PS: Just to clarify the above, here are the definitions of the various departments. All are taken directly from the Annual Report – ie council’s own version!
GE Transport
October 18, 2015
Does This Say It All?
Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[7] Comments
August 11, 2015
MRC – ‘Born To Rule’ – #2
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[12] Comments
ITEM 9.7 – MRC
(ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ & SOUNNESS WERE APOLOGIES FOR THIS MEETING)
Delhunty moved an alternate motion that included: that the MRC has entered into a lease with the Alliance group involved with the level crossing removal project where “commuters’ will be allowed to ‘park for free’. This is a ‘sub lease arrangement’ and is ‘valued at approximately $90,000 -$100,000’ for 2 months. Motion also said that council write to the Trust to ensure that ‘they are aware’ of the arrangement. Also copies go to Minister for Environment & Climate Change, Lisa Neville, Auditor-General and members of parliament. Seconded by Magee.
DELAHUNTY: said that the report was first off about access arrangements for the public and what has been happening. Not a lot has been happening but there are ‘other current arrangments’ including a ‘commercial’ deal that has ‘been struck between the Alliance’ and the MRC ‘that values the Guineas car park, conservatively’ for $90,000 for 60 days. That’s just over $1,400 per day. In the ‘stalled’ lease negotiations between the Trust and the MRC ‘their offer and their apparent independent valuation’ is ‘offering the community 30 cents a day’. From this disparity, we ‘can see how absolutely outrageous’ the MRC’s offer on the lease is. ‘It shows what contempt they hold the community in’. ‘We won’t put up with it’ when the MRC itself values the land far more highly. Thus in the private arrangement the MRC ‘are making now what would cover’ their current lease. Even the 95,000 for the lease is a ‘poor outcome’ for the community when there is a valuation which says they should be paying closer to a million dollars for the lease of the land. Said that the starting point for any negotiations should be ‘what they have valued’ the car park land as. She is ‘hopeful’ that in passing this information on to ‘ those negotiating’ the lease that there will be ‘a better outcome for the community’.
MAGEE: started off by saying that the MRC ‘doesn’t seem able to put their hands on the agreement’ of 2011 and he suggests that ‘they look in the same filing cabinet’ where they can’t find the documents for the leases for the ‘northern stables’ and Aquinita Lodge. Ratepayers and taxpayers of Victoria are ‘paying in excess of a billion dollars’ for the grade separation but the MRC is ‘making a profit out of it’. They think that ‘you need us’ so we are ‘happy to sub-let Crown Land which you own’ and make you pay for the land that you own’. When the price they are paying for t’that small car park’ is ‘extrapolated’ across the 50 hectares of land then the ‘one million dollars is insignificant’ because it becomes more like ’40 or 50 million dollars’. Said that the MRC ‘are not what they portray’ themselves to be – they aren’t community minded nor a ‘friend of Glen Eira’. They have the ‘absolute need to profiteer’ and to ‘charge’ the taxpayers of Victoria to ‘park on their land’. ‘This is not only appalling. This is sickening’. Said that the ‘minister should be aware of this. The minister should be commenting on this’. If the MRC are ‘allowed to sublet’ the Guineas car park, then they can ‘sublet any part’ of the racecourse. Question is ‘what are they allowed to do’. Said there is ‘no lease in place’ and that it is an ‘ongoing, day by day’ process. Plus ‘anyone who sits back and accepts this’ is equally in contempt with the MRC.
OKOTEL: endorsed the motion and ‘queried how genuine’ the MRC are about ‘talking with council’. From the ‘invitation’ in the letter printed in the agenda, council has ‘sought’ a meeting with the MRC but it is ‘disappointing that they don’t seem to be able to make the time’. Said that there is no time set aside ‘as yet’. Thus, whilst the tone of the letter suggests they are ‘willing to have an open discussion’ that’s not happening but it’s important for council to ‘continue to advocate strongly’. ‘Despite’ the letters they get ‘very little progress is being made’.
HYAMS: asked for an amendment that when ‘further information’ is received that a report be tabled. This amendment was accepted by the mover of the motion and seconder.
DELAHUNTY: what needs to be finalised is the lease but negotiations ‘have broken down’ because there is ‘an incredible discrepancy between valuations’. The MRC has for the last 20 years paid about $90,000pa. They think it’s valued at $100 per year and the ‘council obviously thinks much higher’. The lease to the alliance shows that the MRC doesn’t value the land at $100 per year but much more and they are ‘trying to take the trust and the community for fools and we won’t stand for it here’. Their subletting will ‘help move the lease’ negotiations forward because it shows their own valuation of the land.
MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
August 10, 2015
Hansard – Alias ‘Kindergarten Playtime’
Posted by gleneira under GE Transport, Miscellaneous[7] Comments
McKinnon Road, McKinnon, level crossing
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan)—My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, who is responsible for the removal of level crossings. A constituent of mine in the Assembly electorate of Bentleigh has a business close to the McKinnon Road level crossing in McKinnon, which is one of the level crossings highlighted for removal by the government. My constituent is a landlord and one of her tenants spoke to her about being approached by government authorities about the public acquisition of the land on which their business stands. As members will imagine, this has caused great concern to both the landlord and the tenant because it was the first time they had heard that that land was going to be targeted. My constituent attended the public meeting held last week in Bentleigh, and the public acquisition of land was also news to some people at that meeting.
