GE Service Performance

Archived Posts from this Category

December 6, 2013

Another 8 Storeys!

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

VCAT has approved an 8 storey ‘mixed use’ development of shops, offices, 54 dwellings and waiver of resident, visitor, and loading bay requirements. The site is at 28 Riddell Parade, Elsternwick. Below are extracts from the decision. Whilst VCAT will undoubtedly be ‘blamed’ by Lipshutz & Co for this decision, the member once again highlights how the Glen Eira Planning Scheme holds little terror for developers. The full decision is available at –

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/2006.html

We find the policy guidance on height turns on the weight to be given to State policy, which clearly supports larger scale buildings in Major Activity Centre that do not conflict with surrounding land uses. Mr Sheppard expressed this policy direction succinctly by saying State policy anticipates new development will lead to Major Activity Centres having a different character than that which currently exists.
The absence of a Design and Development Overlay specifying a preferred maximum height for new development on the review site influences our interpretation of the site’s policy setting. It implies that a development’s height is only limited by the specific combination of the policy and physical context of this, or any other, site in this Major Activity Centre that is not encumbered by such an Overlay.
We found it relevant that numerous other 7 to 10 storey buildings have been approved in this Major Activity Centre, with many of these buildings having direct abuttals to low scale residential development. These buildings all display a different character to what currently exists and indicate that buildings of a comparable height to what is proposed have been considered acceptable in this centre.
To this end, we distinguish Mr Scott’s evidence as relying too strongly on the notion of respecting and maintaining the centre’s existing character. We find his reliance on the ‘success’ of recent four storey infill development is too heavily weighted towards the assumption that policy discourages any visual competition to this centre’s heritage character. We found Ms Heggen’s opinion that the proposed development is one of the ‘next generation’ of activity centre buildings better reflects the policy framework and the recent history of this centre.
We do not accept the concept that only the western end of Glen Huntly Road can accommodate taller buildings, as it is not reflected in State or local policy nor is reflected on the ground. The local policy does not distinguish between the eastern and western sides of the railway line nor does it call for ‘gateway’ buildings along Glen Huntly Road.
Rather, it separates the centre into precincts where particular development outcomes are anticipated. We note that the zone boundaries make an intentional deviation to include this site. It anticipates larger scale buildings at heights compatible with adjacent buildings in the precinct containing the review site and identifies Stanley Street as a ‘point of transition from larger scale to the north’ to ‘lower scale to the south’. We find this explicitly encourages larger scale development on the review site, despite it lacking a frontage to Glen Huntly Road and despite it being on the east side of the railway line.
Much turned on the meaning of these phrases in the local policy. We find the first phrase – heights compatible with adjacent buildings – is to be interpreted as including heights envisaged by the policy framework rather than just the height of the existing adjoining buildings. In this interpretation, it is reasonable to assume a larger scale building could occupy the commercial site to the north or could be constructed on the council managed car park to the east.
We find local policy is not clear on whether a gradual or an abrupt transition is required. To this extent, Mr Barber’s interpretation is credible yet we consider it is not correct. The policy guidance for Precinct 4 does not imply taller buildings are discouraged in Precinct 6, rather Precincts 5 and 6 require a ‘transition’ between the Stanley Street precincts. We see the term as standing on its own and being capable of interpreted as either an abrupt or a gradual transition.
Separately, Messrs Barber and Scott rely on the Design Vision for Elsternwick Planisphere 2004 to varying degrees. We find this is not helpful to our decision, as this document has no status in the Planning Scheme.

In summary, we find the policies of the Planning Scheme support the height of the proposed building.

Overshadowing of Elsternwick Plaza

We do not accept that the public amenity impact of overshadowing of Elsternwick Plaza caused by this building is reason to reduce its height. The building will cast shadow on the southern corner of the Plaza, yet this shadow will recede before 10am at the equinox. We find this is a marginal and acceptable impact.
We acknowledge that local policy discourages such overshadowing yet find this must be balanced against other policy considerations that promote larger scale development on the review site. We also acknowledge Mr Brazilec’s observation that greater shadow will fall on the Plaza at times other than the equinox, yet remain of the view that the shadow is acceptable, as it will fall on a relatively small section of the Plaza even in mid-winter.

