcribe the submission in full.
The officer remained watching the resident write for at least ten minutes and was clearly bored out of his brain and inwardly fuming. He then called in an underling to continue with the surveillance.

What is so outrageous about this behaviour is:

There is NOTHING, not a single word, in the Planning and Environment Act which precludes residents from taking a photo of a submission. The ‘embargo’ by council is simply another example of their determination to make things as difficult as they possibly can for residents. It is simply another ‘rule’ concocted by council to prevent widespread dissemination of a public document.
It also illustrates the common council practice of ‘if it’s not stated in the legislation’ then we can’t do it. Or the reverse is also true – if it’s not stated in the legislation, we can do it’. It all depends on the situation and the objective – for example: the Local Law and the Meeting Procedures and attempts to dissent from the chair!
Residents need to ask: how much did this officer surveillance cost ratepayers? How many dollars went down the drain when two employees stood around watching someone else write instead of getting on with the work they are paid (by us) to do?

Finally, here is the transcript as forwarded to us. All that has been left out are the reference numbers –

Received – 27^th February 2014

Public Transport Victoria

Ref FQL

Rocky Camera

Coordinator Statutory Planning

Thank you for your letter dated 28/01/14 referring the Caulfield Village Development Plan to Public Transport Victoria. Please find Public Transport Victoria’s comments below.

While the accompanying Integrated Transport Plan (ITP) has made references to most items as outlined in Schedule 2 to the Property Development Zone PTV requires the following additional information to be able to conduct a proper assessment of the plan.

1/ Demonstrate how Station Street will accommodate the ‘Undivided Connector Road – B’ as detailed in the Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development (i.e. a minimum 4.2 metres shared carriageway for both vehicles and bikes and a minimum 2.3 metres wide parking lane).

2/ Provide further information regarding the layout and location of the proposed bus stop at the intersection of Station Street and The Boulevard. Confirm that such bus stop would be funded by the development.

3/ Further detail on how existing tram services along Normanby Road and bus services along Station Street will be impacted by the proposed development (i.e. delays to journey time) including the intersection plans showing the proposed works, how they will accommodated within the road reserve and how they will operate.

4/ Further detail on the future planning for the Normanby Road / Smith Street tram stop (i.e. timing, planning location and design of a potential Superstop).

In addition, PTV does not support the introduction of a shared tram and traffic lane as suggested in Table 4.3 of the ITT on the Normanby Road/The Boulevard/Smith Street intersection. Introducing additional traffic to the existing tram right turn would cause travel time delays to the tram service. The intersection should be designed as not to detrimentally impact the current levels of tram operation.

The PTV would prefer that the Implementation Plan submitted with the Development Plan documents clearly sets out how each intersection across the development will be constructed and the timing for delivery detailed in an approved implementation plan.

Yours,

Richard McAliece

Manager

Land and Planning

24 / 2 / 2014

April 23, 2014

More Dissembling!

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

Submitters to the MRC Development Plan have received a letter from council. We urge readers to note the following:

April 29th was never the set date for decision. Pilling announced it was to be April 8th. This delay far exceeds the requirements of Schedule 2 associated with the C60.
Normanby Road intersection is not the only problem highlighted by VicRoads as we’ve already shown in an earlier post. (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/caulfield-village-vicroads/). Yet Council only mentions this one example. Why?
The VicRoads submission also mentioned working with the developers AND COUNCIL. In this letter the role of Council does not even rate a mention! Are residents supposed to believe that Council has no role, no function, and no say in what changes are now made? Hardly!
Why, given these objections, and the countless other problems outlined by residents has Council not simply rejected outright the entire Development Plan? Why this ongoing behind the scenes manoeuvring? It couldn’t be could it that by rejecting the Development Plan council would be providing residents with the green light for third party objection rights?
Question after question on traffic, drainage, etc. has not been answered by this council except for the stock response of ‘we’re investigating’. After 4 months Council should well and truly have determined all the flaws in the plans. They should also have conducted their own traffic analysis as any decent council would if they were truly concerned about the flow on effects. Thus far and to the best of our knowledge, this Council has done nothing but accept the developer’s version of reality as factual and sacrosanct!
Finally, it beggars belief that official missives of Council fail to include the name of those individuals responsible for their decision making. The blanket title of ‘Glen Eira Planning Department’ will simply not do! Who is responsible? Who signs off on such letters and planning decisions and why is there no accountability and/or transparency within this administration?

April 22, 2014

The Leader

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

April 11, 2014

The ‘Phoenix Precinct’ & Monash: Dead As A Dodo!

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

We have UPLOADED HERE the Planning Panel Report on the URBIS/Monash University application for rezoning of the Western part of the Phoenix Precinct. We encourage all readers to peruse this document and especially the highlighted sections since they reveal how ‘reactive’ and lacking in vision, this council’s planning department is. We highlight two examples:

Council noted that this Policy is based on an urban design framework approved in 1998. Council is looking to review this policy in 2014……(page 10). So what we have here is once again a case of putting the cart before the horse. First, pass the Amendment, and then worry about ‘policy’!
Below is a screen dump that outlines the Phoenix Precinct Policy from the Planning Scheme. Please note the insistence that what is required is ‘co-ordination’ and ‘balanced planning’. Hardly, we say, when the racecourse, c60 and now Monash are each treated as INDIVIDUAL AND SEPARATE planning issues without any developer considering the overall flow on impacts to surrounding areas – be it traffic, population, high rise, commercial activity, and infrastructure requirements.

And last, but certainly not least, residents can glean some insight into Monash’s plans – not directly from Council of course – but via the submissions put forward at the Planning Panel. Here’s what Monash intends (at this stage!) –

The objective of the University is to eventually have a student population of 15,000 effective student load (ESL) in excess of the existing 10,000 (ESL) on the Caulfield Campus, and that much of the new development is to occur within the western precinct. The Masterplan provides for an increase in total floor area from 90,000 sqm to 168,000 sqm and allows for 800 student beds on, and adjacent to, the campus. The proponent plans uses for Derby Road frontage buildings that are complementary to the Derby Road commercial area including retail, food and beverage and other compatible uses. The planned increases in intensity of use of the campus site and the intended complementary uses of Derby Road frontages strongly indicates opportunities for improved economic activity in the area. The extent that realisation of the Masterplan would offset or even surpass the economic activity generated from Caulfield Plaza, is not quantified but, at a minimum, indications are that a redevelopment of the area would provide a significant economic stimulus for the area. However, this issue relating to the closure of Caulfield Plaza is largely a moot point as the existing Priority Development Zone already provides for the redevelopment of Caulfield (page 20).

Readers should note that the above figures do NOT mean that the student population is targeted to reach 25,000. To the best of our knowledge ESL means full time students. Hence the actual numbers of students accessing Caulfield campus may be closer to 40,000 given the large proportion of post graduates and part-timers.

We have yet to see anything produced by this Council which analyses and dissects the ENTIRE AREA and focuses exclusively on what this will mean for residents – and they’ve only had about 15 years to do so!

April 10, 2014

Caulfield Village & VicRoads

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

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 7, 2014

Bigger & Better & Only For $3 Million!

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

An application is in at Council seeking a permit for an ‘illumated screen’ at the Racecourse. The size of this screen is gigantic as the following illustrates – the equivalent of at least a 3 storey building and approaching the height of a 4 storey. Of course, this size screen will have no impact on the surrounding areas as stated by the applicant. By way of contrast, we also include a screen dump from the Moonee Valley Racecourse and the dimensions of their electronic screens. Nothing it would seem is too big or too expensive for Caulfield Racecourse!