The uncertainty has caused great concern amongst a number of businesses around the level crossing that is slated for removal. What has made it even more confusing is that the information given suggests that people should approach the local council for advice and guidance, yet the local council also seems confused. It does not seem to have anyone who knows much about it and so far it has not appointed anyone to undertake that work. As members will appreciate, there is much consternation amongst the community. The action I seek from the minister is that he provide clarification as to where people should go to seek advice or guidance about the future impacts land acquisition may have on business owners and operators, landlords and tenants.
There needs to be a clear direction about the intention of the public land acquisition, and clearly my constituents in Bentleigh need to have their fears and concerns allayed.
Mr PULFORD …..Ms Crozier raised a matter for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, but I suggest that perhaps the Minister for Public Transport is the lead minister on the level crossings project.
Ms Crozier—I was not sure if it was Minister Donnellan or Minister Allan.
Ms PULFORD—The removal of the level crossings and a project of this scale does have intersections with road issues, and Ms Crozier’s issue was particularly around land acquisition, which would naturally sit with another minister. I suggest that if Ms Crozier is happy, I will refer that to the Minister for Public Transport as the lead minister on the level crossings removal project. I will seek a response for her.
+++++++++++
SOUTHWICK & STAIKOS
Level crossings
Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh)—The Andrews Labor government is getting on with the job of removing level crossings in the Bentleigh electorate. In just eight months we have established the Level Crossing Removal Authority, allocated the funds in the budget, signed the contracts and completed early works. Full construction begins later this year.
Consultation is key to the successful delivery of these projects, and I was pleased that last week 500 local residents packed the McKinnon Secondary College hall to hear from the Level Crossing Removal Authority and give their feedback. After four long, dark, wasted years, the Andrews government is removing level crossings at Centre Road, McKinnon Road and North Road. Local residents are delighted by this and very much appreciated the opportunity to participate in the consultation last week. The only people unhappy about this consultation are those opposite. Several members of the opposition got a bit hot under the collar about this meeting and are highly critical of community consultation. The member for Caulfield, who is in the chamber, has been one of the most vocal opponents of consultation on level crossing removal works. I am not surprised by this, given the strange place the member finds himself in.
The member for Caulfield recently held a meeting in protest against the Matthew Guy residential zones. The flyer for the meeting opened with, ‘Do you have concerns about local overdevelopment, such as Port Phillip or questions about planning laws?’. It might as well have read: ‘Come and tell us how bad we were in government’. We know how bad they were—that’s why they are on that side of the house.
Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—I call on the Premier to discipline the member for Bentleigh over his disgraceful behaviour in advertising a level crossing removal information session using government funds to promote himself and his cause. I particularly question where the email addresses of constituents in Bentleigh will end up. Will they receive Labor Party information?
These level crossing removal information sessions are meant to be run by the Level Crossing Removal Authority, which is supposedly independent, to gain information. This is a disgrace to the Labor Party, and it is absolutely disgraceful behaviour by the member for Bentleigh. He has utilised this opportunity for his own political gain.
What will happen with the information that was collected? I think all constituents of Bentleigh would be very concerned. They provided their information with the singular intention of ensuring the wellbeing of their area. They want to receive the right information. This is an absolute disgrace to the member for Bentleigh. It is overreaching at very best. One would have to question what this information is going to be used for, and I ask the Premier to investigate this absolutely absurd and ridiculous action of the member for Bentleigh.
Caulfield electorate
Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—(Question 394) My question is to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. The North Road, Ormond, level crossing removal is a vital project for my electorate of Caulfield which was announced and fully funded by the former coalition government in 2014. Local residents are concerned about the future of the Dorothy Avenue rail underpass, which may be removed as part of the North Road level grade separation, as it enables commuters to travel east–west through their neighbourhood and to two nearby schools.
I note the sham consultation process run by the member for Bentleigh, which did not allow many to attend the Dorothy Avenue meeting to talk about their concerns. We have certainly had a lack of consultation and transparency, with the only consultation run by the member for Bentleigh, which was an absolute sham. I ask: could the minister provide advice on whether the Dorothy Avenue rail underpass will remain or be removed as part of the North Road, Ormond, level crossing removal?
July 30, 2015
There was a great turnout at McKinnon Secondary College last night for the level crossings ‘information session’. Many questions were asked by residents. Some of the responses were:
- Contracts had been finalised – major contractor John Holland
- Residents fearful of potential damage to their neighbouring properties should contact the authority and have photos taken – ie a ‘before and after’ scenario
- Palm trees would be removed and then replaced. No comment on the many gums – we assume they will probably be lost
- Options for sale of ‘commercial’ land – we presume this means VicRail or VicRoads land
- Whilst roads closed, parking will be available at the Caulfield Racecourse
- Earth will be dumped at E.E.Gunn Reserve
- Sheet anchoring will begin first – could be major concerns with water table and flooding
++++++++++
Month-long Frankston line shutdown to come as first of 50 level crossings go
Date: July 30, 2015
Frankston line commuters can expect more than a month of disruption and slow, crowded bus rides when the rail line is closed in the summer of 2016/17.
