Glen Eira Council cops costs in adjourned case against former councillor

  • Andrea Kellett
  • November 06, 2013 4:25PM
Former Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack outside the Melbourne Magistrate's Court today. Picture: Janine Eastgate.

Former Glen Eira councillor Frank Penhalluriack outside the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court today. Picture: Janine Eastgate. Source: News Limited

GLEN Eira ratepayers have copped an $11,800 legal bill after a crucial omission by council lawyers on day one of a criminal court case against former councillor Frank Penhalluriack.

Magistrate Denise O’Reilly has ordered the council pay defence teams’ costs for today’s wasted appearance.

But total costs to Glen Eira ratepayers for today’s gaffe will be far more than $11,800 once the bill of the council’s legal team, including a barrister and instructing solicitor, is taken into account.

The Melbourne Magistrates Court also adjourned the case until March, to allow council lawyers to prepare and give “proper” notice of crucial witness evidence.

Mr Penhalluriack, his company K.I. Penhalluriack Nominees Pty Ltd and former tenant Tomer Rabba have been charged with breaching the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

The council alleges they operated an illegal rooming house from a rental property on Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield, between May and June last year.

All have pleaded not guilty.

Magistrate O’Reilly told council lawyers she wanted “proper” notice of their intention to present hearsay witness evidence.

“There wasn’t proper notice given,” she said.

“I think it’s the right thing that they give proper notice.”

The evidence relates to a conversation a Glen Eira Council building inspector is alleged to have had with a man at the property last year.

The court heard council’s legal team could not find that man, known only as ‘Brent’, and they wanted “hearsay” evidence of what he is alleged to have said, allowed in court.

David Grace, for Mr Penhalluriack, objected and urged Ms O’Reilly to let the hearing continue without that evidence.

The discussion relates to how many people were staying at the property and could be relied on in the prosecution’s case that the house was being used as a rooming house.

It has since been demolished and replaced with a car park.

Ms O’Reilly adjourned the case to March 3 for three days.

Speaking outside the court, Mr Penhalluriack said he was “disappointed” about the delay.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/central/glen-eira-council-cops-costs-in-adjourned-case-against-former-councillor/story-fngnvlpt-1226754412798

COMMENT

What the Leader article does not make clear is that Council had 3 lawyers (including a barrister), their own corporate counsel, the ‘policing officer’ (Katz) and 3 other officers sitting in court all day. Another 3 officers were waiting in the wings to be called as witnesses in the days ahead. That should, we estimate, come close to at least another $15,000 that’s gone down the drain for nothing and is just the beginning. The case is scheduled for 3 days. If Penhalluriack wins then the cost to ratepayers could be huge.

After 3 mentions, and continual delays, Council’s lawyers still seem incapable of getting their act together. Shades of the original VCAT hearing where council was ordered to go away and write up its case properly. Instead of providing clear ‘briefs of evidence’, as required by law, ‘hearsay’ introduced at the last moment became the bone of contention. The magistrate ordered that Council undertake proper process by giving ‘notice’. In other words, basically telling council, and their expensive lawyers, that they’ve stuffed up! Also worthy of mention is that the charge against Mrs Penhalluriack was withdrawn right at the start. Make of this what you will!

We strongly recommend that every single Glen Eira resident should at least once in their lives attend a council meeting in order to view the continual circus, and general incompetence of our elected representatives. Tonight was no exception. Below is a very brief summary of what occurred. Full reports will follow in the coming days.

MORTON AVE APPLICATION

1. Pilling and Magee moved to accept the recommendations for a 6 storey development with the usual arguments of ‘appropriate’ for this zone; ‘reasonable’ high density; ‘right building for right place’, etc. etc.

2. Arguments against were waiving of loading bay, reduction in visitor parking.

MOTION PUT AND LOST.

3, Esakoff then moved another motion that this be 5 storeys and 33 dwellings plus 4 visitor car parking spots. Seconded by Okotel. Main arguments were problems with traffic, parking, and that 5 storeys was okay plus a waiver of 3 parking spots ‘was fair’.

MOTION PUT AND LOST

Great confusion at this point since: – (a) no decision on application and, (b) no amendment had been put. Everyone scurried around like lost sheep ‘consulting’. Pilling then came up with a third motion – back to 6 storeys and 3 visitor car parking spots! This time motion got up unanimously!

MAV CONFERENCE

Esakoff reported on the MAV conference she attended and the raft of resolutions passed at the conference. All well and good. Trouble is that not once did she say anything about the voting pattern of Glen Eira City Council!!!! We remind readers that none of the motions were presented at an ordinary council meeting and no formal resolution has ever been taken on how to vote on any of the motions. Worse still, is that residents are kept in the dark. It is secrecy, lack of transparency and abysmal governance all over again!

