April 12, 2013
Lest We Forget!
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance[9] Comments
For the first time ever we are repeating a post in its entirety. It’s the resolution on council’s ‘position’ on the racecourse centre. Given the sudden girding of the loins by the likes of Lipshutz and company, we thought it worthwhile to revisit the shambles that took place in April, 2011. There was no fire and brimstone then – only complicity, secrecy, and in our view, the utter sellout of residents. Now, when the deal is done and dusted, these very same councillors find their voice.
What was said 2 years ago should never be forgotten. What was NOT SAID last Tuesday night is just as important. No mention of what this council has done to ensure that the MRC abides by the various agreements – ie keeping gates open; pulling down fences; proper traffic management; ensuring the clean up of Queen’s Avenue, and so on. Utter, resounding silence on all these points. Instead the gallery witnessed nothing more than huge egos grandstanding. We have to also question whether the resolution to forward a ‘letter’ to MPs and others would have eventuated if the MRC had not embarrassed council even further with their Media Releases and interviews. If this council thought it was so important to ‘restate’ its position, then why did they not decide to write to all and sundry at the previous meeting? Was this even discussed in those secret assemblies? If so, how did the gang respond? Did they reject this idea a month ago? Our guess is that council were forced into the letter by the outcry against them! Again, everything is too late and useless!
Here’s our post from April 28th, 2011.
LIPSHUTZ: Claimed this was a ‘far reaching agreement’ which goes well beyond what was originally proposed by the MRC. Outlined and summarised the ‘agreement’. Critics will claim that council ‘ought to have been more robust’ . ‘both parties came to the negotiating table willingly’ and negotiations were robust, and ‘compromise for both sides’ resulted. Compared the previous position of the MRC and the current ‘improvements’ that the negotiating team now has, ‘last year $800,000 and now $1.8 million dollars’ for landscaping…..’As a councillor….I have to make decisions based on reality ….adopting an adversarial role’ gains nothing. ‘You can’t come to the MRC and simply make demands, they’re not going to be achieved….there has to be a compromise and this is a compromise…vote against….and you get nothing’ Some hope the government will step in and give us what we want – ‘that is not going to happen’. ‘What the government has sought from both parties is that we act reasonably…
PILLING: Agreement provides for ‘solid foundation’ for present and future improvements of ‘access, amenity and usage’ of the racecourse. Through this agreement the ‘MRC can no longer deny the community’ its share of the racecourse. Will ‘be viewed in future years as a productive beginning…our negotiating team have done a commendable job…there will need to be ongoing negotiation between both parties to ensure that all aspects of this agreement are fulfilled and delivered’ and this will mean ‘continued good will on both sides’ . Agreement is demonstration of good faith…’this approach should be encouraged’. Outlined ‘new amenities’, toilets, etc. and ‘these are all significant advances’ as are ‘fencing removal with a staggered time frame’; unrestricted access from 9.30 and ‘MRC will pay for all improvements….except for those on council land and we will share costs with them where there are boundaries’. Time line is also an ‘important aspect’ – all have been given a ‘reasonable definitive timeline’ ‘so it will happen, it’s not just open ended’. ‘To reject this agreement as some colleagues are urging would place’ at risk the good will that has been generated and the future. ‘This would be a retrograde step and a risk I’m not prepared to take’. ‘This item is not about past history, personal crusades, personalities or individual grievances’. It’s about ‘delivering tangible real benefits now’
PENHALLURIACK: Read the intended recommendation about the agreement and asked Esakoff to rule on ‘whether or not this would be in conflict with the terms of reference of the Caulfield racecourse Special Committee’ since the terms of reference for that the committee state that it is to deal with issues concerning the racecourse. ‘That would seem to fly in the face of the motion which we have now’ which is usurping its powers. Penhalluriack asked Esakoff to make a ruling.
ESAKOFF: ‘What’s your question Cr. Penhalluriack?’
PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask you to rule’ whether this should be council decision or special committee decision.
ESAKOFF: ‘It’s on the ordinary council meeting agenda so my reading would be that it qualifies council to’ consider. Penhalluriack then questioned whether because something is on the agenda does it mean that it’s’legal’? Esakoff’s answer was ‘It’s on the agenda. We’re dealing with it tonight’. Again Penhalluriack questioned Esakoff stating that since it’s on the agenda’ that makes it legal?”. She responded ‘Yes’.
LOBO: ‘this is one of the biggest issues to come before the council …what I feel is that we are racing, we are going too fast. Perhaps we should slow down and postpone…..
FORGE: ‘it disturbs me’ that some are saying ‘we must rush into this in case we lose it’. ‘We’re just beginning….I was under the understanding that the community expected further consultation…what further input do you expect to get from the public in this regard?’ Esakoff asked to whom Forge is addressing her question. Forge responded ’to the special committee’. Esakoff then claimed that she didn’t understand the question enough to be able to answer it. Forge then quoted Lipshutz as saying that the special committee would be going back to the public. Esakoff interrupted and asked whether the question was concerning the centre of the racecourse. Forge replied that the issues were ‘intermarried’. Esakoff then stated ‘No, tonight we’re dealing with the Caufield reserve only’.