The extended shutdown, while three level crossings are removed, is set to be repeated on other lines across Melbourne as the Andrews government races to rid the city of 20 level crossings in this term, and 50 within eight years.
Nine crossings on the line between Caulfield and Dandenong are also due to go in the next four years.
The 34-day shutdown of the busy Frankston line will be hardest felt by those who live and work near the three railway crossings. Three stations – Bentleigh, Ormond and McKinnon – will be demolished from November 2016, a few weeks before the line is closed, meaning commuters who use them will have to head to another station to catch a train. It is expected the stations will be out of action for about three months before they reopen by the end of February 2017.
The planned 34-day closure of the busy line will be preceded by a one-week shutdown mid-next year for early works.
Details of the project were revealed at a community meeting in McKinnon in Melbourne’s south-east on Wednesday night. The meeting was attended by hundreds of people.
Among them was Daniel Bowen, a spokesman for the Public Transport Users Association, who said the Level Crossing Removal Authority would have to take care to get the planning right and minimise disruption.
“They’re going to need to make sure they plan it well to ensure there are no nasty surprises that result in closures being longer than necessary,” Mr Bowen said.
“People can see the benefit of these projects but clearly how they handle the disruption for train users, bus users and motorists is the key in ensuring that it’s a success.”
The first three Frankston line level crossings set to go are at North Road, McKinnon Road and Centre Road. The crossing at Burke Road, Glen Iris, on the Glen Waverley line will be removed as part of the same package of works.
Mr Bowen has published other details about the project on his blog.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/monthlong-frankston-line-shutdown-to-come-as-first-of-50-level-crossings-go-20150730-ginlew.html#ixzz3hL3v7Wfa
July 7, 2015
Screwed Again!
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[13] Comments
How many more times will this council permit the Melbourne Racing Club to get away with blue murder? How many more times will permits not be worth the paper they are written on? Or to be even more cynical, what kind of collusion is occurring between the MRC and council?
The latest outrage concerns the use of the four storey ‘big screen’ that council so kindly permitted to be placed on Crown Land. The officer’s report recommending approval of the permit stated –
The purpose of the proposed screen is to display race-day activities including live video feeds, race replays and sponsor information…..As such it is considered reasonable to have a screen as a component of the horse racing use. (minutes of May 20th 2014).
It now looks as if the definition of ‘race-day activities’ is about to expand and take in the Ashes Cricket and rugby too. More importantly, the MRC intends to have the screen going to 1am this coming Wednesday (ie tomorrow).
Once again we can only lament the arrogance and disregard for the local community by the MRC and we suspect, ably abetted by Council. Below is the advertisement for this event – with no indication of course as to whether this is part of the ‘major event days’ or whether any traffic management plan has been submitted to council and granted approval!
Source: http://mrc.racing.com/calendar/2015-07-08/super-sports-night
Game on at Caulfield! Trying to decide what to watch next week, either NRL SOO III or The Ashes? Problem solved, come and watch both at our place.
Come and join us for a Super Sports Night in the Medallion Bar at Caulfield Racecourse.
As Australia starts their campaign to hold on to the Ashes against fierce rivals England in two weeks’ time, on the same night, Queensland and NSW will take to the field and battle out the State of Origin title. With the series now tied at 1-1, game III “the decider” is sure to be a thriller.
Caulfield’s new 38.4 metre wide Super Screen will provide dual coverage of both the Ashes and the State of Origin with 32 screens from start of play until 1:00am.
Gather your friends, family and colleagues and join us for a night of sporting action in Caulfield’s premium Medallion Bar to share in the excitement and passion as we cheer on our nation.
With free entry and prizes to be won, and great beer on tap, this is the perfect night to watch great sporting action with your mates.
Make sure you arrive by 6:30pm to be eligible for some great prizes.
Date: Wednesday 8th July 2015
Time: 6:00pm till 1:00am.
Patrons can then process to the Caulfield Glasshouse to watch the final innings of the Ashes or the Tour de France. The Caulfield Glasshouse closes at 4:00am.
Where: Medallion Bar, Caulfield Racecourse. Enter via Gate 23, Stations Street, Caulfield East. Limited parking provided Gate 2.
Happy Hour from 6 to 7pm – selected beverages $5.00 during this time. Hot items will be available for purchase from the standard Medallion Café menu, as well as specials for a more substantial meal.
For more info call 1300 GO RACE (46 7223) or Click here to view the menu (PDF)
PS: for all those who haven’t as yet had a read of the Australian Financial Review article on the Melbourne Racing Club, we reproduce it below
Nagging questions about Victorian racing icon
The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve was originally intended for use as a racecourse, a park and public recreation area when it was created 155 years ago on the then-outskirts of booming Marvellous Melbourne.