Plenty of calls for Lobo to withdraw some of his comments which he eventually did but not before he named Lipshutz as the councillor who told him that officers could not understand him. Okotel was having hearing problems and attempted to use ‘right of reply’ to counter some comments from other councillors (Lobo, and she assumed an error by Delahunty) – so, on and on, with utter nonsense – especially the interminable, and in our view either trivial, or irrelevant, Requests for Reports. Perhaps we should consider retitling this post since circuses are entertaining. Tonight’s effort was definitely not ‘entertaining’ but an indictment of councillors, their priorities, and their total lack of knowledge when many have been councillors for yonks!

Finally, responses to public questions were either evasive, non-informative, or entirely irrelevant to the questions. Well done Mr Burke!

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:52:45 +1100
From: caulfieldpark@gmail.com
To:
Subject: Concert November 10th at Caulfield Park

Dear Friend of Caulfield Park,,

We are emailing you to remind you of the upcoming performance of the Glen Eira Band at the bandstand in the west end of Caulfield Park on this Sunday 10th November  at 2 pm.

We have been told by the Glen Eira’s Director of Community Services that we may not put up posters advertising this public concert around the park as it breaks Council by-laws, and that if we did, they would be taken down immediately, and we could incur a penalty.

So we are asking you to help.

Please advise anyone you know who could be interested about the concert and please come along too!

We look forward to seeing you at the band stand this Sunday.  Remember there is also free art for the children.

Regards,

Spike Cramphorn

Secretary

COMMENT

This is bureaucracy gone totally mad. We remind readers that:

  • Council claims to be committed to engendering community spirit
  • Council has granted Friends of Caulfield Park money to hold these events via their Community Grants program. So what does this say about council’s concern with the money it forks out? Is it really trying to assist community groups in order for this to be a success? Or is it basically attempting to sabotage one group’s endeavours? Whatever the thinking behind this, it is, to put it bluntly, – moronic and anti-community!

From: COkotel@gleneira.vic.gov.au
To:

Subject: Automatic reply:

Date:
Thank you for your correspondence.

If your email is addressed to multiple councillors, it will be responded to by the first-named councillor on behalf of those who have been emailed. If you are unhappy with council’s response, please let me know.

If I am the first-named councillor that you have emailed, I will endeavour to get back to you as soon as possible.

Warm regards

Cr Karina Okotel

Up for decision are several planning applications that are worthy of comment. Given the empty promises of the new residential zones these applications in our view are a sign of what is to come.

Bolinda St Application

This is for 2 double storeys in a minimal change area. No objections were received, so the question needs to be asked why something like this should even make it to a full council meeting for decision? Countless others of far more import are decided by officers who do have the delegated authority to refuse this outright. Our take on this is that it represents nothing more than a public relations exercise designed to dupe and lull the community into believing that the residential zones are really ‘protecting’ neighbourhoods.

Here’s what we are told about this application:

  • The site is large enough for increased density
  • Site coverage is 44% – the standards are 50%
  • Rear and side setbacks are 4.5m for one unit when standard is 4m
  • Unit 2 has 154 square metre private open space when standard is 60 square metre
  • No overshadowing of note
  • No significant or valuable trees
  • Solar access to private open space is fine

So, on basically every single important ResCode and council standard this proposal meets the requirements. Yet officers have refused a permit. Their primary ground of objection is stated as:

This planning policy/discouraging two storey dwellings in rear yards has been rigorously followed for over 10 years. The policy is soundly based in town planning principles. Namely, 2 storey developments in rear yards potentially causes visual bulk issues for abutting rear yards of neighbouring properties. This is evident in this proposal whereby the visual bulk is considered unreasonable on the backyards of the properties to the north and the east. This policy of discouraging 2 storey development in rear yards is widely understood and accepted including by VCAT. Precedent is a concern. Approval of this proposal weakens the future application of this policy.

So all of a sudden ‘precedent’ is important and we’re expected to believe a 2 storey dwelling in the back yard of a minimal change area is ‘widely understood’ and even ‘accepted’ by VCAT. In other words it is ‘verboten’! The facts certainly don’t bear out this version of reality. Here are some VCAT decisions from the past 5 or 6 months where permits were granted for backyard double storeys

19 Wilks St., North Caulfield

38 Victoria St, Elsternwick

60 Neville St., Carnegie

312 Glen Eira road, Elsternwick

9 Brian St., Bentleigh East (council itself granted a permit for this one and confirmed by VCAT)

24 Marara Rd., South Caulfield (2 double storey attached dwellings)

3 Osborne Ave., Bentleigh (2 double storey attached – council granted permit and confirmed by VCAT)

7 Irving Ave., Murrumbeena (2 double storey attached – council granted permit and confirmed by VCAT)

Since the introduction of the new zones there have been numerous applications for exactly this type of development. We list some of them here:

22 Waratah St., Bentleigh

36 Adrian St., Bentleigh East

18 Beddoe Avenue, Bentleigh

32 Seaview Caulfield South

Nothing but nothing in council’s old planning scheme, or the new, prevents this kind of development. All council has been able to come up with for the past 12 years is: “Discourage the siting of two storey or multiple storey dwellings at the rear of sites.” And that’s only when it suits! VCAT has repeatedly ignored this as has council itself.