PENHALLURIACK: ‘Cr. Lipshutz would make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, Cr Pilling, the only Green on council….
Pilling then interrupted claiming ‘personal attacks’ and told Penhalluriack to ‘speak to the issue’ and not indulge in personal attacks. Esakoff agreed with Pilling. Penhalluriack then dissented from her ruling claiming that ‘all I said was that Cr. Pilling is a member of the Green’s Party. If he finds that offensive he should resign from the party!. Esakoff then said ‘Cr Penhalluriack, we’re speaking to a motion here. We’re not having personal attacks on each other’.
PENHALLURIACK: Began by reiterating the history of the racecourse and stating that the public has been ‘excluded’ from the grant by Queen Victoria. ‘Tonight I stand ashamed to be a councillor of Glen Eira because the negotiators’…..’did a terrible job’. ‘almost everything they achieved was achieved by a letter from the MRC to Council in september last year….that was held secretive from council, all councillors I presume until it was published in the agenda for the Special Council Meeting on the 13th December last year’....’What has been achieved in my opinion is pathetic.‘ ‘Nobody will go into a public park with a big fence around it’ Most people are at work at 9.30 and instead of allowing people to enjoy a barbecue in summer they have to be out by sunset…’what’s wrong with having lighting in this particular park?’….’It will not work as a park’…’and the access is shared with horses. Sure the horses go, but they leave their shit behind and when you go into the park you can smell it’. Outlined his solutions for walking horses across the area…’It’s a deliberate move by the MRC to exclude the public because for the last 8 or ten years the public is suddenly gleaning an understanding that it’s their park’. It is not ‘the exclusive domain of the Melbourne Racing Club as they would like you to believe it is’….The MRC is a non profit organisation but ‘I’ve never known a more avaricious organisation in my life’. Spoke about the profits from pokies and compared Zagame’s payment of 8.3% in tax because it owns the land, compared to the MRC which can spend this ‘tax’ on watering the lawns in the racecourse and paying the labour. ‘We should have that money in council’. ‘You heard cr Tang earlier talking about this massive increase in rates that you’re going to be facing,…it should not be happening. That $3 million dollars…should be coming back to council’. ‘What we’ve got with this dreadful negotiation is a piece of nonsense….I can tell you that….in 24 months time the MRC will go to the government and say ‘Look we’ve wasted a million dollars on this park and nobody uses it’…..Cr. Lipshutz….has ‘caved in’ …or whoever was dealing with the MRC and it may well have been our CEO because the CEO and the planning department had a number of meetings with the MRC ….which we’re not informed about as councillors and we should be informed about it’. Reiterated that this deal came from the MRC last September and ‘we didn’t know about it….we are heading for a disaster, we have missed a golden opportunity….If the motion is lost I’m going to move that there be further’ negotiations with the MRC’. Doesn’t believe that it should be ‘discussed here’. ‘The deal we’ve got is a waste of the paper it’s written on’. ‘Five years to pull down the fence on Queen’s Avenue. I can do it in 5 minutes’!
FORGE: attempted to raise a point about ‘Winky Pop’ and the legal advice she had received that morning.
ESAKOFF questioned relevance. Forge responded with importance of the issue and it shouldn’t be decided tonight. Esakoff responded ‘this item is going to be decided tonight’.
HYAMS: ‘this is the best we’re going to get’. Stated that if council wants more ‘negotiation’ then ‘we’ll get what the MRC originally asked for which is less than what they’ve agreed to now – if we’re lucky!’….’we can’t get more….the MRC is not prepared to give us more unless a higher power is prepared to make them give us more and the advice that we had is that that’s not going to happen....so either we want a park in the middle of the racecourse or we don’t want a park…..My understanding is that the government thinks that the negotiations have been reasonable but if we keep on procrastinating, they might change their mind’. ‘There is an element here of taking a crusade against the MRC ….so personally….PENHALLURIACK OBJECTED AT THIS POINT saying that the allusion was to himself. ESAKOFF stated – “I don’t believe your name was mentioned Cr. Penhalluriack’. Penhalluriack then asked Hyams to whom he was referring. Hyams answered ‘Not just you Cr. Penhalluriack’. Esakoff then asked Hyams to withdraw the statement. Hyams then said there is an element of ‘concern with the MRC’s past behaviour’!!!! that ‘they would rather get nothing than perceive to lose to the MRC….I think if we say no to this it is actually a loss to the community….we can look at this in a year’s time and either we’ll have a park….or we won’t and it will be our fault for saying ‘no’. It’s that simple’…..negotiators did the best job they could have done…..compromise……MRC has moved a long way…..certainly we have not got all the 7 points – that was our ambit claim….we set out our position, we didn’t get our position and now….this is what we either accept or not….that’s not to say as time goes on…..there won’t be further improvements’. The ‘MRC can’t do that on their own’ (get rid of training)….’they need somewhere to put it, and those facilities need to be found’. In regard to sport, Hyams said you can’t have sport without facilities such as change rooms, ‘and the MRC doesn’t want to put facilities in the middle of the racecourse’. …..The question is do we want a park there or not? If we want a park vote for the motion….or keep butting our heads against the MRC for no other purpose than to make us feel good about ourselves….
