April 3, 2013
PS: We think readers will find the following Kingston Council Notice of Motion of great interest given what happens far too often in Glen Eira. The following is from the minutes of 25th March, 2013.
Notices of Motion
Notice of Motion – Cr West
Moved: Cr West Seconded: Cr Ronke
That Council adopt a position for mediation of a development
application only with the support of either:
1. all three ward Councillors, or
2. a majority of all Councillors.
CARRIED
April 2, 2013
March 29, 2013
There have been 2 recent VCAT decisions that we wish to highlight. In BOTH cases council’s planning department failed in its legal obligations – namely to alert resident objectors as to the council’s position on amended plans within the required 7 day period of notice. What this means is that objectors show up to the hearing with practically no time to adjust their claims or to prepare sufficiently for what could be a completely different set of circumstances. They are left out in the cold and perhaps totally unaware of the secret deals that have been made between council and developer. Certainly without sufficient time to prepare an adequate defence or to even contact council planners.
We’ve previously featured Hyams’ pathetic response to one such objector – the officer was on holidays. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/does-council-support-residents-or-developers/) Not good enough! How many such ‘rare lapses’ have taken place and what steps have been implemented to ensure they don’t happen again? How often will the same pathetic excuse be used to explain sheer incompetence or indifference to residents? How much longer will councillors allow the inefficiencies and lack of accountability to continue?
What is even worse is that the VCAT Watch reports reveal nothing of these incidents. It is spin all the way. Except, that if one bothers to go to the actual judgement the Glen Eira Version of History is revealed for what it is – a total sham!
Here’s what council’s version of events regarding the 14-16 Maroona Rd hearing stated (from the minutes of 5th Feb) –
Prior to the hearing, the applicant approached Council seeking support for amended plans which satisfied a number of Council’s conditions, whilst the plans also provided for a revised design incorporating twenty six (26) dwellings. The amended plans were considered to be satisfactory and, in principle, Council supported the amended plans.
What really happened though is revealed by the member –
Prior to the hearing the Permit Applicant circulated amended plans which were intended to be a response to, though not fully comply with, many of the Condition 1 requirements for amended plans sought to be imposed by Council. Prior to the hearing, further discussions were held between the Council and the Applicant, such that an agreed position between these two parties was presented to the Tribunal as to a modified form of Condition 1 that should be applied as a result of the proceeding under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act.
Ms Coram and the other residents had not been part of these discussions and at the start of the hearing declined an opportunity requested by the Permit Applicant to attempt to mediate the matter.
Further, the original application was for 27 units. The original DPC decision cut this back to 24 and then lo and behold we’re back up to 26 units and a reduction in car parking. So we now have 26 two bedroom units when one of the major planks of the Planning Scheme is to ensure that there is ‘diversity’ of dwellings! We insist that no bigger hoax has been perpetrated on residents that this bit of fluff and bubble.
There are some other comments that clearly show how little effort is put in by this council to ensure the bona fides of applications. None of this of course is evident in the officers’ report. We’ll simply extract those passages.
During the course of the hearing it occurred to me (ie member) that the shadow diagrams for 9.00am had not been drawn correctly. As a result at the conclusion of the hearing I gave oral orders for an amended shadow diagram to be circulated to all parties within seven days of the date of the hearing, and for the other parties to have an additional seven days to make further submissions, if desired. At the hearing all parties agreed that these timelines were sufficient.
During the course of the hearing Ms Bowden (for developer) submitted that due to the removal of the two existing crossovers to the review site, that one additional on street visitor space is to be created. On this basis, and considering Council’s support for the proposal following the review by their traffic engineers, I cannot see any reason why I should not approve the reduction of the standard visitor car parking requirement by one space.
Ms Silveira (objector), in her concerns regarding the intensity of the development, referred to the risk caused by the increased traffic levels to be experienced in Maroona Road. At no stage during the hearing was I addressed specifically in relation to the existing or anticipated traffic levels, or any difficulties experienced by residents in exiting the street to either Neerim Road or Glen Huntly Road. Given the absence of any such detailed submission, I must give weight to the assessment of the application by Council’s traffic engineers and the support for the development as expressed by Council. I therefore cannot find any reason to refuse to grant a permit based on traffic grounds.
The questions that follow have to be addressed by councillors:
If you know of any other incidents along similar lines then please contact us!
March 29, 2013
A reminder!