December 5, 2013

Caulfield Park Trees

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

The ongoing saga of the intended ‘relocation’ of Caulfield Park ovals and the originally proposed removal of 39 trees should be a lesson to all Glen Eira residents. What has been made clear is:

The lack of straight talking and honesty from this administration and its councillors
No such thing as community consultation and certainly not adopting any community suggestions
When found out telling porkies simply change the argument and find another bogus excuse
Councillors, as always, remain superfluous appendages to the plans hatched by officers
Open space is becoming the exclusive preserve of sporting clubs under this regime
The environment, and especially trees, and tree management come in as very low on the list of priorities for this council

The arguments for the proposed expenditure of what we anticipate to be close to $800,000 have changed continually. Yet, in the fine print of various documents, the truth emerges – that is, if the poor resident can even find, collate, and then consider the implications of the buried, nebulous figures. Presented below are statements extracted from the last three Quarterly Reports. Taken together they provide the raison d’etre for what is happening now.

September to March 2013 – Summer season 2012/13 one social cricket club did not request an allocation. Team numbers down this summer season, the reduction was mainly with junior cricket teams.

Summer 2013/14 season team numbers dropped from 235 to 204, (31 team decline) the decreases were: Softball 1 senior men’s, 3 senior women’s & 2 juniors

Cricket 2 senior women’s and 23 juniors

Winter 2013 season team numbers have increased from 249 to 272 (23 teams) the increases were:

13 soccer teams

4 AFL teams

6 lacrosse teams

We do not take issue with the need for sporting fields as such. What we do take issue with is the lack of transparency by this council, the continual dissemination of deliberately misleading information, and why residents should always be the last to know what the real corporate vision is, the costs involved, and the deviousness with which plans are implemented. This is all best summed up in the latest email from the Friends of Caulfield Park!

Dear Mary

Thank you for coming clean yesterday about the real agenda driving the enlarged ovals.

We now know that it is not insurance and the buffer zones, they were simply a pretext; it is about cramming in as many junior soccer ovals as possible and cutting down trees that the kids might run into. Further, it finally clear that the intent is to use the sports area at night since there is, for the first time, the stated intent to put in lights. As usual, there was no consultation and it is certainly not in line with the Master Plan.

So it turns out that in objecting to the justifications given for cutting down the trees that we have been chasing a trail of red herrings while those in the know sat and smiled. No wonder this Council keeps us all in the dark! The paradigm of mushroom management is obvious.

Also, a benefit of enlarging the playing fields that is given in the Council website news update is typically misleading. It compares the present number of available junior grounds with what could be achieved under the administration’s proposed plan. The real comparison should be with the number that would be available under the FoCP plan. The difference would be far smaller.

We looked back at your election flyer where you stated that you will “work hard to preserve the beauty of Glen Eira, to increase the livability of our wonderful suburbs”. How can you reconcile these undertakings with supporting the transformation of one of Melbourne’s premier parks, a park not owned by the Council but administered in Trust, into a treeless green wasteland? Instead of the treed ovals of the past, we are left with interlocking treeless areas with a few saplings round the periphery. Perhaps you can rationalise it, but those people who elected you have a much harder task.

We realise that the insurance need was a red herring, but we did as I believe that you suggested and we contacted the MAV about the insurance situation. We were reliably informed that while all councils have an obligation to protect the safety of users of property for which they are responsible, there is NO set directive about buffer zones and no specific insurance requirements about buffer zones. Furthermore, contrary to what may have been said, there are no discounts on premiums as a result of having these buffer zones.

It seems to us as though the Administration is either deliberately misleading Councillors or is simply providing selective information to support its programs. Certainly each time we demonstrate the emptiness of a justification to cut down these trees, a new one pops up.

Kind regards

Spike Cramphorn

Secretary FoCP

PS: the latest FoCP email

Dear Mary,

Thank you for your phone call. You are right the phrase to “come clean” is not appropriate in this context and does not reflect what I intended to convey.

What I should have said was that after talking to you and looking at the Council’s new information, the total amount budgeted, and the amount allocated for this portion of the work, it had become clear to us that the the Council’s intent had always been to expand this area to accommodate lots of junior football fields whilst talking cricket ovals. We then surmised that the uncommitted amount in the budget was for night lights and felt that we, the Friends of Caulfield Park had been unable to learn any of this until as late as possible.

It has been said that the FoCP are always negative, but this is only because we, the only representatives of the informal and casual users of the park, are left out of any consultation process on matters that affect Caulfield Park. When there is a material departure from the Master Plan, as in this instance, we believe that this is not appropriate and that often, with some minor adjustments, we could achieve much better outcomes for all.

None of this was attributable to you personally and I did not intend to convey this. To the extent that it appeared to do so, I apologise without reservation.

Yours sincerely,

Michael

December 4, 2013

The Councillor Trustees: From Bad To Worse?