If council was really serious in enforcing its own planning scheme and doing its utmost (as it claims) to protect minimal change, then all those applications listed immediately above should have been rejected outright under manager delegation. Instead they remain on the planning register awaiting decision – whereas applications for subdivision and other forms of development receive the nod in the matter of days! We will keep a very close eye on these applications.

We have no doubt that if councillors reject this application and it goes to VCAT that the council decision will be laughed out of court!

Morton Avenue Carnegie 

This is an amended permit application in a commercial zone for a 6 storey, 40 unit, 1 shop and loading and car parking waivers. Ron Torres has given the go ahead. The original permit was for 4 storeys and 20 dwellings; now it’s gone up to 6 storey and double the number of dwellings – all one and 2 bedroom units.

Inaccuracies, or deliberate misleading information is ever present. We’re told: The site is included in the Mixed Use (East) precinct of the Carnegie Urban Village. It’s not! This is zoned as Commercial 1! Torres goes on to state that the proposal is ‘consistent’ with policy because there already are 4 storeys in the area and a permit was just granted for 5 storeys – so now 6 storeys doesn’t matter. Pity that the argument regarding ‘precedent’ used for the Bolinda application has suddenly gone out the window!

But there’s more:

  • Parking and loading bay waivers are fine because the shop is ‘small’. Perhaps someone should tell Torres that the size of a shop has got absolutely nothing to do with the size of the truck rolling up to deliver goods and its need for adequate parking provision! As for the number of customers, well who bothers going to small shops these days according to this logic?
  • No specifics are given anywhere, and terminololgy such as ‘no unreasonable’ overshadowing abounds.
  • Nor is there any valid and quantified explanation as to why council’s own Traffic Department has been overruled when that officer believes: The parking demand associated with visitors to the site should be provided onsite. As such a provision of 5 parking spaces is considered warranted.
  • There are also comments about stackers, setbacks from the street, lack of daylight for some dwellings, small narrow balconies.

Thus on countless standards this proposal fails outright. Yet the recommendation is to grant a permit albeit with conditions. Thus anything goes as far as council is concerned in housing diversity, mixed use and commercial zones. Glen Eira is thus actively encouraging a system which cannot adequately protect minimal change, but worse, those residents living in housing diversity and/or commercial or mixed use do not warrant any consideration whatsoever as to open space, height limits, parking, site coverage and so on. The system deliberately fosters inequality and officer reports are part and parcel of the public relations arm of the administration.

The agenda for next Wednesday night is out and surprise, surprise, there is no mention of the CEO appointment. According to the legislation, public notification of the intent to reappoint must occur at least 14 days prior to the resolution being passed. On Wednesday it will be 15 days since the announcement was buried away in both the Age and on council’s website. So why the silence? If this is to be done in camera, then the only possible item that might be applicable is the lovely catch-all phrase “under section 89(2)(d) “contractual” which relates to a contractual matter”. Tautologies reign supreme in Glen Eira!

Other items set down for in camera are also intriguing. For example the regrassing of 2 Caulfield Park ovals. Readers might remember that this was put off for one year in order to save money. Yet it does not explain why on November 3rd 2012 the Age featured this tender advertisement – “Redevelopment of Caulfield Park No 3 & 4 Sports Ovals Requirement: Sportsground drainage, irrigation, surface reshaping & resurfacing.” Applications closed on November 17th. Then low and behold, on  July 27th 2013 we get the identical advertisement again. This time closing date is 16th August 2013. That raises many interesting questions:

  • Why was this advertised last year when the budget had decreed to delay regrassing?
  • Why does the 2013/14 budget state that the cost of regrassing is $650,000 and the figure in the incamera section states $450,000? Surely with all the millions already spent on ovals council would have a pretty good idea what this would cost? Or is this just another example of creative accounting?

There are plenty of other fascinating items up for decision as well, but we will conclude this post with a comment on the financial report. Seems like GESAC is continuing to rack up the bills with another $33,000 for landscaping and the ‘release of retention money for waterslides’. More squabbles perhaps with this particular contractor? Then there’s another $19,000 for the purchase of ‘additional strength equipment’. But the really, really big one is the incamera tender for $610,000 for ‘air handling and ducting’. Of course council does not reveal that this is for GESAC to rectify what is obviously a huge problem. But this was again advertised in the Age on September 7th, 2013! Hopefully this figure will appear somewhere in future financial reports!

More disturbing is that so many projects have not had a penny spent on them in 3 months, or a piddling proportion of their allotted funds. Duncan McKinnon pavilion is the perfect example. The same goes for Local Area traffic management improvements. Taking into account the carryovers of money from the previous year’s budget, and granted that ‘progress’ in Glen Eira is invariably at a snail’s pace, we still have to wonder whether or not these interminable delays are the results of a continuing cash shortage?

Finally, it is worth pointing out again that:

  • The non-appearance of the Local Law – promised for March 2013 by Lipshutz
  • The non-appearance of a sporting ground allocation policy

With a bit of luck these may appear just before Xmas when it’s hoped that not too many people will notice!