We’ve visited the site again in recent days and found:
March 27, 2013
We’ve received numerous comments and emails from residents as to the failure of both Council, the MRC and/or Trustees to ensure that the terms of the ‘agreement’ are adhered to – especially in terms of ACCESS to the Racecourse. Time after time gates, which are supposed to be open from 9.30 to sunset are locked. Not good enough! What has council been doing to ensure that access is available? Why is this situation being allowed to drag on for years and years? Why has there been no public comment from this council demanding that all terms of the agreement are met – especially the removal of fences and access.
We’ve revisited the January 2011 VCAT decision on the 7 lot subdivision and note that the member made explicit comments as to the Section 173 ‘agreement’ regarding access. It is now 14 months later and residents still cannot enter the racecourse as determined. Why has council allowed such a situation to continue? Here are some extracts from the decision –
“Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner of Lot 5 must enter into a section 173 agreement which provides that public access across Lot 5 to the entrance to the tunnel to the centre of the racecourse must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The Tribunal understands that it is the Trustees of the Crown Land that set conditions relating to public access to the Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse and whilst the MRC has control over its own land that abuts the racecourse, as well as occupying the Centre of the Racecourse, it does not control or set in place the conditions for public access to the Crown Land. MRC can therefore only control access over its land from Glen Eira Road to the entrance to the Tunnel.
The Club will reconfigure all horse movement to enable the tunnel from Glen Eira Road to be open 9.30am to sunset.
Public access to the Centre will be provided as follows.
On all days excluding scheduled race days and 10 event days as above:
a. by vehicle through the Tunnel from Glen Eira Road
b. by a footpath created in the tunnel from Glen Eira Road – the footpath will be separated from the vehicle pathway by post-and- rail fence with the tunnel having enhanced lighting
c. by the pedestrian tunnel from the Guineas car park
d. by new surface pedestrian access from Glen Huntly Park across the race tracks into precinct 4 by providing gates or gaps in all the rails. The Club reserves the right to modify, suspend or change access after consultation with the Council in the event of damage to the racing surface
e. by foot via the existing gate from Queen’s Avenue
On all days excluding 3 scheduled race days and 10 event days as above:
a. by vehicle through the tunnel from Glen Eira Road
b. by a footpath created in the tunnel from Glen Eira Road – the footpath will be separated from the vehicle pathway by post-and- rail fence with the tunnel having enhanced lighting.
All the above applies up to 352 days per year as above, 9.30am – sunset, as set pout in section 2.1.
The improvements in a – e above will be established by the MRC within 3 months of this agreement being executed subject to formal planning approval, the Trustees approval and Public Land Manager consent.
The Responsible Authority agreed that MRC’s recommendation of the entering into of a section 173 agreement between MRC, as owner of lot 5 and the Responsible Authority would allow for an assurance that public access would continue to be available over this portion of land.
In particular the entering into of a section 173 agreement that is required to be placed on the title to lot 5 will ensure that public access can be continued in this location.
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/104.html
March 26, 2013
COMMENT: We can of course only speculate as to the trigger for Southwick’s suggestion and what it really means. For starters, this would not have come out of thin air. There would have been countless ‘negotiations’ already going on behind the scenes with VicRoads, Council, bureaucrats, etc. From Council’s point of view we would think this is a ‘win-win’ situation in that restoring the reservoir to plain old open space is years off given council’s financial straits at this time. Remember, there is nothing budgeted for years to come. Dumping 100,000 cubic metres would become the perfect excuse for continuing not to do anything, yet appearing as the ‘savior’ of local sporting grounds!
Many, many questions need answering:
March 24, 2013
This is an exceedingly long post but one which is arguably the most important we have ever put up. It features the events surrounding the planning application for an Ormond 3 storey, 11 dwelling development at the last council meeting. The officer’s recommendation was to grant a NOD for 10 dwellings.
We believe the ‘debate’ that occurred on this application epitomises all that is wrong with planning in Glen Eira. It reveals the usual bogus and contradictory claims made by all and sundry, as well as the full inadequacies of the current planning scheme and its total disregard for residents in Housing Diversity Areas. We also wonder if Pilling and Sounness in particular, have the foggiest idea about planning or they are just there to support whatever is dished up to them. We can only shake our heads at the naivety, if not straight out stupidity of various councillors.