It embraced the ideals of Empire and Britishness in a state named after the reigning monarch, Queen Victoria, and a capital named after one of her favourite prime ministers, Viscount Melbourne.
Today it might be less famous than Flemington Racecourse in the city’s inner west. But Caulfield is on the “right side” of town. It’s a dress circle race track amid dress circle properties. And the landlord thinks the rent is far too cheap.
The tenant is Melbourne Racing Club, an establishment powerhouse that packs as much political punch as the Australian Football League.
The landlord is Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, a governing body that includes a Federal Court judge and is chaired by Greg Sword, former ALP federal president and political powerbroker.
For more than 20 years MRC has paid an annual rent of $95,000, which is adjusted for inflation. Since 2012 it’s been squabbling with its landlord about its renewed offer of just $100 rent per annum. That amounts to just 30 cents a day.
MRC says that’s a fair sum, based on an independent valuation that takes into account millions it has spent on maintaining the racecourse plus hundreds of millions of economic activity generated by race meetings.
Local community leaders, whose constituents live in multimillion-dollar Victorian and Edwardian villas along whipper-snipped boulevards, claim they are being bullied.
One of them is Jim Magee, a former racecourse trustee and current mayor of Glen Eira, the local government for the area surrounding Caulfield Race Course.
He says the MRC’s offer is a “joke” and condemns how the MRC has used what is supposed to be public space.
Public campaigners claim race days and use of the track and its surrounds to train hundreds of horses have limited safe public access to a minimum.
Inadequate signage and entrances add to the difficulty of finding a way in.
“To get onto the reserve through the main entrance you have to navigate your way around 150 metres of horse poo and then an obstacle course of fences ostensibly intended to protect the public,” says Magee.
Hundreds of local schoolchildren are being forced to play for neighbouring community sports’ clubs because there are no local fields on which they can kick a ball, he says. The racecourse has monopolised a space equivalent to 15 Melbourne Cricket Ground playing fields.
His complaint is backed up by a report done last year by the Victorian auditor-general, John Doyle, who found that 11 hectares, 20 per cent of the land, is under lease to the MRC; another 37 hectares, 69 per cent, is used by the MRC without any clear legal entitlement or payment arrangement.
The remaining six hectares is open space for the community from 9.45 am to sunset except during 22 race meetings.
MRC vice-chairman Peter Le Grand is digging in for a fight. He says the annual offer of $100 in rent takes into account maintenance and security spending. The local council has failed to make any contribution to recent renovations and maintenance, he says.
But there’s even more mud being thrown around the turf. The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust has discreetly raised its nagging concerns about senior MRC officials’ financial interest in the racing stables on the course, according to leaked letters to the state minister in charge of the course obtained by AFR Weekend.
The letters raise concerns that MRC chairman Mike Symons, who is also a trustee, has an ownership interest in Aquanita Racing, a company that leases stables from the MRC under sub-lease from the trustees.
The letter, signed by Greg Sword, chairman of the trust, discloses that annual lease payments for the stable are about $27,000. An independent valuation by Charter Keck Kramer said the rental could be $328,000.
“Any financial negotiations involving the company is done at arm’s length,” says Symons about payments.
MRC vice chairman Le Grand adds: “Mike, or any of the board members, would exclude themselves from any debate, or discussion, that might involve a conflict of interest.” He says that “nothing had come up” about Aquanita Racing at MRC meetings during the past 10 years.
Auditor-general Doyle recommends improved disclosure of the MRC’s benefits from the course, criticised the state government’s oversight, and recommended improved disclosure of finances, performance and management of “perceived conflicts of interest” in the course’s management.
There is now speculation that the trust will be replaced by a management board similar to the statutory bodies that run the Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust or the Melbourne and Olympic Parks Trust.
There is also talk about reviewing the way the land is managed.
“That’s news to me,” said mayor Magee. “It’s nice for the government to tell someone what’s going on. You would have thought they would contact the local council about the most appropriate use for the land. But we have not heard a thing – its silence has been deafening. We only want to share the land.”
June 26, 2015
Virginia Estate: Gillonspeak.
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[8] Comments
Here is a summary of the developer’s ‘presentation’ to residents at the recent Planning Conference.
ROB MILNER: said that he ‘understands that a lot of you just don’t want change’ (audience – howls of derision). ‘There will be change’ at Virginia Park ‘regardless’. Conceded that he couldn’t on the night answer everyone’s points or convince them otherwise but wanted people to ‘understand’ the plans in ‘proper context’. Said that change ‘will happen regardless of tonight’. Originally land was industrial with about 4000 workers as cigarette producers. ‘It had to move on, it had to change’ and became ‘more of a business environment’. Claimed that now it’s an employment centre for ‘many people’ under 30. Also about 1900 cars on the site. Claimed that the ‘reality’ is that it’s a ‘struggle to keep’ the jobs there. If things don’t change then ‘there would be a gradual decline of the jobs’ in part because larger sites and ‘cheaper land’ becomes available on the ‘outer fringe’ of Melbourne. So the jobs ‘that people around here’ are enjoying will start to ‘evaporate’. Question is ‘what change is appropriate’ and not ‘should there be change’.