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

Presented below is the transcript of a public question taken from the minutes of April 30th, 2009 and the response provided by the then Mayor, and councillor rep on the Racecourse Reserve Trustees, Helen Whiteside. Comparing the response presented below and the utter silence that emanates from current and past trustees today, we question:

why this difference in approach;
what has happened in the intervening years to create this ‘secret society’?
Who is responsible?
And why are council and councillors so complicit in this clamp down on information dissemination?
If details of trustee meetings were provided 4 years ago, then why doesn’t this council provide any public report?
Are all councillors even kept in the loop about what happens at these trustee meetings? Or does the ‘secret society’ now extend only to Newton and the annointed Lipshutz, Esakoff, and Hyams?

Subject: Caulfield Racecourse Trustees
“By way of a comprehensive report, please tell me what transpired at the last meeting of the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees on or about Thursday 19th March 2009.”

The Mayor responded to your Public Question. She said:

“The Trustees’ meeting took place on 19 March 2009. In attendance were 14 of the 15 Trustees, including myself, Cr Tang and Cr Staikos, the Secretary Mr Cleaver and the Business Affairs Manager of the MRC.

There were four main items of business.

Firstly, the Trustees considered the “Communique” between the MRC and Council. The “Communique” proposed that after training had been relocated from Caulfield, land on Neerim Road would be excised from the Racecourse Reserve and be
incorporated into Glen Huntly Park under the control of the Council. The Trustees by a majority decided that they did not wish Trust land to be excised. The Trustees decided to ask the MRC and Council to propose alternative arrangements to give
effect to the underlying intentions of the Communique.

Secondly, the Trustees considered an MRC plan for the development of the centre around the lake. The plan was in two stages with the community facilities in the second stage. Concern was expressed that the area for passive open space had been substantially reduced from what had been previously agreed and Trustees decided that the MRC and Council should consider revised plans for presentation to the next meeting of Trustees.

Thirdly, the Chairman advised that he had received a letter from the Ombudsman about alleged conflict of interest and the Chairman distributed a copy of the Chairman’s reply.

Fourthly, the Trustees agreed that two draft policies should be prepared for consideration at the next meeting:
• A draft policy on Conflict of Interest and
• A draft policy on who should be permitted to attend Trustees’ meetings.”

December 3, 2013

And Pigs Might Fly In Glen Eira!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Service Performance
[2] Comments

December 3, 2013

Choking On Humble Pie?

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

Item 9.10 – CCTV

Hyams moved the motion to use the grants for the closed circuit cameras minus installation costs, maintenance and ‘operations’ and for the police to give advice on where to put the cameras. There should also be consultation with traders and community as well as ‘developing a cctv public policy’. Seconded Magee.

COMMENT

Readers need to be aware that what this motion really means is that if the grant is for $150,000 for cameras, that Hyams proposes to spend the funds on cameras ONLY AFTER all the other costs have been subtracted. In other words, he does not want council to spend a penny of its funds. What this ultimately means is less cameras in less places!

HYAMS: stated that it would be ‘far more preferable’ for the police to be responsible for monitoring. That’s been an issue since 2011 when ‘the funding was made available in Bentleigh’. Said that the situation now is that it’s been ‘definitively shown’ that the police won’t take coverage so ‘it’s up to us to decide what we want to do’. Council can’t keep on arguing with the police and they must ‘use the money’. Went on to say that he thought that this is the opportunity to ‘spend the money’ on what he ‘believes the community wants us to spend the money on’. Also if the money isn’t spent then they ‘will lose’ it. Traders, particularly in Bentleigh want it as well as the Carnegie traders. “I believe the community wants it as well’. Claimed that it ‘can deter crime’ as well as catching criminals. When government sets something up then suddenly ‘we’re carrying the expense’ but with this motion it ‘doesn’t cost us anything’. In the end the ‘community wins out’.

MAGEE: said that cctv is ‘now a necessity’ and claimed that in 2010 he had called for a report on this. Even though Glen Eira isn’t a ‘hot bed of crime’ it’s important because ‘a lot of people take comfort’ and the cameras give a sense of security to people. Repeated that cameras can detect crime and prosecuting people. Thought that the Bentleigh rotunda would be ‘one of the first places’ where they could put the cameras. Thought it was also ‘incumbent’ for council to ‘do things’ for all those people likely to commit a crime in order to ‘discourage the anti-social behaviour’. Said that ‘this would probably be a large part of council’s operations’ in the future. This would be the role of policy in identifying ‘how to manage that in the future’. ‘This is the beginning, this is the first step’. He commends the motion.

DELAHUNTY: asked that since this is a ‘once off allocation of money’ then ‘how do we intend to understand what the costs of the operation are? and to ‘manage that on an ongoing basis’?