This will become obvious upon reading. We remind residents that the Emmy Monash development mentioned throughout, involved the granting of a permit for a 4 storey development on Hawthorn Rd. Lipshutz moved the motion about removing setbacks and this was supported by the majority. It also came to light that the developer just happened to be the same individual who was handing out How To Vote cards for the gang! (No conflict of interest was declared!).
We urge all residents concerned about the future of their neighbourhoods to pay careful attention to what transpired last Tuesday night. Our ‘commentary’ on this fiasco will feature in a future post – this is just a blow by blow description of our councillors ‘at work’!
Esakoff moved to reject the application. Seconded by Okotel.
ESAKOFF: refusal based on on ‘visual bulk’, ‘excessive height’, doesn’t meet ResCode standards of the planning scheme and doesn’t respect ‘neighbourhood character’ and Housing Diversity policy. Said that there are ‘several factors’ that fail to meet requirements here and that couldn’t be addressed by merely adding conditions. Spoke about ‘amenity impact on neighbours’ and ‘intensity of development’ as well as ‘set backs’ – especially building right on a laneway where bedrooms would be overlooking the laneway. It’s an ‘overdevelopment’ and therefore not ‘appropriate’ or ‘fits into’ this position in Ormond.
OKOTEL: started by saying that everyone thinks that ‘appropriate development’ should happen in Glen Eira but that the ‘key word is appropriate’. The planning scheme she claimed ‘sets out for everyone’…..‘what is considered appropriate’ and that this application ‘doesn’t meet those standards’. It ‘falls outside the upper limits’ of height, site coverage, and neighbourhood character.
PILLING: whilst he ‘appreciated’ the arguments put up so far, he was supporting the recommendation. The property is in a neighbourhood centre and a retail centre, and ‘within a very short distance’ there’s the railway station. Policy is to ‘encourage development in these areas’ and therefore ‘not in minimal change areas’. Thought that council therefore ‘had to be consistent’ since they were ‘trying to get appropriate increased development in these areas’. The application shouldn’t be refused even though it is slightly over specifications and there are ‘some detrimental aspects’ but this still shouldn’t ‘sink’ an application ‘like this’. If the motion to refuse failed then he would be moving a motion to accept the recommendations.
DELAHUNTY: said she didn’t ‘like’ the setbacks of the proposal and ‘I’m confused by my fellow councillors’ by applying the criteria of setbacks to ‘knock back applications on the one hand’ and then ‘not in another’. Referred back to the Emmy Monash 4 storey application on Hawthorn Rd that was passed and ‘some councillors’ argued then that setbacks didn’t matter. Now they’re arguing that it does matter. Said she was ‘confused’ about the setbacks and the ‘different directions this is taking’.
MAGEE: admitted that he had ‘no idea which way I was going to vote tonight’ and was hoping ‘to get persuaded by some really good arguments’ but that ‘so far all speakers have failed to engage me’. The laneway ‘probably saves it’ and then it starts to ‘encroach’ into residential. Asked then ‘where to draw the line’? ‘If nothing else, we have to be consistent’. Was hoping that someone could convince him but he told councillors that they’d just have to wait to ‘see which way my hand goes up’.
SOUNNESS: said he’d try to be ‘inspirational’ but that Magee ‘was a hard act to follow’. From a single house ‘we’re going to stick 11 dwelling on there’..’that’s a lot’…’a big up’ in density. But he’d ‘rather have a bunch of people’ that are close to transport and shops than put ‘in the middle of minimal change areas’. Asked where all the ‘extra people’ can go and what can be protected. Here, ‘they’re next to shops, they’re next to public transport’. Further, ‘it’s not a beautiful place to live’ and he wouldn’t like to live there, but ‘it’s not meant to be a luxurious’ garden area. ‘This is a place for dense living’ and you put this where ‘services and facilities are’. This application ‘might have issues with design’ but that’s the job of council’s urban designer and there are conditions that will deal with trees and access. Said that the ‘issue’ that the application ‘fails on is height’ but the rise of the land makes this about landscaping. He supports the recommendation.
HYAMS: agreed with Sounness and Pilling that ‘this is the right place for increased development’. Overall he wouldn’t ‘have a problem’ but he doesn’t ‘particularly like’ this proposal. Said there’s a difference between saying that we can have increased development and that ‘this is the building that should go there’. Thought that ‘too many issues’ on this application ‘required rectification’. Mentioned site coverage and ‘up the road from a flood zone’. Said that ‘we have rules’ and these ‘rules say 60% site coverage’ so this should be ‘60% site coverage’. It’s also 9.6 metres high and should only be ‘9 metres maximum’. Also that it’s right on the laneway also ‘concerns’ him. Trucks use the laneway and he wouldn’t like to have trucks going ‘thundering’ down outside his bedroom window so that ‘also concerns me’. ‘Generally’ he doesn’t mind tinkering with application because individually all these things wouldn’t necessary occasion a refusal, but taken together ‘there are too many of these things’.