In response to the ‘concerns’ expressed about notification, claimed that Gillon Group ‘hand delivered 12,000 notices’ about the forum held by the group. Meetings were in evening and morning and the ‘turnout’ was about 50 – 60 people. Said that there is not attempt to ‘hide this’ and that they ‘have gone out of their way’ to inform people. Claimed that the figure of 4,500 dwellings was part of a ‘piece of work’ that was done to ‘try and understand’ the ‘infrastructure’ needs of the site. They aren’t ‘applying for 4000 dwellings’ but only ‘1,250’ dwellings ‘as a maximum’. Went on to say that simply because there is a plan about 10 storeys it’s not ‘like a jug that you fill up with water’. Thus with only 1250 dwellings you ‘couldn’t possibly build’ to the ‘envelope’ that’s been approved. What will happen is that it’s ‘taken to the market’ and there is ‘interest’ or there isn’t ‘interest’ and there will be ‘something less than 1200’. Gillon is therefore a ‘company’ realising ‘change has to occur’ and is looking at Government policy that asks for the development of ‘mixed use centres’ and try to build ‘local public transport’ like getting ‘better bus services in this area’. Since Glen Eira was first out of the blocks with the zones, that protected ‘vast areas’ of land and left only ‘very small pockets’ to develop and contribute to ‘a more diverse housing stock’. Gillon takes this and believes there should be a ‘mix of uses’ that ‘tries to retain a lot of the white collar jobs’ and a ‘greater range of services’ enjoyed by the neighbourhood plus ‘some different housing opportunities’.
On ‘business impact’ said that there would come a time when ‘more evidence is brought to bear’. Said that Carnegie is ‘interesting’ because they ‘brought in’ a huge 5000 square metre supermarket ‘alongside the existing one’ plus there’s an Aldi. And ‘the centre probably thrived for it’. It’s these supermarkets that ‘are saying to us’ that East Bentleigh is ‘one of the poorest served’ areas for supermarkets and they want to build on Virginia Estate. Said that Gillon is doing things in ‘reverse’ because they’ve got ‘a very large employment base on the site’ even before ‘we start’ who have ‘poor access to convenience services’. This group will ‘benefit’. Their ‘advice’ is that they are in an area that has the least supermarket floorspace in the ‘whole of Melbourne’. They used a ‘reputable’ research company and retailers are telling them that the findings are ‘on the mark’. Admitted that ‘there has never been’ any shopping centre development that hasn’t had ‘some impact’ on its neighbouring centres but ‘it’s the degree’ of the impact that is the ‘issue’ and when East Bentleigh will only have a 9.1% impact then that’s within the norm of other developments. (interjections from audience with statements that impact is more like 25%).
Gillon applied for traffic lights on South Drive/East Boundary Road. Currently the area is ‘not a safe environment’ for cars trying to ‘get in and out’ of the Park. It can’t be a ‘do nothing’ situation so the ‘set of lights’ will be a ‘positive’. The VicRoads ‘issue is not to suggest that the site is snap frozen’. Gillon will ‘work through with’ VicRoads because there is ‘a capacity’ to ‘accommodate the growth’. Their concern is to ‘improve safety’. The other concern is PTV (Public Transport Victoria). Said there’s GESAC nearby which is a ‘major facility’ for the community and taken together with the employment at Virginia Park there is the ‘basic ingredients’ for the ’20 minute neighbourhood’ of Plan melbourne and ‘all that is missing is the residential’. The PTV isnt’ saying that there shouldn’t be development but their concern is about ‘putting in a bus stop’. Said ‘we can’t build a railway, can’t build a tram’ but there is the opportunity for ‘better public transport’.
On open space ‘we had long discussion with Council’ and during these discussions Council ‘lifted’ its open space levy to 5.7%. ‘They asked us could we please provide a link’ between Marlborough Reserve & Virginia Park and ‘the land at number 1 Barrington’. Council’s open space strategy defines this part of Glen Eira as ‘one of the better served’ locations with open space and that’s ‘why they are asking us for money rather than land’. ‘It’s their choice’ and if ‘approved it’s for you to approach council and debate that point’. ‘We’re merely responding to the direction we’ve been asked to follow’. The money they give will go ‘towards the enhancement of open space’.
Said that traffic ‘will not be on local streets’ because ‘there won’t be any access to the site’ apart from what already exists. All traffic will go onto East Boundary Road and if people live there then they have to accept that traffic ‘will grow’ since it’s a major arterial road.
On infrastructure said that water does move down ‘through that area’ into Barrington Street. Said there’s an ‘overland flow’ that has ‘been there since creation’. Development creates the ‘oppolrtunity to fix the problem’ and not create new ones. They’ve done the research in order to understand the ‘capacity’ and the movement of water (that’s why the 4000 dwellings scenario) so that the ‘net result’ will be to ‘find a solution’. Said that there ‘should not be a net increase’ and there ‘should be a net improvement’ in regard to water flow onto neighbouring properties.