NEWTON: answered the question by stating that the offer was for ‘capital grants only’ so the government has to agree to give the funds ‘on a slightly different basis’. Also said that he ‘wasn’t quite sure how to account’ for any future costs but as far as possible they could ‘try to go with life-cycle’. Confirmed that it involved shifting the’ operational costs to us’.

DELAHUNTY: supported the idea of a public policy but not the cameras themselves. Said she was ‘uncomfortable’ with spending any of the money that could be used for other things. ‘I just don’t think there is a need for it’. Said the police, although they haven’t done an assessment would nominate other areas as more deserving of cameras. Quoted that ‘this is a solution in search of a problem’. Talked about the ‘important role that sport plays’ in giving adolescents ‘a pathway through life’ and ‘helps to alleviate anti-social behaviour’. ‘If you can spend $400,000 helping us improve the racecourse’ for sport then that’s worthwhile. Didn’t ‘think that this is a good use of money’. Since everyone is a ‘taxpayer’ then everyone would ‘have an opinion on how it’s better spent’. Said that what’s being proposed is for council ‘to step outside our privacy obligations’ and also to ‘play some sort of peace keeping role’. Thought that it was ‘a waste altogether’ but there is a need for a policy nevertheless for the future.

LIPSHUTZ: found it strange to be agreeing with Delahunty but if people wanted cameras then Hyams’ motion was ‘the appropriate one’. He wasn’t in favour of cctv cameras. Said that if there is a high crime rate then they are justified but there ‘is no high crime area’ in Glen Eira. Agreed that it was a solution ‘in search of a problem’ and ‘there is no problem’. Also didn’t ‘like the idea of people looking at us’. It’s not needed and all that’s happening is the argument we’ve got the money so ‘let’s take it and not waste it’.

SOUNNESS: said that he and Magee went to a security conference in recent weeks. The conference had a section on cctv cameras and the findings were that in ‘high crime’ areas the cameras weren’t a deterrent, but with ‘repeat offenders’ there was a good chance of ‘successful prosecution’ but ‘cameras themselves didn’t prevent’ the crime. Also quoted someone he had spoken with from Parramatta council and that it also wasn’t a good use of resources and that police were more important for crime prevention. Said that Ballarat council also had the same view. The costs and management can be large so the question is about ‘returns’ on this investment. Agreed about the need for policy and that it should answer such questions about ‘co-ordinating’ with owners who already have set up cameras. Overall he was ‘very uncomfortable with council taking on that role’ of supervising the cameras and ‘actually being the police person’.

LOBO: claimed that only ‘one person’ saw a ‘drunk man’ and that was the owner of a shop in Centre Rd. He thought that the real problem with Centre Rd was the ‘patients’ who frequent the methadone chemist. Asked ‘how long is a bit of string’ if there’s going to be monitoring.Thought that cctv was ‘the way to go’ but installing them ‘just because of one person’ isn’t the answer and that the real problem that ‘is creating hell’ is the methadone place. ‘So are we going to put the cctv just to focus on that?’ The other alternative is to ‘move the pharmacy to Moorabbin’.

OKOTEL: thought that cctv ‘will be of benefit to the Glen Eira community’. Gave an example of someone jumping over their back fence and then police coming and asking what was going on and she was told that ‘someone had been molested in Allnutt Park’. She’d ‘also heard’ that there were other unsavoury ‘activities’ in Allnutt Park. Therefore having cameras in parks would be of great assistance in ‘catching perpetrators of crime or preventing it potentially’. She was also told about a ‘laneway off Grange Road where drug deals occur’. They think that because ‘there is a light in that laneway they can see what they’re doing’. Police can’t ‘catch them’ but with cameras it ‘would be a benefit to the community’. There are also drug deals on stations. She’s also been told that where there is ‘footage’ it really helps in ‘prosecution’. She’s in favour of cameras ‘in spots where it’s necessary to have it’ and that ‘those spots can be identified through consultation’.

PILLING: commended Hyams for trying ‘to address all the issues that have been raised’. Thought that the money could be used to ‘build an adventure playground’ and that he ‘also shares’ Lipshutz’s concerns about ‘privacy’. Thought that a place like Chapel St was an appropriate place for cameras. ‘We’ve nothing like that here’.