 

Below is an article from The Leader. It appears that there is literally no end to Lipshutz’s expertise, talent, self-importance, and arrogance. Leaving aside the question of racism, we simply ask:

  • Shouldn’t Lipshutz leave such questions to the Federal Police and/or ASIO?
  • How would any ‘reasonable’ man interpret such as question?
  • We are quite prepared to supply Lipshutz with a dictionary so that he may acquaint himself with the meaning of the word ‘innocuous’!

None of this is new. In fact we reported upon it years ago. See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/where-has-the-old-cr-lobo-gone/

No amount of spin can disguise the fact that Glen Eira Council has never been, and continues not to be, the happy ‘club’ that Newton and his cohorts so desperately try to portray, but a council forever divided, secretive, punitive and dysfunctional.

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

Glen Eira councillor defends “terrorist” question he asked colleague three years ago

  • Andrea Kellett
  • October 31, 2013 12:04AM

A GLEN Eira councillor who asked a fellow councillor if he had worked for a bank linked to terrorists says the question was fair and innocuous and not racist.

Cr Michael Lipshutz has defended the email he sent to Cr Oscar Lobo three years ago, which was also sent to the other seven councillors, chief executive Andrew Newton and two other officers.

The email was shown to the Caulfield Glen Eira Leader this week – two weeks out from Glen Eira Council’s mayoral election, which Cr Lobo plans to contest.

Cr Lipshutz today confirmed he sent the email, described it as “innocuous” and said it was asked in the context of discussions at the time.

In it he listed six questions he wanted Cr Lobo to answer.

One stated: “Given his long history in the Middle East, whether he personally or any bank with whom he was employed has been involved in transfer of funds to any organisation listed by either the Australian government or the US Government as a terrorist organisation or a supporter of a terrorist organisation?”

Cr Lobo said the email implied he had terrorist links and had offended him and he did not reply to it.

When the Leader asked Cr Lipshutz if the terrorist question was racially motivated or would appear so to the community, given Cr Lobo’s Indian background, he denied his email was racist.

“I’m not saying he was involved,” Cr Lipshutz said.

“That can’t be racist.”

He said he simply wanted more information about Cr Lobo, who at the time had put his hand up to be mayor.

“There was nothing behind it, no attack at all,” Cr Lipshutz said.

“I said it in the context of something that we were discussing at the time, he never answered and I never followed up because there was no need to follow up.”

The email has surfaced at a sensitive time for Glen Eira. On October 15 Cr Lobo, currently deputy mayor, said a fellow councillor had told him he was not fit to be mayor and that officers could not understand him as English was not his “mother tongue”.

“It is a racial discrimination,” he said in the council chamber.

Glen Eira Council’s mayoral elections will be held on November 12 and Mayor Jamie Hyams does not plan to recontest, having served two terms.

Greens councillor Neil Pilling is a likely contender and confirmed he was keen to be mayor, had told his fellow councillors and felt he had a “reasonable chance”.

In 2005 the council at the time was sacked after a municipal investigation found multiple failings that included a “serious break-down in working relationships between councillors”.

Glen Eira Council spokesman Paul Burke said: “The then Mayor Cr Tang responded to all councillors in relation to the email of 27 November 2010 that you refer to.”

“Councillor conduct is regulated by the Code of Conduct adopted by council. The Code provides mechanisms for councillors to deal with disputes and complaints. As with all organisations, employees do not regulate the behaviour of employers.”

Source: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Council_2013/Council_Aug-Dec_2013_Daily_30_October_2013.pdf

Yesterday’s debate in parliament on the Caulfield Racecourse is very long. Hence, we have edited some sections. The full debate is available at the link shown above. Readers should take note of the appalling positions taken by both the Liberal and Labor parties.

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE RESERVE

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan)—I move:

That this house notes that—

(1) the recommendations of the 2008 report of the Select Committee on Public Land Development regarding Caulfield Racecourse Reserve have not been fully implemented;

(2) Glen Eira City Council has been advocating for better public access and various improvements at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve for many years and on 19March 2013 adopted, by resolution, a position statement on Crown land at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve which stated that the Crown land is reserved by law for three purposes—

(a) a racecourse;

(b) a public recreation ground; and

(c) a public park;

(3) the first purpose, a racecourse, is well catered for, but the other purposes are not;

(4) the Crown land should be managed to achieve all three purposes equally, and that to achieve this, Glen Eira Council listed ten actions that need to occur, including the—

(a) allocation of land for public recreation;

(b) removal of horse training and car parking from the Crown land;

(c) removal of visual barriers (fencing) to the Crown land;

(d) provision of suitable access points; and

(e) reinvestment of income from commercial purposes to be used for public purposes;

(5) the most significant barrier to achievement of these actions over many years has been the inappropriate and out-dated governance structure that has been allowed to continue by successive state governments; and

(6) calls on this state government to—

(a) amend the membership of the trustees of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve to reduce the number of racing industry representation, include more community representation and retain representatives of Glen Eira City Council;

(b) ensure that the trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve comply with DSE guidelines for committees of management of Crown land and that the meetings, decisions and actions of the trustees are open and transparent;

(c) ensure that the governance arrangements over the Crown land achieve the equal purposes of a race course, public recreation and public park; and

(d) ensure that all financial arrangements and transactions associated with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve subject to audit by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office….