They aren’t ‘proposing to build a school’ but it is an issue. Said that the number of children living on the site will be the result of the ‘housing mix’ and the number of dwellings and is not an issue that is unique to East Bentleigh. With town houses they are ‘looking at’ numbers of two to 2.5 people per dwelling. If they get to 1200 dwellings then that means 2,500 people.
Finished by saying that Gillon believes they are bringing the ‘opportunity’ for people to ‘walk to convenience shops’ and which ‘supplement the services’ that are already there. They are also ‘protecting and trying to create more jobs’ for people ‘in this local area’. Said that ‘we are trying to protect the character of your area’. The site is large and ‘we’re trying to give it a residential character’ to match the surrounds. They ‘provide buffers’ on boundaries and ‘support’ aims for ‘improved transport’ and ‘trying to make’ the roads ‘safer’. Gillon thinks ‘we have something worth considering’.
Note: people then wanted to ask questions and someone called out ‘are you doing it for profit as well?’ Pilling didn’t allow questions, explained when the agenda would come out and closed the meeting.
June 8, 2015
Mavho Street Application
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Service Performance, GE Transport[4] Comments
The officer recommendation is 4 storeys and 23 units instead of 25 units. Worthy of pointing out is that for this application there were 2 planning conferences held since first time around not all objectors were notified, and one objector received his letter the day after the meeting was held! The excuse and the culprit? Australia Post of course and not the inefficiency of council!
Then there’s the so-called ‘justification’ for recommending a permit. Please consider this extract as just one example:
The development does not satisfy some of the numerical requirements of ResCode in relation to street setbacks, side setbacks and walls on boundaries, site coverage and permeability. However, the design of the development will provide for an appropriate transition from the adjoining commercial properties to the north and east, to the residential sites to the south, particularly when the recent approvals and recommended changes are taken into consideration.
COMMENT – note the terminology used. ResCode is no longer referred to as ‘prescriptive’ as has occurred in recent applications, but has morphed into ‘numerical requirements’ that can be overlooked at will by council when it suits their purpose. The farce gets much worse however when it is admitted that side, and street setbacks do not meet these ‘requirements’; nor does site coverage and permeability. But it is still okay and ‘appropriate’ to grant a permit. What we are left with is the completely spurious, nonsensical assertion that ‘design’ and the imposition of questionable ‘conditions’ is enough to compensate for the failure to protect the most minimal residential amenity demands of ResCode. How many ‘standards’ can be breached before an application is refused outright? How many more times will VCAT have to inform council planners that insisting that the developer puts up a sign regarding residential parking permits is not on and does not belong in the formal ‘conditions’ part of a permit?
Even more disconcerting is the inclusion of the developer’s argument into a document that is supposed to be ‘neutral’, ‘objective’, ‘unbiased’ and which relies solely on ‘planning law’. Whilst the ‘argument’ does not win out, we question why it is even there, and especially why it features far more prominently and extensively than resident objections.
The rear dwelling of 38 Mavho Street is provided with two north facing ground floor habitable room windows that are within 3 metres of the boundary of the subject site. The development does not comply with the minimum requirements of ResCode for these windows. The applicant has indicated that one of habitable rooms is provided with a secondary light source and both rooms are not considered to be primary living areas. It is also noted that the existing boundary fence is 2.5 metres high. On this basis they have sought a variation from the minimum setback requirements of ResCode.
Planning conferences according to council have the prime objective of hearing resident and developer views and (if possible) reaching consensus and compromise. Below is what this developer had to say. No attempt made to reach ‘consensus’; no offer of ‘compromise’. In our experience this is par for the course given that developers know they are on ‘easy street’ in Glen Eira!
DEVELOPER – – said that the site was surrounded by commercial zones and that there is a ‘brand new’ 3 storey apartment block ‘across the road’. Site is in Residential Growth zone so allowed 13.5 metres height so this is ‘the best place’ to be allowed to develop to ‘that density’. On car parking they are meeting the standards of 1 car park per dwelling but asking for a reduction of 3 visitor parking because ‘the history and the facts are on our side’ since ‘no visitors ever use basement car parking’. They hired a consultant to do a ‘study on general impact’ of parking and traffic. Consultants are ‘respected’ by councils, ‘traffic engineers’ and ‘are well respected by VCAT’. What they propose is going to have a ‘minimum impact’. Doesn’t matter if it’s 25 apartments or 5 apartments or 100 apartments ‘it’s irrelevant’ since it’s ‘what development does to the neighbourhood’ and their study shows that the impact is ‘minimal’.
June 6, 2015
The Budget: From The Sublime To The Ridiculous!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Kindergartens/Childcare, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[5] Comments
Residents have their chance to address council on the budget this Tuesday night. 17 submissions have been sent in – a huge increase. The comments (highlights presented below) range from unacceptable charges and rate increases, poor policy documents, that are so out of date they belong in a museum, and lack of real consultation with residents.
Before presenting these ‘highlights’, we draw readers’ attention the most ridiculous set of tenders ever entertained by this council. When councils all over Victoria are being urged to tighten their belts and be accountable for the expenditure of ratepayers’ hard earned dollars, Glen Eira council is its wisdom is about to spend a million dollars on unnecessary ‘trifles’. It appears that for this council the major priority is to promote itself rather than address the needs of residents. Here are the details of the proposed tenders –
- Mystery shopping program for GESAC – $40,000
- Point of Sale system for Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre – $150,000
- The supply of promotional items for sale/giveaway from Glen Eira City Council – $400,000
- And $390,000 to plant a few trees and grass in the Carnegie forecourt! (mind you, no ADDITIONAL open space, just the usual expensive tinkering – which begs the question why the first design was ever countenanced).
This expenditure should be read in the light of resident comments below –
Deliberate, repeated deception and secrecy in governance and cover up continuing
I note that Glen Eira’s half-page Street Lighting policy dates from 2002 and as such is completely out of date. I suggest that this policy be comprehensively revised with the inclusion of the environmental and health impacts of light at night before such a program (ie LED) is contemplated.
…this year’s planned increase in rates of approximately 4.94 per cent, which is almost four times the current inflation rate, is completely unnecessary and unacceptable. (Please note: this resident has obviously been duped by the manner in which council has publicised its rate increase. The increase is 6.5% and NOT 4.94%!)…During March of this year, most of the kerbing, footpath and landscaping at this location, has been reworked at considerable expense to the Ratepayers of the City. In my opinion, the works appear to have only completed superficial changes, which I regard as unnecessary. Furthermore, it is unconscionable that the developer of this site is able to reap the profits, when the roadworks surrounding this property development have been required to be reworked as a direct cost to Glen Eira Ratepayers. ….it appears that the Council decision makers are intending to apply different principles because their accountability is obscure, and Ratepayers do not generally feel that the outcome of the objection process is likely to be worthy.
I consider the $450,000 allocated towards the construction of the Eskdale Road/Fitzgibbon Crescent Caulfield North new open space to be an unnecessary and terribly wasteful expense. The proposed new open space is small and is unwarranted as it is located within easy walking distance of Caulfield Park and therefore is unlikely to be used by many residents.
Supply of places (childcare) may exceed demand due to council charging too high fees for the service the centres provide. Whilst I am very conscious of the quality of care and the homely environment provided for children at the centre my child attends (which was a primary factor in choosing this centre), it is my understanding that other centres in Glen Eira provide nappies and even cooked meals. Parents have to provide these at the conoucil-run centre in Carnegie. Other centres also provide excursions…..It is actually my understanding that kinder places are funded by the State or Federal Government (which makes the cost significantly lower for parent who have the flexibility to put their child into a straight-up kinder program) and that the City of Glen Eira is not passing that funding on to parents through reduced fees for children in the Kinder-year.
Currently, there is no allocation in the budget to redress the steady erosion of resources and facilities for passive usage of Caulfield Park….Since the Conservatory has been removed, there is no shelter in the western end. This means that young and old have neighter shelter from the scorching heat of the summer sun, nor from biting winter wind and rain.
I appreciate that there are many opportunities for community input and consultation to Council deliberations generally, however feel that one area in which these opportunities are lacking, is in relation to the Children’s Centre. As far as I am aware, formal parent involvement in the governance of the centres is limited to an annual online survey, the results of which are not communicated. Input from the parents and the community has the potential to have direct impact on the bottom line, through suggestions that have cost savings, or revenue enhancement, implications.
As I can see the tennis courts are regulary used (ie at Carnegie pool) and appear to be in very good condition, why is $130,000 being spent to change them? Has there been any community consultation, and what is the reason for the change? (ie to convert to small sided soccer pitch)
The Draft Community Plan – Transport – page 28 proposes to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities but “only where balanced against maintaining traffic flows”. Is the council really wanting “more traffic faster” as the overriding objection of transport planning in Glen Eira? The priority for more faster traffic reads like a strategy from the 1960’s for freeways and not a way to create a livable local community with good sustainable transport choices. Instead the plan and councils transport planning programs and works should firstly prioritise pedestrians, then bikes, then public transport and lastly cars – as is current transport planning best practice…..The Walking Plan is mentioned in the transport section but is missing from the list of all strategies on page 42 – is that an oversight or a statement of priority?….The proposed investment of $150,000 would be insufficient to build more than 1 set of traffic lights on the Rosstown Rail Trail – let alone the many that are required. Does carrying over funds from last year also indicate poor action on implementation and a need to review how the plan is managed?
How can $50,000 be allocated to Thomas Street Reserve, McKinnon? Surely, four large old trees surrounded by bark and drought affected grass, on a double housing block, doesn’t constitute a ‘Reserve’….Only two seats are provided at bus stops between Thomas Stret and Wheatley Road North side and no seats on the South side. Elderly people sitting on fences and students sitting on the kerb, waiting for the bus, is demeaning.
May 28, 2015
Hansard
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[13] Comments
Second reading
MrWYNNE (Minister for Planning)—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Speech as follows incorporated into Hansard under sessional orders:
Victoria’s planning system encourages community participation in decision-making. This is especially true of the planning permit process. The community enjoys broad rights in the permit process to consider and object to proposals and to seek review of decisions through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
Community participation has many benefits. It improves the decision-making process and often leads to better planning results. Objections can provide important insights into the potential effects of a proposal, not just on those who live or work nearby but also on the wider community. In the right circumstances, the number of objectors to a proposal can also provide such insights.