ESAKOFF: negotiations when two parties get together and walk away both happy ‘a win win situation’ or a compromise on both sides.’ Negotiations are not held with one of those parties saying ‘this is what we want and unless we get it, forget it.’ The agreement will be ‘valuable’ and ‘meaningful’ to the community in terms of open space’….compared the decision making involved in this to the decision making that contestants make in game shows. ‘some take huge gambles and say ‘I came with nothing and I’m prepared to go home with nothing…in this case though it’s the community we’re playing for….we need to ask ourselves, what would the community do, what would they want. I believe they would want this win’….I don’t believe our residents would thank us if we were to say this is not enough….the risk is too great….to come home with nothing is irresponsible….I believe that this is a good outcome’.
LIPSHUTZ: ‘One thing you don’t do when you’ve been arguing for many years’ and then you talk only to say ‘hold on another three months….we were charged with negotiating…(and) each person represented the council’s position…each party has said it’s position is final and there is no more, that is the time to bring it back to the council’. Stated that Penhalluriack’s claims of avaricious MRC and their failure to pay council has ‘nothing to do with tonight’. ‘What we have tonight is an issue involving the park….all the issues that Penhalluriack has raised have been raised with the MRC….that’s what it is a compromise. Restated that there has been a major change from the past in that previously it was an ‘adversarial position’, now it’s a ‘conciliatory position’ ‘we’re working together and that is something that I think is very important’. Referred to Penhalluriack’s claims that the CEO had not informed council. ‘The CEO meets with many people during the course of the day….some have nothing to do with councillors…..to the best of my knowledge every meeting that the CEO has had with the MRC …has been brought back…I reject any issue of secrecy’. ‘….If we accept the community wins’.
MOTION PUT TO VOTE: Penhalluriack called for a division
REQUEST FOR REPORT
PENHALLURIACK: I’d like a detailed report on the meetings Andrew Newton has had with the MRC or representatives of the Trustees over the past two years. Seconded by Forge. ‘we’ve just heard’ that the CEO has reported on all meetings, ‘I don’t believe he has’, so I’d like detailed reports on what has been discussed and which hasn’t been reported back. Wanted to know what occured ‘behind our backs’.
HYAMS interjected and said that Penhalluriack should withdraw ‘that imputation’ about ‘behind our backs’. Penhalluriack said that if he’s wrong he would apologise. Esakoff asked Penhalluriack to withdraw the ‘assumption’. Penhalluriack then asked Esakoff what the assumption was that she was referring to. She repeated about meetings ‘behind our backs’ only to have Hyams interrupt again and state ‘negotiations behind our backs’. Penhalluriack insisted on the word ‘meetings’ – he withdrew negotiations and substituted ‘meetings’. Repeated again ‘behind our backs and without our knowledge’.
FORGE: ‘I can bear witness to that fact told to me by the CEO of the MRC that he had several meetings with Jeff Akehurst and the CEO’ and that councillors were not aware of that.
HYAMS claimed he had no objections to the report because if they voted against it, it would make it seem that they were trying to keep something secret.
TANG asked Penhalluriack to detail the previous report by CEO which had been approved by council
PENHALLURIACK: about 12 months ago; included some dates and some gaps
LIPSHUTZ: what were the gaps?
PENHALLURIACK: it was incomplete
MOTION CARRIED. PENHALLURIACK ASKED FOR A DIVISION
Newton later on spoke to the ‘request for a report’. We’ll comment on this in the next day or so.
April 11, 2013
Council’s ‘Position’
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance[12] Comments
CAULFIELD RACECOURSE RESERVE
MAGEE moved a long motion which basically reiterated what had previously been stated – ie not enough sporting grounds and that it should be for racing, recreation and sport. Also mentioned recent history such as the Select Committee Report and their recommendations. Last part of motion was to write to all MPs, Ministers, Auditor General, etc.
MAGEE: spoke about population and lack of sporting grounds so that clubs have to play outside of Glen Eira. Claimed that 35 to 40 teams ‘would love to play in Glen Eira’ but presently can’t because lack of grounds. Said the plan could be ‘reconfigured’ to suit everyone and it’s really about the trustees and MRC who regard the land as theirs and that racing is more important than anything else. Said the MRC owns land all around the racecourse for their stables that they rent out so that gives trainers the right to train horses on the reserve. Then read out a long list about ‘prescribed uses’ such as weddings, exhibitions, exams etc. and noted that training is not listed once in this long list ‘according to the DSE’. Many things such as access, lighting ‘needs to be better’ and that the land should be given back to the community ‘who actually own it’. Saw this as ‘an opportunity to almost solve’ all the problems they’re having with sport. This isn’t happening and even though a barbecue area and running track will soon be opened it’s one that ‘just happens to run past the car park’ so that racegoers ‘don’t get dirty walking to the pavilion’. The toilet also suits the boot area. Therefore instead of this being a ‘great community park’ it’s ‘actually going to be used for racing’ ….’it will be used by you and me’ but you have to go through the tunnel ‘without suffocatig and getting mud’ and horse poo all over you. We’ve got a 2 billion dollar asset ‘sitting on’ the doorstep and yet Glen Eira can’t provide for its kids on sport.