Again, I will begin with the first part of the motion:

That this house notes that—

(1) the recommendations of the 2008 report of the Select Committee on Public Land Development regarding Caulfield Racecourse Reserve have not been fully implemented… The recommendations regarding that particular site are worth again reading into Hansard, some five years later. There has been a lot of work done in the community with the local council and various MPs to try to get some of these recommendations implemented. Recommendation 5.8 states:

That the government investigate:

the history, membership structure, responsibilities and current arrangement of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve board of trustees, particularly in relation to its duty to uphold not just horse racing, but all the purposes of the reserve in the original grant;

the purpose to which money raised by horse racing has been used; and

ways in which the government can ensure that the board of trustees operates in an open and transparent manner and in accordance with the terms of the grant.

So recommendation 5.8 goes straight to the governance issues at the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, which is really the crux of the motion I have moved today. I will get to that in paragraph (6) of the motion. One would have to say that that recommendation has not been implemented.

Recommendation 5.9 states:

That the master plan for the Caulfield Racecourse reserve redevelopment be the subject of wide public consultation incorporating the municipalities of Glen Eira, Stonnington and Port Phillip.

Mostly that has been implemented. The redevelopment of a parcel of land known as the Triangle, near Caulfield railway station, has been the subject of some public consultation, but there has been a lot of public discussion and discussion between the racecourse board and the local council, which is the Glen Eira City Council.

Recommendation 5.10 states:

That the Minister for Planning strongly consider appointing community members and/or people with park and recreation expertise as nominees of the state government to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve board of trustees to provide a balanced representation of interests and expertise. That has not been fully implemented. …..

Recommendation 5.11 states:

That the day-to-day management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, by delegation from the trustees to the Melbourne Racing Club, be reconsidered. That has not happened either.

Finding 5.14 states:

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve profits to the Melbourne Racing Club have been disproportionately directed to racing users, with inadequate provision for use of public park and recreation users as required by the original grant. Despite a minor investment of funds by the Melbourne Racing Club into some public facilities in the racecourse reserve, that finding continues to be the case.

Recommendation 5.12 states:

That the Melbourne Racing Club’s recent report relating to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve fencing boundaries be publicly released. I do not know if that was ever publicly released. A letter was sent to me by the CEO of the Melbourne Racing Club some years ago mentioning the pros and cons of fencing, but the situation remains that if you circumnavigate the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, most of it is shielded by a large tin fence, so that the public cannot see into the reserve. Access is still only through a couple of points around the reserve, and in my opinion the Melbourne Racing Club still tries to make that as difficult as possible for the general public.

Recommendation 5.13 states:

That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve trustees direct a substantial amount from the profits made by the Melbourne Racing Club over many decades to the provision of public park and recreational facilities, including promotion of the public use of these facilities as recompense to the community.

Again only a relatively small amount of money is made available for public use, compared to that gazillions of dollars that the Victorian Amateur Turf Club, as it was known previously, and now the Melbourne Racing Club have made out of racing and associated activities, including a Tabaret, sports betting and various other activities, over many years. It really is scandalous.

Recommendation 5.14 states:

That the government support the joint communiqué between the Melbourne Racing Club and the Glen Eira City Council to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve trustees, bearing in mind that further public consultation is needed with respect to the future use of public open space within the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

As I said, to some extent some of that has happened. Some works have been done in the centre of the reserve for public recreation facilities, but we still have a long way to go. Considering this work has taken five years, it is very minor. This is disappointing because following the tabling of this report some goodwill appeared to exist about bringing this reserve up to the standard of others around the world and making it a multipurpose, multi-use facility. It is a very large area of Crown land in the city of Glen Eira. Glen Eira City Council is starved of public open space, but this fight for genuine public access to the site from dawn till dusk has still not been won. That should be what happens.

The second part of my motion reads that:

Glen Eira City Council has been advocating for better public access and various improvements at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve for many years and on 19March 2013 adopted, by resolution, a position statement on Crown land at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve which stated that the Crown land is reserved by law for three purposes—

(a) a racecourse;

(b) a public recreation ground; and

(c) a public park.

The third part of my motion states: the first purpose, a racecourse, is well catered for, but the other purposes are not.

As I have said, this has been going on for many years—decades in fact. Various councils have tried, with various ways and means, to provide better public access to Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and to ensure that the Crown land is used for the purposes clearly stated in the trust deed. These are: racecourse, public recreation ground and public park. Anybody who goes to Caulfield Racecourse Reserve will notice that the racecourse is its identity. Its signage is all about racing. The signage referring to public access is very small and cannot be seen from a distance.

In fact Mr Ondarchie would not be able to read it, even from the distance between the Chair and me or that between Mr Ondarchie and me. He would not be able to read the signage telling him that, as a member of the public, he had access to the reserve. But the signs about the racecourse and racing events are huge and dominate the landscape. That is still the culture which exists at that piece of Crown land.

Part 4 of my motion summarises what the council said in its motion, which was put and carried unanimously on 19March.  (summary of council’s motion regarding training, parking on racecourse edited out here).

The sixth action concerns the revenues for public purposes, and this is very important:

The Crown land is public land and should be used for public benefit. The land is currently used for many commercial purposes including a Tabaret with a very large monetary turnover, training of horses early in the mornings and commercial exhibitions such as caravan and camper shows. Virtually all income from the use of this public land accrues to a non-public body. This should be changed so that a racecourse, public recreation ground and public park are provided and any commercial activities are charged a commercial rent, payable to the governing body and available for the governing body to reinvest in a racecourse, public recreation ground and public park. This does not happen. Only a small amount of money has been set aside by the Melbourne Racing Club, delegated by the trustees, to run the racecourse reserve on a day-to-day basis for any sort of public park or recreation facilities, and the rest of it goes to the Melbourne Racing Club. It is scandalous that a private body has been able to do this for so long.

The seventh action that the council wants to see is provision of access: Suitable access from multiple points must be provided for the public to enjoy the land. Access for all abilities must be provided.

As I mentioned before, the Melbourne Racing Club, while it has paid some lip service to this matter, still makes the Crown land appear as if it is only a racecourse and that the public is not welcome there. Access points are very few and the signage for access is very small. You would have to be very determined, live locally and be one of the few people in the know to make use of this public land on a day-to-day basis.

The eighth action is compliance with government standards:

The governing body must accept and comply with the DSE guidelines for committees of management of Crown land or be compelled to comply. All governance should be open and transparent.

With regard to that point, during the adjournment debate on 15 August last year I referred a matter to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change asking that he ensure that the trustees for the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve adhere to the then Department of Sustainability and Environment guidelines for committees of management of Crown land or be compelled to do so, and also be required to administer the Crown land for the three purposes set aside in the Crown grant. I am awaiting a response to that matter. I have had no response from the minister, and that occurred some 14 months ago. My staff have called the minister’s office to see whether he was intending to respond, but so far there has been no response.

The ninth action that the council adopted by its resolution of 19March was headed ‘Compliance with auditing standards’: The governing body is responsible for approximately $2 billion of public land and the Auditor-General for Victoria should be its auditor. Who could disagree with that? Nobody knows, and what has gone on is not public knowledge. How much money is made by the Melbourne Racing Club and what happens to it? Over many decades only a small amount—and I will get to that in a moment—has been put back into public recreation and a public park.

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve has been mentioned in Parliament since the tabling of the 2008 report. The former member for Caulfield in the other place, Mrs Shardey, on 6 October 2010, which is three years ago, raised the issue about the lack of consultation on the land swap at Caulfield racecourse. Of course that has been an issue of much contention, and I will refer to it shortly. On 3 May 2011 the current member for Caulfield in the other place raised the issue of the agreement between the Melbourne Racing Club and the Glen Eira City Council for a $1.8 million upgrade of the reserve, and he also mentioned the Booran Road reserve, and what will be happening there still remains a puzzle. There has been some movement on that particular issue, but I draw the chamber’s attention to the amount of money involved—$1.8 million has gone into an upgrade of the centre of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve for a public park and recreation facilities. Out of all the hundreds of millions of dollars that has been made out of that public racecourse and reserve over decades, Melbourne Racing Club has generously put $1.8 million into the public facilities in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

It is something, but one could not possibly say that is recompense for the amount of money that is being made by the Melbourne Racing Club, before that the Victorian Amateur Turf Club, over decades of occupying that land, running it solely as a racecourse, keeping the public out as much as it can and now it has thrown a few peanuts at the public by way of the $1.8 million.

I mentioned part of the council’s resolution, the ninth action, which was compliance with auditing standards, and I note that Cr Delahunty from Glen Eira City Council has written to the Auditor-General asking that he take over auditing the accounts of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. It seems to me that would be a sensible idea because it is Crown land, and the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office should concern itself with money and commercial activities on Crown land.

That brings me to the fifth part of my motion, which states that:

(5) the most significant barrier to achievement of these actions over many years has been the inappropriate and outdated governance structure that has been allowed to continue by successive state governments; and

(6) calls on this state government to—

(a) amend the membership of the trustees of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve to reduce the number of racing industry representation, include more community representation and retain representatives of Glen Eira City Council;

(b) ensure that the trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve comply with—

DEPI, now the Department of Environment and Primary Industries, although it is very difficult to find on that website—

guidelines for committees of management of Crown land and that the meetings, decisions and actions of the trustees are open and transparent;

(c) ensure that the governance arrangements over the Crown land achieve the equal purposes of a racecourse, public recreation and public park; and

(d) ensure that all financial arrangements and transactions associated with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve are subject to audit by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office.