HYAMS: answered Lobo that this ‘isn’t about one person getting attacked’ and that he’s talked with the Bentleigh traders and ‘they tell all sorts of stories’ about what’s been going on in Bentleigh – ie about offering alcohol to ‘small kids’; ‘assaults in shops’. Maybe this isn’t like the crime that goes on outside nightclubs but it’s still a ‘serious matter’ for the people involved. So ‘we should do what we can to prevent that happening’. Argued that if cameras ‘help catch the person committing the crime’ then it would stop ‘subsequent crimes’. Said that they could get advice from others about the ‘life time costs’ of the cameras. Said that he’d spoken to the Higgins MP and that if Glen Eira didn’t want the money that it would be handed over to Ashburton. Therefore it’s not a question of using that money for other things but losing that money entirely. Said that both Carnegie and Bentleigh traders would both be ‘very disappointed’ if this didn’t go through. ‘If the money comes along for something then we should do it’. Since there is cctv in the town hall ‘we might be sending the message’ that they spend the money on ‘themselves’ but ‘not so concerned’ about the community.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED. Voting for: Hyams, Okotel, Esakoff, Magee, Sounness. Voting against: Delahunty, Pilling, Lobo, Lipshutz

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, HERE ARE SOME EXTRACTS FROM MP MILLER’S LITTLE SPIEL IN PARLIAMENT THIS WEEK –

Glen Eira CCTV cameras

MsMILLER (Bentleigh)—I direct my request to the Minister for Crime Prevention to provide an update on the commitment to install CCTV cameras in the city of Glen Eira, the dominant municipality in the Bentleigh electorate. At the 2010 election I made a commitment to provide funding of $150 000 to pay for the provision of CCTV cameras and infrastructure in Bentleigh. That money was made available to Glen Eira City Council after the coalition came to government, but so far the cameras have not been installed. ………

The coalition government has funded around 240 CCTV cameras in locations across metropolitan Melbourne and rural and regional Victoria. No matter the type of community, they all see the great value in having these cameras in place. In every one of these cases the relevant council has accepted the terms of the coalition’s funding promise—that is, that the state will pay for the infrastructure and the council will agree to pay for installation and maintenance. This has happened with every council except in the case of the City of Glen Eira.

On 18 November the coalition government announced that the funding it had promised the City of Kingston at the last election will pay for CCTV cameras at even more sites than had been anticipated. A recent survey conducted by the Department of Justice in the city of Kingston, which neighbours Glen Eira, showed that 85 per cent of residents supported the installation of CCTV cameras in their area. Through my discussions with local residents, shoppers and traders it is clear to me that there is enormous local support for CCTV cameras in the city of Glen Eira as well. The community believes the cameras will make a significant difference in keeping the community safe.

……..The action I seek is for the Minister for Crime Prevention to provide me with an update on the installation of CCTV cameras in the city of Glen Eira, given that the coalition has delivered this funding as promised.

COMMENT

So now, years and years down the track, the issue of whether or not Glen Eira gets cctv cameras is still in abeyance – dependent on the government’s agreement to the new found use for the money! Even if they agree, how many cameras will this mean, when potentially half of the funding could well be spent on actual installation etc?

A few more observations:

When it suits, Hyams finds no problem in arguing that his view coincides with that of the ‘community’. Pity the community is never asked on all major expenditures such as increasing car parks or knocking down trees in Centenary Park, Caulfield Park, Bailey Reserve, etc. etc.
Magee mentions the rotunda in Centre Rd. We note that this is another project that has been buried following ‘consultation’ years and years ago. Secondly, if the issue of graffiti has greatly improved, then it has got nothing to do with council, but the simple fact that the new owners of the old bank next door to the rotunda space have installed their own private cctv cameras! No one of course happened to mention this fact!

PS: We wonder if Lipshutz is aware that perhaps the police do not necessarily agree with him regarding the crime rate in Glen Eira. If they did, then perhaps there would be no need for the following trailer placement in Koornang Road in recent times!

December 2, 2013

Where Are You Council?

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

We’ve been sent the following photographs – all taken today (2nd December at 1pm). These photos show again:

the unwillingness or inability of Glen Eira City Council to do a damn thing about the MRC contravening the so called ‘agreement’.
The ‘agreement’ stated that car parking in the centre of the racecourse was only available on main racing days and 10 ‘special events’. Is this a ‘special event’? If it is, then we point out that there was no notification to residents; no adequate traffic management plan; and how can something that goes on for 2 weeks be considered as 1 single ‘special event’. Add on the flower show, the month long circus, and other bits and pieces and the length of time that is occupied stretches out to months and not 10 days!
What have our wonderful trustees and Newton done about any of this?

December 2, 2013

Long Term Planning & Open Space

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

The 1998 Open Space Strategy made it abundantly clear that Glen Eira has a deficit of open space and especially in the North Caulfield, Elsternwick and Gardenvale areas. But has this knowledge, reiterated in the current draft strategy put a halt to the continual sell off of public land? Not on your life! It continues at every opportunity and often the only beneficiaries are developers. This is despite the June 17^th, 2002 statement by Newton in the Caulfield Leader -“We have sold nearly $30 million of assets. Every cent has gone to capital expenditure. There are virtually no more surplus assets to sell”. Glen Eira has had no trouble in finding more and more land to flog. So, since we’ve always known that there is a deficit of open space, how can this be allowed to continue? What does this say about the overall lack of planning, financing, and real vision that is the responsibility of Newton and councillors?