OKOTEL: supported motion and ‘unfortunate’ that some people ‘misunderstood’ the position paper from the last council meeting. Said that this motion ‘seeks to clarify council’s position’ and to make this known to ‘all of the relevant stakeholders’. Went on to say that council ‘will honour’ its existing agreements and the intentions of council in ‘how to deal with this land in the future’. Hoped that this would prevent any ‘further misunderstanding’.
PILLING: endorsed the motion and said that it’s good that this would be sent to politicians because that’s really where the issue lies ie ‘with successive state governments’. ‘Training in the long term does have to go’ if council is to get what it wants. Said that this ‘position’ isn’t really that much different from its ‘previous positions’ just ‘articulates it better’. Said that the plan basically showed the ‘potential’ of the site and how it could be utilised for both active and passive recreation.
DELAHUNTY: also endorsed the motion. The report helped people understand just how much land is available and it’s just a concept and ‘may not be how it ends up’. Reiterated that ‘passive recreation’ is important. Spoke about jogging around the area and walking the dog years ago and would would ‘like to see some of that balance restored’. Saw that sport is about 2 issues – allocation and ‘supply’. Asked the community to support council’s position, ‘to get behind’ this move. Thanked officers for the report.
HYAMS: said that the focus of racing is a result of the ‘failings of previous trustees and government’. Criticism of the previous ‘issues paper’ was ‘unwarranted’ and the MRC’s media responses as well as Pakula’s ‘unfortunate speech’ in Parliament was ‘misleading’ so this ‘sets out the full context’. Mentioned the MRC spending $3 m on the synthetic track. Acknowledged that they’ve carved off Glen Huntly park but that there would now also be ‘1500 dwellings’ as part of the C60. Hoped that this was the ‘start for far more progress’ being achieved for the park.
MAGEE: 2 years ago Forge and he met Southwick who said this was ‘important’ but that in this time all he’s done in 2 years is ‘organise a fun run’ and that’s ‘insulting to everyone who actually voted for David Southwick’. He should apologise. Continued that ‘this is far too important’ to be ‘political’. ‘This is not going away’ and the MRC and Trustees should know that ‘council is just starting’ and will go on right to the 2014 election. If Southwick want relection then he ‘needs the people of Caulfield right behind him’. The whole issue is ‘about greed. Nothing more’.
MOTION PUT: carried unanimously
PS: THE FULL MAGEE MOTION AS PER THE MINUTES –
Crs Magee/Okotel
1. That Council note:
(a) That there are more people wanting to play community sport in Glen Eira than there are grounds for;
(b) That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown land is reserved for “A racecourse public recreation ground and public park”;
(c) That, as shown by the report provided by independent consultant Simon Leisure, in addition to horse racing, the Crown land could potentially accommodate additional grounds for soccer, AFL, netball, baseball, rugby and cycling, as well as a range of passive recreation opportunities;
(d) That the Glen Huntly Reserve was originally part of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve;
(e) That the Victorian Parliamentary Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Public Land Development in its final report in September 2008 found that, “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,” and recommended, “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.”;
(f) That, pursuant to an agreement with Council of April 2011, the Melbourne Racing Club has spent approximately $2 million on
providing public park and recreation facilities in the interior of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve;
(g) That, in relation to training, that agreement provided, “One of the current uses of the Racecourse Reserve is for the training of more than 500 horses.
For training to be relocated from Caulfield, there needs to be
· an alternative site
· construction of new facilities
· and transfer of the training activities.
This will not be achieved in the short term.
It is not within the sole control of the MRC.
Agreed Priority in this transition would be
1. removal of training from Crown Land before freehold land
2. top priority is the south-east corner of the Reserve which would become available for use as public open space consistent with the already established joint communique in conjunction with Glen Huntly Park, at the expense of the body controlling the land.
3. within the Racecourse Reserve, the only tracks required would be for the conduct of races and all other tracks would be re-incorporated into enlarged precincts mentioned above.
4. Council and the MRC would enter into further discussions about further improved facilities and uses of the Centre for the benefit of racegoers and the community.”
(h) That training infrastructure constructed in the interior of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve since this agreement includes a
synthetic training track worth approximately $3 million;
(i) That the MRC’s C60 Development, on its freehold land across Station Street from the Racecourse Reserve, is projected to
include 1500 dwellings; and
(j) That, in accordance with the April 2011 agreement, Council’s position paper on the Crown Land at the Caulfield Racecourse
Reserve, adopted at its March 19 meeting, stated “Training of horses on a commercial basis is not one of the purposes for which the Crown Land is reserved. Providing a “public recreation ground and public park” takes precedence over the training of horses. To the extent that training prejudices the provision of public ground and public park, training should be phased out.”
2. That this report and motion be sent to:
the Minister responsible for Crown Lands
the Auditor General for Victoria
the Victorian Government Solicitor
the Department of Sustainability and Environment
each member of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust
the Secretary of the Trust
the Minister for Sport and Recreation
the Minister for Racing and
all State and Federal Members of Parliament representing Glen Eira.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
April 10, 2013
CLICK TO ENLARGE!