I mentioned before that I would return to the issue of the land swap. …..As far as I have been able to work out—and I have asked the question of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change about that particular issue and I got the answer not very long ago—no payment was received by the government for the 54 square metres of land added to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, which is the small amount of land at the Booran Road corner. I am sure the minister knew that was not what I was talking about, so I will have to take that issue up with him again. But as far as I know, full recompense has not been paid to the taxpayers of Victoria for the Crown land that has now been acquired by the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve for development and exchanged for a smaller parcel that is now, as I understand it, under the committee of management of the Glen Eira City Council.

There is a very long history of the public being locked out of this reserve, which is meant to be for the public. Following the tabling of the report there seemed to be a period where there was goodwill and a sense that things might happen, but I think the council became very frustrated. One of the other councillors, CrMagee, was selected as chair of the trustees. He tried to bring in some changes, introduce proper governance and get the trustees to agree to abide by the Department of Sustainability and Environment guidelines; they did not. He tried various other things. I think the council just got frustrated, and that is why it adopted this resolution—to get something done.

The crux of my motion is that the governance structures are problematic and inappropriate. There is certainly a problem with conflict of interest. Decisions are being made as to what happens on that parcel of Crown land, which is supposed to be administered as racecourse, public park and public recreation in three equal parts, but the managing body is stacked with racing industry representatives and all the decisions go towards racing interests. One has to say that we have a huge conflict-of-interest issue, and it really should not be allowed to continue.

MrsMILLAR (Northern Victoria)—I am pleased to speak on behalf of the government in relation to this motion. I could in fact not be more pleased to stand to speak against this motion which in light of recent completed capital investment upgrades is lacking in substance.

The Melbourne Racing Club has a rich history at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and operates with its local community firmly in mind. That history started with the Victoria Amateur Turf Club’s first meeting at Caulfield on 5 August 1876. In the motion Ms Pennicuik refers to the Glen Eira City Council advocating for improvements at Caulfield Racecourse for many years. I put it to the house that for 137 years the Melbourne Racing Club has been successfully holding race meetings; providing employment to large numbers of people in the local community—it currently has over 2000 employees, rising to 2500 during the Spring Racing Carnival; providing entertainment, enjoyment and a range of social benefits to the local community; providing economic benefit to local businesses and the wider Victorian economy; and, in addition to all of these significant and definable benefits, continuing to create racing history year after year. All of this speaks for itself.

There will always be those who seek for their own purposes to denigrate what others have created of their own free will. I am not going to speculate on the possible motivations for this motion, but nor will I remain silent as those across the chamber launch an unwarranted attack on this esteemed racing club, its proud history and the benefits and services which it continues to deliver to the local community and this state. Instead of giving recognition and appreciation for benefits and facilities extensively enjoyed by the local community, particularly the significant improvements over this period, this is an attempt to chip away at the edges and to undermine the legitimacy and achievements of the club.

This club continues to be open to engagement with the trustees and the local council on any and all matters in relation to the reserve, and this commitment has been made many times. As I have detailed in noting the recently opened capital improvements at the racecourse reserve, this motion is totally without substance. For these reasons the government will not be supporting this motion.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria)—In the few minutes that remain in this debate I would like to put the Labor Party’s position on Ms Pennicuik’s motion and speak on specific points contained within it. The Labor Party will be opposing this motion. The decision by the Glen Eira City Council was, we believe, a breach of an agreement less than two years old—an agreement between the club and the council that would have provided for the club to spend some $2 million to increase public use of the facility and provide new facilities, like toilets, barbecues, a children’s play area and the like.

On the point of the removal of horse training and car parking from the Crown land, this is not something the Labor Party supports, and Labor members are on the record in relation to this matter. There are significant consequences to those actions, and we do not support this blunt instrument.

In relation to paragraph 6 calling on the state government to amend the membership of the trustees of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve to reduce the number of racing industry representatives, I say that what we know is that right now the club has a trust that is operating independently. There is in fact a reasonably well-publicised disagreement between the club and the trust over various matters at the moment, and it is indeed the role of council, I would suggest, to represent the community’s views.

I will also just make a comment about paragraph 6(c) of Ms Pennicuik’s motion, and I am conscious of the short amount of time I have available to contribute to this debate. The motion proposes equal purposes for the Crown land—a racecourse, public recreation and a public park. I know we are in the middle of the Spring Racing Carnival, and I know that a lot of members enjoy going to the track year round and that a great many more Victorians go at this time of the year. I am not sure how you take one-third of a racetrack and still have it as a functioning racetrack. This is an impractical suggestion, and it is not made in a way that could possibly be cognisant of the practical realities ….Finally, it is disappointing the government led by the Deputy Premier and Attorney-General has continued to hold to their absurd definition of public land based on an obscure administrative order from 1988. The committee believes that this approach is obstruction pure and simple and is an attempt by the executive to frustrate the will of the Parliament. It is wrong that the government should seek to define or limit the ability of the Legislative Council to scrutinise its activities.