Said that Delahunty’s view of lack of consistency over the Emmy Monash decision but that the setbacks there were ‘the front setbacks’ and ‘still quite a few metres off Hawthorn Rd’ unlike this one which would be right ‘up against the laneway. Said that Pilling and Sounness’s foreshadowed motion doesn’t deal with the issues he’s outlined and ‘doesn’t make those adjustments’ so if councillors want ‘adjustments’ they should vote for the motion to refuse.
ESAKOFF: ‘an application either meets policy or it doesn’t. This clearly doesn’t’. Reiterated the argument about ‘too much’ site coverage and height and said that ‘if there was a way to address this via conditions that would have been done’ but here it would require a ‘total redesign’. No application like this would come in for a minimal change area. ‘It is in the right spot, housing diversity’ but ‘it has to meet policy’. ‘Increased development is right for this street’ but ‘it has to fit’. Urged councillors ‘not to look at the address’ but as an ‘application for anywhere in Glen Eira and vote with your conscience’.
HYAMS put the motion. Voting in favour of refusal were – HYAMS, ESAKOFF, OKOTEL. Voting against – MAGEE, DELAHUNTY, PILLING, SOUNNESS, LOBO. Motion lost.
Pilling then moved the motion to accept ‘as printed’ and Sounness seconded. Neither Pilling nor Sounness spoke to the motion.
OKOTEL: said that what worries her is that this suggests that ‘it is acceptable to push the limits of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme’ and also to ‘exceed them’. Said that there’s a policy in place because after consultation with residents that ‘was seen to be what was needed’ for the area and ‘if we don’t apply and uphold our planning policy’ then the question is whether ‘we can blame VCAT for not upholding our policy’? Said that it’s important for councillors to ‘stick to our policy’ and don’t allow applications that go beyond height and site coverage or set backs. Since these standards have been set they should be supported. This application just says that ‘it is acceptable to push those boundaries’ and that ‘anything goes’ in Glen Eira. Went on to say that the planning scheme developed in ‘consultation with residents’ is ‘what they want’ and councillors should stick to that. “I think it’s a sorry day when councillors cannot uphold their own scheme’ and then ‘look to vcat’ when it says that council doesn’t care about its own scheme.
DELAHUNTY: asked Akehurst a question. Since both Okotel and Esakoff had said that the application doesn’t meet ‘planning policy’ she wanted to know whether ‘this application meets planning policy or does not meet planning policy’?
AKEHURST: said he was caught in ‘crossfire’ here and that the application ‘demonstrated’ the problems with people not understanding town planning. Stated that there’s the government code called ResCode which is how the government thinks ‘Victorians should live’ and that has ‘prescriptive standards’ and in this application some have been met which Okotel and Esakoff pointed out and some haven’t such as the 9.6 height which should be 9 metres. ‘There have been other standards which have been breached in this application’ – ie site coverage. ‘But this is where it gets difficult’ since Rescode is ‘interpreted as a guide’ and councils are being asked to ‘have overall’ views on the ‘objectives’ of each of these standards. So, ‘it is possible to say that objectives of certain measures of ResCode have been met’…’even though the prescription has been clearly breached’.
DELAHUNTY: said that she is again ‘expressing my confusion’. Quoted Okotel in saying that it would be a sad day when council doesn’t apply its policy. ‘I stood here and I argued as hard as I could about the setbacks on Hawthorn Road’. Disagreed that ‘it doesn’t affect people’s amenity’ and that people complained ‘directly to the applicant’ and to council about the setbacks ‘and we didn’t enforce’ it. ‘That was a sorry day!’ ‘This is in line with policy’.
ESAKOFF: agreed that it is a ‘sorry day when we can’t uphold our policy’ and when they do what vcat is criticised for doing.‘ Our policy is supposed to be superior to all other municipalities’ and that ‘we protect our residents more than all other municipalities’. Said there’s policy and that ‘we need to be upholding those’.
MAGEE: said that policies ‘are not laws, policies are guidelines’ and it’s up to councillors to accept, reject or modify the proposal and that ‘we’ve had several weeks to do that’. If it’s all about just policy ‘then we might as well not be here’ since they’re superfluous. Asked why councillors who ‘do not have a 4 year degree in town planning’ are necessary if the policy should dictate everything. Said councillors are just ‘mums and dads’ who ‘live next door to developments’ and the decisions are based on asking oneself whether they’d like to live next door to something like this. ‘We will always interpret a guideline the way we need to interpret a guidelines’. Rescode and the planning scheme has to be looked at by officers and then councillors. Said that councillors have to make the decision based on what they think after digesting all the information and not just according to the guildelines or policy because there’s no need for councillors if that’s all they had to do.
HYAMS: said that in planning some things are ‘objective’ and some things ‘subjective’. Some things are ‘measures’ like site coverage and ‘easy to apply’ but other things like neighborhood character and front setbacks ‘are a bit harder to apply’. Setbacks are ‘measured by the average of other houses in the street’. Emmy Monash has got one nearby property right on the street and another one across the road, ‘right back’ ‘so there’s room for interpretation’. This is also true for neighbourhood character. What councillors should be doing is that ‘where it’s prescriptive you apply it’ and ‘where there’s room for interpretation you interpret it’. Referred back to last council meeting and the sign that was applied for the Kittens car wash. Here ‘policy was very clear’ in that there was ‘nothing in planning policy that said you couldn’t have that sign’ but some councillors were worried about the content of the sign and its influence on gender issues. These arguments he claimed ‘weren’t relevant’ but that some councillors ‘used their subjectivity on that’. And ‘a couple of those same councillors are saying that we should let this’ application go through. Mentioned another decision about alcohol for lawn bowls club and some councillors again voting against this but are ‘somehow managing to vote’ in favour of the application ‘tonight’. So he doesn’t want to hear ‘lectures on consistency’ from those councillors.
MAGEE then asked ‘which ones’?
DELAHUNTY: then said ‘I think Okotel because she also voted against the sign. Is that right?’
HYAMS: said that since Okotel is opposing the motion she’s being ‘consistent’
OKOTEL: asked Delahunty to withdraw her remarks.
HYAMS: said that Delahunty’s comment ‘was out of order’ since she ‘didn’t have the floor’ but didn’t say ‘anything that goes against the Local Law’. Went on to say that there are subjective elements and that ‘it’s up to each councillor to apply them as they see fit’. This application has some breaches which ‘are a lot less’ capable of involving ‘subjectivity’ and because ‘this breaches so many prescriptive measures we should refuse it’.
PILLING: thought that everyone’s got the ‘best intentions’ and that’s why these sorts of applications come to council since there are always ‘two sides’ to the issue. ‘On balance’ he’s recommending accepting the recommendation.
MOTION PUT: Esakoff called for a division. In favour: Delahunty, Sounness, Pilling, Magee, Lobo. Against: Esakoff, Okotel, Hyams. Motion carried.
March 23, 2013
Below are 3 newspaper items – two dating back over 100 years. We’ve retyped them because of poor digital quality. There are plenty more if people would like to do a search on TROVE for themselves. All tell the same story – the racing industry as a law unto itself; resident opposition; government connivance and Council impotence and/or inaction. All this has been going on for well over a 100 years and we wonder exactly what has been achieved for residents?
“RATEPAYERS AND RACECOURSE TRUSTEES
At a meeting of the Caulfield racecourse trustees yesterday, counsel (Mr. J.G. Dutfy) advised that the regulations and by-laws of the V.A.T.C. were, in some respects, ultra vires, and that they exceeded the terms of the deed. The trustees decided to have the work of revising the regulations immediately entered upon. The revision will touch such points as the charging of training fees. Under the deed the V.A.T.C are allowed to race horses and charge for admission only on 15 days in a year, and it is doubtful whether they have even authority to have men at work or in any way assume possession at other times. It is to the continual training that the ratepayers object.
The Advertiser, Monday, 1st October, 1906. “
“For more than an hour yesterday Mr H. McKenzie (Minister for Lands) listened to arguments bearing upon the old question of the rights of the public to the Caulfield racecourse reserve. The board-room of the Lands Department was crowded. Occasionally the supporters of either side spoke intemperately, and addressed their remarks to one another, but the Minister was in a tolerant mood. Sir Frank Madden (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) was present.