This bill amends the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to ensure the extent of community objection to planning proposals is considered. It does this by requiring the two key decision-makers in the permit process—responsible authorities and VCAT—to have regard, where appropriate, to the number of objectors when considering whether a proposal may have a significant social effect.
This new requirement must be considered before a decision or determination is made, together with other matters that must be considered under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, such as the objectives of the act, the planning scheme, and any significant economic and environmental effects that the proposal may have.
The bill amends two key provisions in the Planning and Environment Act 1987: sections 60 and 84B. Section 60(1) sets out matters a responsible authority must consider before deciding on a permit application. Section 84B sets out an equivalent set of matters that VCAT must consider. The bill inserts the new requirement in both sections to promote consistent decision-making.
Decision-makers must already consider whether a use or development may have a significant social effect. Social effects are not defined in the act but may include matters such as:
- services.
- access to social and community facilities.
- choice in housing, shopping, recreational and leisure services.
- community safety and amenity.
- the needs of particular groups in the community, such as the aged.
This bill makes it clear that the number of objectors may be a relevant fact that ought to be considered in this assessment.
Whether it is appropriate for the number of objectors to be taken into account in a particular case is a matter for the decision-maker. In making a decision about whether to take into account the number of objectors, the decision-maker may be influenced by:
- what the objectors have said in their written objection about the proposed use or development.
- whether the issues raised in the objections are relevant planning considerations and relate to the reasons why the proposal requires a permit.
- whether the issues raised in the objections point to a significant social effect on the community which is supported by evidence.
It will be for the responsible authority and VCAT to determine this based on the particular circumstances of the case.
The number of objectors alone will not establish that there is a significant social effect. However, the number of objectors may be indicative of the scale of a social effect on the community, the presence of a specific social need in the community that may be affected, or the social significance of a site to the community
The new requirement is likely to be particularly relevant where a proposal may reduce access to or enjoyment of community facilities or services or adversely affect public health and safety. The number of objectors, and the consistency of views expressed by objectors, may demonstrate that the community or a section of the community may be significantly affected.
This bill does not seek to reduce the weight given to the views of a single objector or a small number of objectors. It also does not seek to promote the consideration of irrelevant matters in decision-making. As is the case now, an objector will need to put their concerns in writing and state how they would be affected by the grant of a permit. The relevance of the issues raised will continue to be an overriding consideration in the assessment of all objections. It is the intention of the bill that decision-makers will ensure that the objections are a genuine reflection of an anticipated significant social effect that is supported by evidence, rather than simply the views of a number of objectors.
I commend the bill to the house.
Debate adjourned on motion of Mr PESUTTO (Hawthorn).
+++++++++
Bentleigh electorate
Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh)—(Question 259) My question is to the Minister for Planning. I ask the minister if he will visit Bentleigh to explain the changes the government is making to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). For two years Glen Eira City Council has been implementing Matthew Guy’s residential zones, which have seen Californian bungalows in quiet residential streets make way for four-storey apartment buildings.
Councillors often oppose these individual applications and send them off to VCAT. The Planning and Environment Amendment (Recognising Objectors) Bill 2015 means VCAT can now recognise the social impacts a future development may have. Previously VCAT had no mechanism to recognise community concerns about development proposals. This change means the community’s voice will be given consideration in VCAT decisions. The government will also review the former Minister for Planning’s residential zones later this year. I ask the minister to visit my electorate and meet with interested local residents about these issues.
+++++++++
Bentleigh level crossing
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan)—While the announcement by Premier Andrews to remove the Centre Road, Bentleigh, level crossing is welcomed, it will be a hollow promise until proper funding has been allocated. While the Premier may have promised to remove the Centre Road crossing, the $2.5 billion allocated to crossing removals does not exist, as it is dependent upon the sale of the port of Melbourne.
This morning we heard the government making more announcements about the removal of level crossings on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line, with vague dates and what appears to be a rushed and panicked process so that it can meet its election promise of removing 50 level crossings. But questions remain about how this will be paid for and how the disruption it will cause will be managed. In Bentleigh the public is still unaware of when construction on the Centre Road level crossing will begin, how long construction will take and what impact the construction work will have.
The success of the traders on Centre Road is contingent on traffic flows and the availability of parking, yet there have been no community forums to discuss these issues. Premier Daniel Andrews has not released a credible plan to minimise interruptions caused by the crossing removal. Questions such as whether the car park adjacent to the station will be closed during the construction phase and what transport arrangements will be in place once the line is closed need to be answered. The people of Bentleigh deserve better than this, and all Victorians need to understand how these level crossings will be paid for. The budget papers clearly state that all capital funding for level crossing removals beyond 1 July 2015 is to be confirmed and highlight that the only level crossings which have been actually funded are those that were funded by the coalition.
May 26, 2015
In The News
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[9] Comments