What’s really irksome is that land is being sold off, at rock bottom prices, only to find there’s a (concurrent) application put in for multi unit developments. A recent example is 52 Ercildoune St., North Caulfield. This was advertised in the Leader in September and in August there was this application – “Construction of a three storey building comprising eight (8) dwellings above a basement carpark and a reduction in visitor car parking requirements”. Another example is McKittrick Rd, where council displayed its largesse to developers by selling the land for $20,000 when it was valued at $66,700. At the very least council should never have sold this land for such prices – especially when developers are not paying their share of development contribution levies, or open space levies.

Below we present a table of what we have been able to discover on land sales for the past decade. A nice little sum has been accrued since 2002, especially when the figures for the old depot are added in. Residents need to ask: where has this money gone? What additions have been made to open space (apart from the 2 houses in Packer park for $1.91 million) in the past decade? Given the long term knowledge that Glen Eira has the least amount of open space in the state, then the actions, (or failure to act – ie purchase of Alma Club) are further evidence of poor planning, and poor financial management.

DATE FROM MINUTES	ADDRESS	AMOUNT
26^th May 2003	SEC 173 AGREEMENT SALE OF LAND FORMER WORKS DEPOT CORNER MANCHESTER GROVE AND NEERIM ROAD, GLEN HUNTLY	UNDISCLOSED
16^th August 2004	SALE OF LAND BETWEEN NINA COURTAND SOUTH ROAD, BENTLEIGH EAST	Undisclosed – part only was sold
29^th November 2004	SALE OF LAND – REAR OF55 WOORNACK ROAD, CARNEGIE	$28,000
11^th April 2005	CARNEGIE SENIORCITIZEN’S CLUB, 314 NEERIM ROAD CARNEGIE.	Council states: $784,000
16^TH October 2007	PRINCESS AVENUE, CAULFIELDEAST	$3.25 million
23^rd September 2008	3-5 Station Avenue, McKinnon	$3.1 million
21^st July 2009	Rear of 23-27 Empress Road, St Kilda East	$50,000 (although council had to spend $70,000 on drain before sale)
13^th October 2009	REAR 16 WYUNAROAD, CAULFIELD NORTH	$17,000
	REAR 1 TO 5 EPSOM STREET ANDADJOINING UNITS 2 to 5 / 5 DERBY CRESCENT, CAULFIELD EAST	$41,600
12^th October 2010	13 NINA COURT AND 16 NIKI COURT BENTLEIGHEAST	$45,000
23^rd November 2010	REAR OF 233 AND 239 NEPEAN HIGHWAY,GARDENVALE	$93,500
17^th May 2011	Road at Rear of 2 to 6 Langdon Road and Drainage Reserve at Rear of 36to 42 Rosemont Avenue, Caulfield North	$79,532
22^nd May 2012	PART OF THE ROADRESERVE IN PORTER ROAD, CARNEGIE, ADJOINING 8 THE CROSSOVER.	$39,798
18^th December 2012	SALE OF FORMER RESERVE AT THEREAR OF 37 TO 59 AND 69 TO 73 ESKDALE ROAD, 25 TO 41 AND 49 TO 55 FITZGIBBON CRESCENT AND ADJOINING 33 AND 35 BAMBRA ROAD, CAULFIELD NORTH	25 Fitzgibbon Crescent $6,435.0027 Fitzgibbon Crescent $7,150.00 35 Fitzgibbon Crescent $1,787.50 47 Eskdale Road $6,792.50 71 Eskdale Road $3,575.00 73 Eskdale Road $7,507.50 33 Bambra Road $20,020.00
5^th February 2013	Reserve and a closed road offHeywood Street, Caulfield North	$140,000 – sold to the MRC!
19^th March 2013	542 Glen Huntly Rd., Elsternwick – laneway sale	$13,750 and council stated that this “is fifty precent of the current market value.”!!!!!!
9^th April 2013	Reserve off McKittrick Road, Bentleigh	Council stated: “The land has a market value of $66,700. The Owner made several offers topurchase the Land over many years at well below market value. His current offer is $20,000.”
26^th November 2013	26 TO 32ROSEMONT AVENUE, CAULFIELD NORTH	$27,118

The final irony comes when we compare some of the recommendations from the current draft strategy and what’s happened in the past. This page shows that 3 properties were sold in an area that is now recommended to purchase land and create open space.