April 10, 2013
The Show Goes On!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Service Performance[7] Comments
Local Laws Committee
LIPSHUTZ: said that of the ‘major issues’ discussed one was the ‘tree policy’. Reports should come back ‘sometime in May’ from corporate counsel. On ‘organised sport’ rather than ‘amend’ this in the Local Law the committee decided that ‘explanatory notes’ would be incorporated and that these would set ‘out what we see as organised sport’. Also stated that the tree register issue was ‘complex’. At first they were thinking about a ‘point system’ and then rejected it so other alternatives had to now be investigated. So ‘rather than rushing it’ and ‘getting it wrong’ it is wise to do it properly.
COMMENT : Requests for a Tree Register are now a decade old. This is certainly not ‘rushing it’! Also a decade old is the continuing farce over ‘organised sport’ and the laughing stock that this council has become statewide. Remember the ongoing Frisbee affair, the schleppers, the kids in the park, and last but not least, the zombies! And the $64 question – does Lipshutz son’s Frisbee group now have a permit? And why oh why can’t the community be privy to the rationale behind jettisoning the points system that countless other councils employ? Do other councillors even know the logic behind this decision?
Sport and Rec Committee
LIPSHUTZ: moved an amendment about ‘last paragraph of second page’ (WRONG he is referring to the sentence about BURKE) but wanted added that there would be an ‘update about policy’ at the next meeting. Magee seconded this amendment. Lipshutz continued saying that one of the main issues was sporting ground allocations. Said that ‘officers deal with that on the basis of policy’ . Said that Burke ‘went through that with us’ and that at the next meeting there would be an ‘update’ on policy. Stated that ground allocation is the domain of officers on ‘policy’ that council has approved. Burke at the next committee meeting will report back.
MAGEE: for a city with so little open space, sport ground allocation can ‘be divisive’ and ‘very disappointing for clubs’. A “clear policy can be put in place’ for allocations. This has ‘been done successfully’ for years and he ‘welcomes’ officers’ input into ‘putting the policy together’ and is ‘looking forward’ to seeing that policy.
COMMENT: Here we have it – despite Lipshutz’s attempts at obfuscation! There IS NO SPORTING GROUND ALLOCATIONS POLICY. There never has been! All has been left in the hands of Burke. From these comments councillors would appear to again be shying away from any attempt to pass a resolution on the authority to decide who gets what!
VCAT WATCH
Lipshutz provided the ‘commentary’ on the cited decision and claimed it again ‘comes down to what residents want’ as opposed to what the VCAT member wants. Said that the government wants more ‘denSity housing’ etc and that ‘we can’t do anything about that’. Also that ‘one member’ is pro-development’ and another member is opposed to development.
DELAHUNTY – when reading the article she noted that councillors argued ‘against setbacks’ on Hawthorn Rd (Emmy Monash decision and developer handing out How-to-vote cards) and that she argued for setbacks and now ‘another time those same councillors didn’t argue’ for setbacks. So it’s ‘no wonder’ that anyone, including VCAT is ‘confused….I’m confused’.
COMMENT: We’ve commented ad nauseum on the continual scapegoating of VCAT as the villain. Yes, they only need to ‘consider’ policy, but when a council such as Glen Eira has no structure plans, no height limits, no public realm policy, no parking precinct plans and after three years of the Planning Scheme Review has done practically nothing on what it stated it would do (ie Heritage reviews, open space levies etc.) then one must question how much ‘certainty’ this council gives to developers as opposed to residents and the protection of amenity.
CENTENARY PARK PAVILION
MAGEE moved the motion to accept the motion. It’s been needed for over ten years. His boys played for the teams and they ‘had to change’ under the trees because no changing rooms. Now it will be a change from the ‘dilapidated’ old building to the impressive ‘state of the art’ new pavilion. Said the report was ‘very in depth’ and the only ‘down side’ was that it was forecast to take 20 months to complete but the recommendation will let council ‘move onto detailed design phase’.
LIPSHUTZ: agreed that this has been ‘a long time coming’. Now they can with the $500,000 dollar grant from the government.
SOUNNESS moved the amendment that a landscaping plan be added to the recommendation and that the car parking plan be deferred until a ‘detailed landscape design assessment’ was done. Magee refused to accept the amendment. The amendment was then seconded by Pilling. Sounness went on to say that he felt there had to be discussion about ‘cost’ of car parks and he’s got questions about the use of the current land. Said that ‘more discussion’ is needed and that the information provided is ‘insufficient’ – that he wants ‘more information’.
PILLING: wasn’t opposed to the motion and the pavilion was a good idea and needed. But was concerned ‘about the process here’ in the car park design. Compared this to GESAC when ‘at the last moment’ there were 2 instances of extending the car parks and that ‘there seems to be a bit of a similar trend happening here’ . Said that he had asked if there was any loss of open space and that ‘I would like to see that information’ so that they could then ‘really discuss the merit’ . He was urging for a ‘cautionary approach’ and not to ‘just rush in’ and that council needs to ‘investigate all opportunities’.