Finally, in 6(d), Ms Pennicuik’s motion seeks to ensure that all financial arrangements and transactions associated with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve are subject to audit by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. I will make the point that this is a matter that comes under the Audit Act 1994, and if this is what the member seeks to do, perhaps she might like to introduce amendments to that act. The clock says my time is up. The Labor Party will be opposing this motion.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Why is it that every single major project in Glen Eira is always behind schedule and not just by a few months, but sometimes by years? Duncan McKinnon pavilion is just the latest in this history of delay, budget blowouts, and possibly another legal battle. To compound this dismal record there is always the accompanying silence and keeping residents in the dark as much as possible.

This year’s Annual Report proves our point. Buried on page 82 there is this one, solitary sentence: Construction has commenced but walls and roof are not yet complete. The builder is behind schedule due to rework on items which have not met quality standards

Quality standards? So a ten million dollar project that was initially earmarked for half that price is again the victim of poor workmanship? What should concern ratepayers is:

  • Has Council called in the legal eagles again and how much is this costing?
  • Has Council called in consultants to ‘correct’ the ‘errors’ and how much is this costing?
  • Has Maxstra (the builder) in fact walked off the job since there is now no hoardings advertising their involvement?
  • How much ‘remedial’ work has been undertaken and who is paying for this?

The most pertinent question however involves councillors and how well they have been keeping their eye on the ball. Pilling, in particular, promised much, but has delivered little. His blog on December 25th 2011 had this comment:

At the first Councillor assembly meeting in January I have requested a full update and explanation by our administration for the current situation. I acknowledge there were some delays caused by VicRoads in approving the new carpark entrances. However this should not have prevented the preparation and finalisation of the tender documents for construction being completed.

Then 16months later on April 8th 2013 we get this ‘promise’ –

Recently along with other Councillors I was provided with an on-site tour of the construction site of our current major capital project – the new pavillion at Duncan Mckinnon. This is a $9.5 million project that will deliver wonderful new modern facilities to the literally thousands of local children and families who play sport at our busiest recreational facility. There will also be a reconfiguration of the carpark to allow for safer traffic movements.

As one who competed on the track from the mid-seventies to now seeing family members participating in the netball competitions there, it is especially pleasing to see this progress.

The photos above show the construction is well advanced-with completion on track for the end of March next year and I will post regular updates

Needless to say, that is the last we have heard about Duncan McKinnon from this councillor, and in fact Council as a whole. Nothing has been mentioned in Council Meetings and the records of assembly generally are silent on the issue.

The Annual Report states that walls and roof should have been completed. Below we feature a photo we took over the weekend. The roof is nowhere to be seen and walls are barely up. In six months nothing has practically changed!

P1000178

But that’s not the end of the story. Victory Park change rooms are also well behind schedule. The ‘excuse? – The scope of works was increased to deal with poor ground conditions, requiring the works to be tendered which has delayed the delivery of the project. Works are currently in progress.

Could so much bad luck really be hounding poor old Glen Eira Council? Or are these delays partly the response to a cash flow crisis?

PS: The tender for Victory Park closed on the 17th May 2013. That’s 5 months to add two change rooms and showers. Multi-storey buildings are completed in less time!

Applications have come thick and fast for 1 or 2 shops and 50 or so residential dwellings in so called Commercial Zones and what is euphemistically called ‘mixed used zones’. Council has 20+ of these MUZ zones throughout the municipality. The objective is not really to foster commercial growth, but to allow high density residential development. Please note the following:

  • Council could have mandated height limits in such zones – they did not!
  • Council relies on ResCode for the ‘standards’. ResCode of course only applies for buildings up to 4 storeys

In the end, Council has basically said that anything goes in MUZ (where they did have the option for greater controls). Instead it’s a gilt edged invitation to please come on in and build to your heart’s content.

The first real test is an 8 storey application for Gordon Street, Elsternwick. It reads: Demolition of existing building and construction of an eight (8) storey building containing  55 dwellings and food and drink premises; reduction in statutory car parking requirement and buildings and works in a Heritage Overlay

We predict the following since there are no limits in the new planning scheme. Councillors will give the okay for 6 storeys and possibly 43 units. Some part of the argument will relate to the proposed ABC studios high rise. The developer will go to VCAT and once again VCAT will okay the application since there is nothing in the planning scheme to prevent 8 storeys and of course no parking scheme, no development contributions levy and no open space levy worth talking about. As for ‘heritage’, well we already know what Lipshutz thinks of heritage!

To glean a full understanding of the implications of such zones we’ve included a map from the department’s website that should illustrate the potential impact of the mixed use zones on neighbourhoods. For this specific example, please note:

  • All dwellings along Lydson St back onto a GRZ2 zone – hence 3 storeys hovering over their back yards whilst the MUZ zones area could be anything – 8 storeys, 10 storeys, etc.
  • With no transition zone these poor residents will be swamped
  • This example is happening throughout Glen Eira

mixed use zones