December 1, 2013

More Too Little, Too Late!

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

We cite a public question that was asked at last Tuesday night’s council meeting as another example of too little done by council and too late!

Subject: Centre of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve

“Council’s stated position is for the development of various sporting grounds (ie baseball, soccer, basketball) in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. If these developments are to go ahead, then:

1. Will ratepayers be paying for these developments?

2. What is the estimated cost for these developments?

3. Has council, or any officer, had any discussions with either the MRC and/or the Trustees on these potential developments?”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“The Crown Land is reserved for “a racecourse, public recreation ground and public park”. Responsibility for using the land for these purposes rests with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust. Council has repeatedly stated that while the first use, a racecourse, is well satisfied, the other two are not.

In Council’s view, the Trust should be providing for the use of the land for public recreation and public park. The Trust could fund this by charging market rent for the land which is used as, or in support of, the racecourse. In that case, there would be no capital cost to ratepayers.

On 9 April 2013 Council adopted an indicative layout of the Crown Land, showing scope for sports grounds. Council sent that to numerous parties including the Trustees and the Minister.

Council officers have discussed matters with Councillors who also sit on the Trust as Trustees in their capacity as Councillors.”

COMMENT

What this answer makes 100% crystal clear is:

There is no ‘business plan’ and no costings for the development of all these sports grounds. All that this ‘vision’ represents are pretty little pictures drawn on a map.
Council has no intention of paying for any developments on this site – that’s assuming they even have the money.
Given the repeated ‘crying poor’ by the racing industry (especially the MRC) and the fall in crowd revenue, the prospect of the MRC/Trustees spending another cent on the centre of the racecourse is buckley’s and none. If the MRC has indeed spent $1.8m as claimed on cracked concrete paths, a woeful ‘playground’ and a toilet block, then how much would they have to spend to create synthetic soccer grounds, baseball diamonds, basketball courts, etc.
Given that the current ‘conditions’ clearly state ‘NO BALL GAMES’, then what is the likely response to baseball games for example, by the MRC?
What does all this say about council’s ‘position statement’ and its ‘advocacy’ program for more sporting grounds? Is it all on a wing and a prayer that either some rich sporting club, or government will cough up the necessary money? Are they hoping it is the State or Federal Government, the Trustees, or perhaps Maccabi?
Or is the publicity for more sporting venues just that – grandstanding with no real prospect of anything ever coming to fruition?
We also have to raise an eyebrow at the final sentence regarding ‘discussions’ between Lipshutz, Hyams, and Esakoff in their role as councillor representatives on the Trustees, and the pledge of ‘confidentiality’ (aka ‘secrecy’)! Were these ‘discussions’ with officers reported back to the entire councillor group? Were any of these ‘discussions’ actually raised at any trustee meeting? Was anything ‘resolved’? Or are these councillors simply taking ‘direction’ from officers rather than the entire council group? And there’s the big question – has the Minister even bothered to answer council? If so, then why isn’t this made public?
The most pertinent issue is how much of this so called vision is diversionary and as usual a couple of years too late? How genuine is the advocacy, when the ‘negotiations’ with the MRC were such a disaster in the first place and council can’t even hold them to the terms of the so-called ‘agreement’? And how much of it is for public consumption to convince everybody that there really is a need for more money to be spent on sport instead of drains, proper planning, consultation, and a million other services that this council is legally bound to supply and support?

November 30, 2013

Too Little, Too Late!

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

Esakoff moved, and Sounness seconded the following motion on roof top gardens –

That Council:

1. Include the concept of Rooftop Gardens and Open Space in Council’s submission to ‘Plan Melbourne’, and

2. Commence the process of applying for a Planning Scheme Amendment to include this concept within our Residential Growth Zones and Commercial Zones on the basis that Glen Eira has the last (sic) amount of open space in metropolitan Melbourne.

Ostensibly, this sounds terrific. But like most things done in Glen Eira it is too little too late and won’t be achieved (if at all) until years down the track. It is vital that residents appreciate what this administration and its councillors could have achieved if they really cared via Amendment C110 – the ‘reformed’ residential zones. Boroondara for example has 4 different schedules for its General Residential Zones. That means that they have looked at their neighbourhoods and carefully differentiated the respective areas. Glen Eira really only has 2 because the third schedule applies solely to the Alma Club site. Glen Eira has no limits on subdividing land less than 500m and sets a height limit in this zone of 10.5 metres. In contrast Boroondara believes that 9 metres is necessary and permits are required for land less than 500 metres in area.