DELAHUNTY: said that she’d asked a lot of questions and that as councillors they ‘do have an option to go back’ when the design is completed and look at the issue of car parking again and ‘whether or not’ this part ‘goes ahead’. Said that she’d like to see consultation with community and stakeholders about the design. Said she wasn’t so worried about loss of open space because council ‘gains’ in terms of safety and that the ‘new open space’ could be made into something ‘beautiful’.
LIPSHUTZ: said this was only about design and the building of the car park is ‘not what’s going to happen’. Yes, ‘we want it done properly’ and quickly. Once the design is done and ‘information that is brought to us by officers’ they can ‘have another look at it’. They can always say ‘no we’re not happy with that’ and order that the car park be redesigned. Said that the ‘analogy with GESAC is not valid’. GESAC did have a ‘car park planned’ but they were so ‘successful beyond our wildest dreams’.
HYAMS: ‘sympathised’ with Sounness and thought that they would be ‘better placed’ to look at issues of the car park and open space once the design was done because ‘then we’ll have a better idea’.
MAGEE: also ‘admired’ Sounness’ desire to protect the environment, but sometimes you have to be ‘selfish’ and say that he knows the area and the land and that no-one ever uses it. The two car parks date back to 1989 and the land was supposed to be for a kindergarten but with the amalgamation of councils nothing has been done with this. Didn’t think that there was anything on the land ‘worth protecting’ and that ‘the community does not venture into’ that space. Said that adding car park at building stage ‘makes good sense’ and brings ‘both car parks into one site’ and gives ‘extra car parking at no loss of open space’…’no net loss of open space’. Also removes a car park from the playground. It’s a ‘win-win’ and repeated that ‘there is no net loss of open space’.
AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND LOST. VOTING FOR – SOUNNES & PILLING. VOTING AGAINST: MAGEE, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL, LIPSHUTZ, HYAMS, DELAHUNTY.
COMMENT: We draw readers’ attention to several crucial points in the above:
1. the claim AGAIN, that officers’ reports are deficient in information
2. Whom to believe – Magee or Pilling. Pilling claims that he asked for information on loss of open space. Clearly that has not come back. Yet Magee is so adamant that there is no loss of current open space. What does he know that Pilling doesn’t know, or is this just another porkey that sounds good?
3. Given the history of this council, there has rarely if ever, been a change of mind, or even a review, of the original proposals once passed by council. There is, in our view, as much hope of saving this area of vegetation as there is of Melbourne winning the AFL premiership this year!
Return to original motion. DELAHUNTY said good to see funding from government even though this comes from slashing TAFE funding, and that the project itself ‘has merit’. Said that ‘we will consider the open space’ and what the ‘community feels’.
MAGEE: ‘long awaited’ ‘valuable addition’ and ‘welcomed the money from the state government’.
MOTION PUT – CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
April 9, 2013
Academy Award Night
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance[6] Comments
Several events were unique at tonight’s council meeting.
- Esakoff did not utter a word
- Lobo was absent with no mention by Burke of an apology or failure to give an apology as required
- The minutes of the CEO Contractual committee meeting minutes VOTED UPON we presume, were not included in the agenda items even as a ‘late addition’.
- The sale of McKittrick St went through without a single reference by anyone that a potential developer was acquiring public land for a piddling $20,000 on land valued at $66,700
- Souness and Pilling moved an amendment requesting more information on the Centenary Rd car park and loss of open space. This was defeated by all other councillors and the original recommendation accepted unanimously.
- Racecourse item involved much chest beating. No councillor trustee declared a conflict of interest.
- Public questions were abysmally answered as per usual.
- Lipshutz’s inconsistency in argument is definitely worthy of a place in the Guinness Book of World Records
We will provide full commentary on the above in the days ahead.
April 8, 2013
Recent posts have highlighted the failure of the planning department to meet its legal obligations in notifying resident objectors of amended application plans within the required time limit, or perhaps at all. Over a year ago a ‘red dot’ VCAT decision lambasted Glen Eira Council for its poor record keeping, and its failure to adhere to Practice Notes. Judging by recent events, nothing much appears to have changed! Here’s the decision and some extracts. See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/2065.html
Lorne Crest Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC & Ors (includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2011] VCAT 1422 (2 August 2011)
RED DOT DECISION SUMMARY
The practice of VCAT is to designate cases of interest as ‘Red Dot Decisions’. A summary is published and the reasons why the decision is of interest or significance are identified. The full text of the decision follows. This Red Dot Summary does not form part of the decision or reasons for decision.
| NATURE OF CASE | The role of Responsible Authorities and Applicants in applications under s.87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. |
| REASONS WHY DECISION IS OF INTEREST OR SIGNIFICANCE | |
| PRACTICE OR PROCEDURE – consideration of individual instance or systemic issues | Practice Note PNPE2 – clarification of requirements under clauses 2.8 to 2.10.
Information required to assist the Tribunal in identifying other persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of requests under s.87A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. |
SUMMARY
This case involves a request to amend a permit issued at the direction of the Tribunal for 34 dwellings in a 3 storey apartment building with a basement carpark.
The substantive amendments involve increasing the number of dwellings by 11 to 45 dwellings through the addition of two further levels to the building, and the introduction of a graffiti mural art installation to external walls.
At the start of the hearing, it emerged that persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of the amendment request had not been notified of the application, namely two persons who objected to the permit application.
This case highlights the important role of Responsible Authorities in providing the correct information to the Tribunal under Practice Note PNPE2 (Information from decision makers) and the role of Applicants in assisting the Tribunal to determine persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of requests under s.87A of the Act.
While this particular case is based on an application under s.87A of the Act, the principles discussed equally apply to applications under s.87 and 89 of the Act.
To assist in this process, the Responsible Authority has an important role to play. Practice Note PNPE2/11 sets out information required to be provided by Responsible Authorities to the Tribunal.
- The information requested under clauses 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11 of Practice Note PNPE2/11 is of particular importance. It requires the following:
2.8 Whether notice of the permit application was given under section 52 of the Act; the date and manner of giving any notice, and a list of the properties or persons to whom notice was required to be given.
2.9 The number of objections received and the names and addresses of persons who objected.
2.10 The current names and addresses as shown in the responsible authority’s records of the owners and occupiers of the properties whose owners or occupiers objected to the application for permit.
2.11 Whether any person other than persons named as parties to the application may have a material interest in the outcome of the application, and an indication of the nature of the interest.
- The reference to “notice of the permit application” in clause 2.8 is often misunderstood. This misunderstanding seems to have occurred in the present proceeding where the Responsible Authority’s response was:
Notice of the application to amend the Planning Permit has not been given by the Council.
- The Responsible Authority’s response “N/A” was given in relation to clauses 2.8 and 2.9 and the comment “Nil at this stage” appears beside the information requested in clause 2.11.
- Extensive notice was in fact required in respect of the original permit application and as I have mentioned, three objections were received after that notice was given.
- The term “notice of the permit application” is a reference to the notice that occurs during the permit application process before a decision on an application is made and before any permit is granted.
- This should not be confused with the notice to persons who may have a material interest in the outcome of the request now required to be determined by the Tribunal under the current permit amendment request.
- 22. Given that a considerable amount of time may have elapsed since the grant of the permit and a request to amend it, sometimes several years, it is also important that information provided by Responsible Authorities is up to date – that is based on current rate records.
- 23. It is not sufficient, for example, to provide the Tribunal or Applicant with a photocopy of the original list of persons notified without it first being checked for currency against up-to-date rate records held by the Council.
- 24. To illustrate, land may be have been subdivided and redeveloped since the grant of the permit, in a way that its owners/occupiers may now have a material interest in the outcome of a decision to amend it.
April 5, 2013
Done Deals?
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance[14] Comments
The items set down for Tuesday night’s council meeting are truly staggering, leaving us to ponder the very serious question of : how many done deals are we looking at? How much more spin will this community tolerate? Here are the lowlights:
CENTENARY PARK PAVILION DEVELOPMENT
- More loss of public open space
- More loss of mature trees
- Another $600,000 for extended car parking
- No traffic report or any statistics to justify these actions
- No consultation with residents – just so called ‘stakeholders’ – ie ONLY SPORTSCLUBS
- A ball park figure of $2.68 million
CENTRE OF RACECOURSE SPORTING FACILITIES
- No mention of the independent consultant who was supposed to draft the report? Where is it?
- From ‘no ball games’ the plan is now to have: 2 baseball diamonds, 5 soccer pitches, 1 footy oval, etc.
- What secret discussions have been going on with the MRC, and Maccabi? Would council really propose something like this unless such discussions had already taken place?
LOCAL LAW & SPORT & RECREATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
- Secret, closed meetings that continue with the useless navel gazing! Lipshutz promised the local law would be ready in February. There still is no Tree Register, nothing on Organised Sport, and a brief one sentence about ‘meeting procedures’. We are not privy to any of the ‘reports’.
- Does the right hand really know what the left hand is doing? Why is the Sport & Rec committee suddenly discussing local laws? Why isn’t this done via full council meetings so that transparency is assured? When will the draft Local Law finally be ready or will it all be crammed into one meeting and thus hopefully rammed through like everything else this council does?
SELL OFF OF RESERVE
- Is council really prepared to forego $40,000 because it might cost them $5000? Land has been valued at over $60,000 but council is willing to sell it for $20,000.
- Is it mere coincidence that an adjacent property was sold last year and that the other neighbour is now about to acquire 130 sq metres for a song. Does he/she perhaps own the adjoining property and that we can expect an application to come in very soon for a huge development? Or are we merely being too cynical?
GESAC
More brilliant planning that has led to:
- Another $120,000 to be spent on outfitting another ‘studio’
- Another $125,000 spent on “better entrance and exit between the foyer and pool hall’
- Still no word on costs for ‘liquidated damages’ and the Hansen & Yuncken legal battle
April 5, 2013
Guy races ahead, but where’s he going?
- DateApril 5, 2013
The Planning Minister ticks off huge developments without sharing his vision for the city.
Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy. Photo: Luis Enrique Ascui
Melbourne’s future is speeding down a freeway hitched to the ideological racing car of Planning Minister Matthew Guy – where it is going is anyone’s guess. Guy (pictured) is in overdrive: 70,000 new housing lots to be released on Melbourne’s fringe this year; dozens of skyscrapers approved; the CBD expanded massively; and big changes to Victoria’s planning zones.
Guy once said a single day in government was better than every day in opposition – he enjoys power. But what will his legacy be? What kind of Melbourne is he creating?
Melbourne is living with the mistakes of the past. Docklands was hatched in a time of developer-driven policy and now planners are cleaning up the mess. Guy’s approach so far has been to treat Melbourne like one big Docklands – developer-led planning.
What has many planners scratching their heads is the speed of action by Guy in approving development and the inertia in releasing a strategic plan for the city – how it will all knit together, what sort of city we are creating and why. Despite a decade in opposition and more than two years in office, the Coalition is yet to deliver a road map on how Melbourne should develop.
Submissions on a new metropolitan planning strategy closed last month and a draft strategy will be released in the middle of the year. By that time Guy will have approved more than 40 new towers, expanded the CBD into Fishermans Bend and Carlton and moved Melbourne’s boundary outwards by 5000 hectares. Guy has been all cart, no horse.
The delay in producing a development blueprint while rapidly ticking off developments raises questions on how seriously the government is taking the strategy, and risks the final product being seen as little more than tokenism. As Melbourne University planning expert Alan March noted recently, there should be more forward planning on how the plethora of new skyscrapers will affect each other and what new services are needed.
It is difficult to find any skyscraper application Guy has turned down. Some are not even being built – lucky developers selling dirt that has gone up in value because they have been given a high-rise planning permit.
And what impact will changes to Victoria’s planning zones have?
There will be more commercial tourism development in some of Victoria’s most-loved destinations, such as the Great Ocean Road, and more development in Melbourne’s green wedge areas.
What changed residential zones will mean for the value of people’s homes remains a big unknown. The neighbourhood residential zone will have strict development controls and it is unclear if this will add or detract from the value of houses. And what impact will these no-go zones – no doubt aimed at voters in the leafy eastern suburbs – have on residents in other areas of Melbourne? Will it mean high-rise developments in their streets because some suburbs have been locked up?
Guy says he is turning planning into an economic portfolio – but Melbourne needs a planning minister, not another treasurer.
Decisions should be based on what is best for the whole of Melbourne in the long term.
Guy is moving with such haste that decisions are being made with little detail.
A new metropolitan planning authority has been announced but no one has any idea what it will do.
One thing is clear – Guy believes in the government transferring much of the responsibility for planning the future of the city to private developers. State government developer Places Victoria has been slashed to the point of extinction.
Grand plans for world-best practice developments on Melbourne’s urban fringe are being axed and land sold off to private developers. Key urban renewal sites in Footscray that Places Victoria paid top dollar for are being sold at a loss.
Why? Why not retain the sites and sell them at a profit? Why should taxpayers sell cheap land to developers?
A Places Victoria insider said it was ”a terrible time to sell – we bought at the height of the market and now we are selling at the bottom of it”.
The government is about to complete an audit of all government-owned land, driven by Treasury, to determine what can be sold.
Unlike the Kennett government, which had major assets to privatise and collect big windfalls from, there is little left to sell except government land.
The government will be careful not to spook the horses with public land sales, and it will be spread out across agencies and departments, but it will happen and the public should be concerned.
While it says there will be no fire sale, the private sector is licking its lips. But what will be the legacy of this sale? Less land for new parks, schools and childcare centres. Future generations forced to buy land at higher prices because a previous government had a cash flow problem. Guy needs to slow down a little bit – planning a great city is not a race or a sale.
Jason Dowling is The Age‘s city editor.
April 3, 2013
Tomorrow features the postponed Caulfield Racecourse Trustees’ meeting with our three new councillor representatives. (See: https://www.melbourneracingclub.net.au/mrc/governance/caulfield-racecourse-reserve-trustees). For a committee that does not publish minutes, that does not have open meetings and does not perceive that there are serious questions regarding potential conflicts of interests, we find the accompanying blurb quite remarkable.
Over the past 5 years we know of at least 4 individuals who have attempted to present their point of view at such meetings – as per the invitation. They have been barred from admittance and if their correspondence has ever been tabled, then they certainly were not provided with any feedback as to the outcomes. Words and actions are miles apart. All that remains are the ironies of the actual agenda items and the notion that there is, or could be, an actual ‘governance policy’ that comes close to enacting what most people would regard as open, transparent and accountable process. We also have to wonder whether Lipshutz will do a Tang and actually show up for these meetings or miss more than half! But since the minutes are secret, and our representatives perceived first duty is to the Trustees rather than their electorate, we will probably never know!
Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees
The next meeting of Trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve [CRR] will be held on Wednesday, 27th March 2013.
Trustee meetings are not open to the General Public; however Trustees have resolved that any Glen Eira resident wishing to address a specific Agenda Item as listed by the Trustees, must first submit their request in writing to the Chairman in advance of the CRR Trustees meeting. The Trustees will then consider the request and, if appropriate, invite the resident to attend for that specific agenda item only.
Correspondence should be addressed to:
The Chairman
Caulfield Racecourse Reserve
Level 1, 25 Flinders Lane
Melbourne VIC 3000
Or emailed to: CRRTrustees@bigpond.com
Glen Eira Debates 