The case put by Mr H.S.Wood, on behalf of the Carnegie and Caulfield progress associations, was that at the present time the public were denied those privileges to which, under the grant, they were entitled. He urged that new regulations of a “public park and garden nature” should be at once issues; that the public should enjoy the free use of the whole reserve on all days of the year other than the 15 set apart for racing; that the present representatives on the trust be removed and replaced by trustees elected by the public; that the secretary of the trust be a gentleman removed from the influence of the V.A.T.C.; that the regulations providing for the training of horses on the reserve be withdrawn and that the public be allowed free use of some part of “their reserve and public park on all days in the year.” An objection was also made to the erection of the new grandstand and the extension of the members’ reserve.
Among the speakers were Mr. C.L. Russell (Vice-president of the Owners’ and Trainers’ Association), Mr George Woodforde, Mr. W. Pitt, Mr, Alan Currie, Mr McCutcheon, M.L.A. Sir Frank Madden, and Mr J. Retallick.
Mr McKenzie, in reply said that he only wishes that Mr. McCutcheon’s suggestion of a conference between both parties would solve the difficulty, but he was afraid that it would be ineffectual. Having visited the course, he could see no objection to the erection of the new stand, and the slight enlargement of the area set apart for members. He thought, however, that something might be done in the direction of restricting the hours for training. He would confer with the trustees, and endeavour to prevent any infringement by the club upon the rights of the public.
The Argue, Thursday, 11th January, 1912, Page 6.
CAULFIELD RACECOURSE: ITS USE AS A SPORTS GROUND
The committee of the Victoria Amateur Turf Club has received a request from Caulfield Council that the club should clear the heath and scrub from the flat at Caulfield racecourse and also to level off the ground so that it may be available for the playing of cricket and football matches on week-ends when there is no racing of the course (says the Melbourne “Age”). The council has pointed out that playing areas in the district are becoming more and more congested each year and that it is not possible for the council to allot grounds to all the sports clubs that make applications.
When the matter was recently before the council Councillor Hall said that with the rapid growth of population playing areas were becoming more and more restricted each year in Caulfield. Racing was only held at Caulfield on 18 Saturdays out of 52 and they should not lose the opportunity of having the reserve, which belonged to the public, made available for the purpose of amateur sport when it was not being used otherwise. Councillor Worthington questioned whether the sandy soil on the flat would be suitable either for cricket or football, even if it were levelled. Other councillors thought the ground would be quite suitable, and the council representatives on the racecourse trust were instructed to advocate the clearing of the ground. The V.A.T.C. committee has already made available a disused building on the course for the purpose of a training room for the Glen Huntly Athletic Club. The club has been permitted to instal electric light and to fix up lockers in the building.
The Advertiser (Adelaide), Thursday, 3rd December, 1925.
PS: Apart from history, there is also the matter of ‘shifting the goal posts’ to suit current interpretations. Symons’ language in the interview (see previous post) provides clear evidence of how the goal posts have been on the move (with the undoubted aid of council’s ‘negotiating’ team). Below is part of the ORIGINAL ‘agreement’ and the stance taken on training.
March 22, 2013
Here is the link to an 8 minute interview with the Chair of the MRC.
PS: From ‘The Argus’, 1912
March 21, 2013
Caulfield Racecourse: training facility
Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Western Metropolitan)
Tomorrow night Black Caviar runs at Moonee Valley in what might be the last race she will ever run in Victoria.
Earlier this week she would have had a very early morning hit -out at Caulfield where she is trained, but this morning it was revealed that the Liberal – controlled Glen Eira City Council has released a position paper expressing support for the closure of the training facility at Caulfield.
That is an act of extraordinary bad faith by the council given that in April 2011 the club a and council entered into an agreement. The agreement involved the club spending some $2 million; it involved the club making the infield of the course available for public use 352 days out of 365. It involved the club installing toilets, barbecues, a children’s play area, parking, change rooms and a boardwalk.
It included an acknowledgement that training would continue at Caulfield in the medium term and would only move under certain preconditions, including another facility being located and the agreement of the racing industry.
That agreement was promoted in a joint media release in April 2011. That media release included comments by the member for Caulfield in the Assembly, Mr Southwick.Now his allies on the council, including councillors Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz, who are the council nominees as trustees, are seeking to tear up that agreement.
The council is acting in bad faith.
The Premier, who is also the Minister for Racing, should tell the member for Caulfield to have a chat to his local numbers men and women and tell them to pull their heads in.
Glen Eira Debates 