What’s really important however is Boroondara’s emphases on open space. Glen Eira relies on the miniscule ResCode standards. Here’s what Boroondara stipulates in its GRZ zones –

And it’s not only Boroondara. Kingston, Stonnington and others are ensuring that their schedules meet basic principles of non chicken coop living. Their permeability requirements, together with open space requirements (and the inclusion of increased open space levies in some schedules) put Glen Eira to shame. All of this could have been done with Amendment C110. It wasn’t. So now we have this cry for an amendment that in the end is meaningless. With no real urban design framework and no ESD mandates in its planning scheme, the prospect of forcing developers to do anything is pie in the sky in our view. This call for rooftop gardens is nothing more than an afterthought, designed to counter the mounting criticism and to give the appearance that council is actually doing something. But, with little hope of ever being legally viable, and potentially years down the track, it remains a pipe dream.

The opportunity to institute real reform has been squandered, or worse, never intended. The open invitation for unfettered development in Glen Eira still stands – only it’s much worse!

November 29, 2013

Burke’s Re-Writing Of History – Again!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[14] Comments

Council minutes are meant to provide an accurate record of what occurs at council meetings. That is both a legal and an ethical obligation. In Glen Eira it often is not! Council’s past responses to questions about accuracy has been that:

Minutes are not Hansard
They are required to only record resolutions and votes
Sorry, another ‘clerical error’ perhaps

All of the above may be true, BUT NOT when council uses quotation marks as an indication of a verbatim, word by word account of what took place. This has been the practice for years when it comes to Rights of Reply and Councillor Questions. To then fiddle with the occasional wording (and this is not to correct grammar it should be said!) or omit huge chunks from the official record because it is ‘embarrassing’ for council is nothing short of deceitful, devious, and unconscionable. No wonder the audio/visual recording of council meetings has been opposed so often and for so long!

On this occasion we are referring to Councillor Questions on the Caulfield Park tree removal. Following the Dorothy Dixer’s asked by Magee and Lipshutz we suspect that the two questions asked by Sounness were not pre-prepared and rehearsed. These and Burke’s answers are absent from the minutes. THERE IS NO MISUNDERSTANDING HERE. PILLING HIMSELF REFERRED TO SOUNNESS’ QUESTIONS AS ‘COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS’. HENCE, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THEIR ENTIRETY IN THESE MINUTES AS WELL AS BURKE’S RESPONSES. THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CENSORED IS THE DELIBERATE DOCTORING OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD!

Here’s what occurred –

Pilling asked ‘any other councillor questions?’

SOUNNESS: directed his question to Burke and wanted ‘clarification’ about the 2001 Master Plan. Said that the ovals were reduced from 7 to 6 and he wanted this made clear as well as what could be put up on the website as information for people about the numbers of trees affected and the impacts on ‘birdlife’ and other issues of ‘biodiversity’.

BURKE: said that the Master Plan does ‘talk of a reduction’ of ovals to 6 and that ‘there’s already been a wicket taken out’ so that the ‘reduction has already happened’. Went on to say that the “master plan is a representation of how the park should look’ when all the work ‘has been completed’. As far as the plan’s ‘vision for trees’ he thought that ‘it is fair to say we are achieving that’. The 2 trees that they’ve agreed to preserve are ‘actually contrary to the master plan’ but they’ll be kept. As far as bird life is concerned rangers tell council that with the planting of indigenous trees the number of birds visiting the park has increased and that this was ‘expected’ with all the plantings of native trees.

Pilling then asked again if there were ‘further councillor questions’

SOUNNESS: asked about the junior ovals and how come ‘the trees were planted’ basically on these sites in the first place. He then asked whether the ‘plantings’ had ‘been in the wrong place’ to begin with.

BURKE: said that ‘some of the trees to be removed predate the master plan’. He then ‘agreed’ that some of the plantings of these trees were post master plan development and could only explain why they were planted there because of ‘people’s over-exuberance’.

COMMENT

What this tells residents is:

Incompetence all round! The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing!
Masterplans are useless pieces of paper that are changed on mere whim

Please note: the issue of trees, master plans is not our focus here. What we and all residents should object to in the strongest possible terms is the rewriting of history and what can only be a conscious and deliberate decision to present minutes that falsify the series of events. These are not ‘minutes’ therefore – they are the political doctoring by this administration. Again, the question falls back onto councillors. Will they demand that the minutes be corrected? Or will this be another distortion of reality and allowed to pass through to the keeper unchallenged. We remind readers that those who control history control the future (apologies to Orwell!)

PS: We see that the Friends of Caulfield Park have published their latest newsletter where they respond to the latest council pronouncements. See: http://www.caulfieldpark.com/latest-news.html

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates