April 23, 2013

Another Brilliant Idea!

Posted by gleneira under GE Transport
[14] Comments

Rail plan threatens homes

Date: April 23, 2013

Adam Carey

Homes and business premises in Melbourne’s south-east could be wiped off the map to make way for extra tracks along the Dandenong railway line to carry freight trains from the Port of Hastings.

The plan to build ”an additional track or tracks” along the heavily congested rail line is contained in a briefing to Premier Denis Napthine and Transport Minister Terry Mulder, which was obtained by Fairfax Media through freedom of information.

The plan revives elements of the former Bracks government’s doomed $1 billion Dandenong triplication project. If that project had proceeded, a large number of houses and commercial premises along the rail line – particularly between Caulfield and Oakleigh stations – would have been acquired.

Illustration: Ron Tandberg.

The Napthine government plan, tentatively dubbed the ”Eastern Regional Rail Link”, would involve widening the Dandenong rail corridor to lay dedicated track for freight trains and V/Line trains from Gippsland. It also includes provision for a new line along the Western Port Highway from the Port of Hastings to Lyndhurst on the Cranbourne line, which connects with the Dandenong line.

A spokesman for the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure confirmed the plan but said it was too early to say whether properties would be acquired.

”That said, should any property acquisition be required, we will ensure full and proper consultation as we are required to under various acts,” he said.

The plan, outlined in a September 2012 briefing by department deputy secretary Gillian Miles, predicts the existing two tracks in the corridor between Caulfield and Dandenong will cope with freight train traffic for the next decade.

”Nearly all freight is presently carried by trucks on the M1, Dingley and other arterial roads,” the briefing says, adding that the M1 and the Princes Highway ”are already at capacity”.

By contrast, just nine freight trains currently use the Dandenong line each week, plus two trains a day on the Frankston line from Hastings that join the Dandenong line at Caulfield.

”Beyond 10 years, commissioning of new container capacity at the Port of Hastings is likely to result in a steep change in freight demand,” Ms Miles wrote.

She warned that with the advent of Hastings as Melbourne’s second major port, ”demand will outgrow the existing infrastructure and additional tracks will be needed”.

Tony Morton, of the Public Transport Users Association, said there was an argument for extra tracks to cater for more freight and regional trains, but not at the expense of private properties.

”There are ways to accommodate more trains, especially if we improve the signalling on the Dandenong line and get rid of the level crossings,” he said.

Labor’s spokesman for ports, freight and logistics, Natalie Hutchins, said the government should drop its plan for a second port at Hastings and build it in Melbourne’s west, arguing it would cost half as much and be much closer to the city’s industrial areas.

April 22, 2013

Oooh Calcutta!

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

The government has released the figures on the planning activity audit for 2011/12. We’ve commented previously on the highly dubious figures submitted by Glen Eira (see: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/a-mountain-of-clerical-errors/) so it would not surprise us if this year’s data is equally suspect. However, even given these figures, the trends are alarming and the future is writ large once comparisons are made with surrounding councils. With over 1000 subdivisions and 1000 planning permits granted in 2011/12 Glen Eira is paving the way for more and more (over) development. Further, the much vaunted ‘safeguarding’ of Minimal Change Areas is also becoming exposed for what it is – a myth!

Below are some maps detailing permits for all the areas. Please note the distribution in Glen Eira for both permits and subdivisions. Under Newton and Akehurst, Glen Eira is fast becoming what Lobo would call ‘Calcutta’!

April 21, 2013

More From Southwick!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[7] Comments

From David Southwick’s website – http://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/fun-run.html

Over the past 6 years, the Melbourne Racing Club has sought to expand the accessibility of the Caulfield Racecourse for the community. Through community consultation, and discussions with local government and David Southwick MP, the MRC have funded a $1.8 million upgrade to the public facilities therein.

April 19, 2013

The Community Voice Does Matter

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments

We’ve been following with great interest the Orrong Rd challenge to the LendLease application. Stonnington Council appealed the planning panel’s decision to the Supreme Court which is now underway. Below are two items – the Mayor’s statement and the Orrong Group summary of the first day’s proceedings.

590 Orrong Road Update

18 Apr 2013The City of Stonnington will continue to push for a positive outcome for residents living near a controversial Armadale development site, Mayor Cr Matthew Koce says.

Council this week presented its case at the Supreme Court, arguing that an ‘error of law’ was made by VCAT in its decision to approve Lend Lease’s permit application for 590 Orrong Road. The Supreme Court has reserved its decision.

Council received more than 600 objections to the development, which proposes 466 units at a height of up to 13 storeys.

“Our appeal was principally based on the tribunal’s statement that the number of objections to the proposed development was an irrelevant consideration,” Cr Koce said.

“There is a lot of community concern over VCAT’s handling of the case to date, including whether all statements of grounds were considered by the Tribunal.

“These residents have a right to speak up and be heard about what’s being built next door to them, especially when they’ll be living in the shadow of such a large overdevelopment of a key site.

“We are, of course, hoping for a positive outcome from this appeal, one that respects the opinions of our residents and one that will protect the rights of residents everywhere.”

Cr Koce has called on the State Government to make a timely decision on a Planning Scheme Amendment, which will place stricter planning controls on the significant Armadale block.

“We have been working on planning controls for this site since 2010, before we received a planning permit application for it,” he said.

“Most recently, the Government said it would not make a decision on the Amendment until the Supreme Court made its judgment. This made no sense, as they are totally separate matters.”

The Amendment includes

mandatory maximum height controls of 17 metres (six storeys)
maximum density of 50 per cent of the 2.5 hectare site to allow for open space
a maximum site yield of 250 units
set-backs of six metres around the entire site.

For the latest information on Planning Scheme Amendment C153, including the Panel Report, please click here.

For the latest information on Planning Application 0725/11, please click here.

+++++++++

There was a great community turn-out to the Supreme Court hearing, with “standing room” only for the first morning. More than 85 people were present to hear Stonnington Council challenge VCAT’s ruling. Even the ‘jury box’ had to be made available to accommodate the crowd.

Justice Karin Emerton presided over the hearing. Stuart Morris QC acted for Stonnington Council and Chris Canavan QC for Lend Lease and Larkfield. Both held the same positions at last year’s VCAT appeal.

Stuart Morris led the Council’s case stating that more than three quarters of the 450 submissions to VCAT from residents were “simply ignored”.

Mr Morris suggested that VCAT had diverged from “established practice” and its decision could be in breach of the Planning Act and in “breach of its own charter”. He stated that this case was important as it went towards “the administration of planning law in Victoria”.

Council argued a second important “error of law”: VCAT’s interpretation of Stonnington Council‘s “‘Large Site Policy” and whether account had been given to the need for developments to reflect the surrounding neighbourhood character.

If the Court rules that the case be referred back to VCAT, Council called for it to be heard before a newly constituted VCAT panel.

The Judge reserved her decision. We will notify you as soon as we hear, which will probably be in the next 2 to 6 weeks.

Our impression of the Supreme Court hearing is far more positive than previous planning hearings. We share the Mayor’s hopes for a positive outcome and “one that respects the opinions of our residents and one that will protect the rights of residents everywhere”. He said “the residents have a right to speak up and be heard”. There is more from the Mayor on the Council web site.

We believe that this will be a test case and perhaps a ‘watershed’ case for planning law in Victoria. Listening to all the arguments and issues raised over the last two days we have a picture of a planning scheme that could be described as a minefield for the community to navigate. It should not be like this and hopefully this case will give a strong message to Government.

Source: http://orronggroup.wordpress.com

April 17, 2013

Moonscaping

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

Drive or walk anywhere throughout Glen Eira and you’ll find block after block waiting to be developed, or in various stages of development. What they all have in common (with some very rare exceptions) is that they are treeless and that every remnant of vegetation has been ripped out in order to cram bigger or higher density development onto the land. Moonscaping is definitely a most appropriate name for all this.

Yet, when it comes to tree registers and their protection on private property, the arguments put up by some councillors are that the current planning scheme and the application process ensures that moonscaping doesn’t happen. Esakoff even complains that there is no need to make people ‘jump through more hoops’ – that the rigours of the planning scheme are sufficient. Nothing could be further from the truth. We just wonder:

Of the 1200 planning applications that come in each year, how many trees have been ‘protected’ on these properties?
How many applicants have been fined for removing said trees?
How many prosecutions have actually taken place?

Glen Eira is supposed to be ‘green’ – a city that values its trees, vegetation, and ‘garden’ atmosphere. These photos all taken in the space of half an hour, are just a glimpse into how little this council does to ensure that the environment is just as important as multi-unit development. Please note: there are many more photos we could have put up.

PS: A FEW MORE!

April 16, 2013

What’s The Real Agenda?

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

A very recent VCAT decision highlights once again how residents are personae non gratis when it comes to this council’s planning department and the sycophantic councillors who allow Newton and Akehurst to literally do as they please. Here’s a little bit of history.

On the 30^th August 2011 councillors voted unanimously to pass the following motion – “Seeks authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C90 which proposes to alter the Housing Diversity Area Policy and Urban Village Policy to include prescriptive guidance for development at the interface of Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas”.

Nearly a year later we find out in the fine print of the Quarterly Reports that HERE IS A COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT HAS NEVER BEEN CARRIED OUT. Nor has there been any motion to withdraw, rescind, put on hold, etc. The amendment has never been advertised, never had submissions called and been allowed to disappear into the ether. No public announcement has been made as to the reasons why officers have failed to carry out a council resolution. All that we know is that there suddenly appeared the minimalist sentence ‘Amendment will be withdrawn. The issue of transition will be addressed through the New Zones’. Who made this decision? When was it made? And how can a council resolution suddenly be overturned in secret?

That’s only half of the story because whilst countless other councils are passing amendment after amendment in the attempt to shore up as many safety precautions as possible for when the planning zone reforms come in, Glen Eira is sitting on its hands and doing bugger all. The ramifications of this inaction was evident in a recent vcat appeal and decision.

The VCAT hearing involved an application for a 3 storey building, multiple dwellings and reduced car parking. The site was Glen Huntly Rd (housing diversity/tram lines) and abutted Minimal Change. Hence the proposed amendment would have been extremely important here in protecting residential amenity. Here are the lamentable arguments put up by council and relevant extracts from the final decision. (See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/381.html for the full decision)

Council advised that these setback distances were recommended in its proposed amendment C90 to manage the interface between housing diversity and minimal change areas, and as a response to Clause 22.07 to reduce the visibility of additional levels when the proposal is higher than the prevailing height of an area.

Council noted that it did not impose the minimum setback of 4 metres on the ground level as recommended in the amendment, acknowledging that there are currently out buildings in the rear yards of 6 Emma Street and 4 Lonsdale Street. Conceding that Amendment C90 has yet been exhibited, Council still wished to pursue the desired setback as a reflection of its thinking of interface management.

Council has imposed permit conditions to require the first and second floor to be further recessed to manage the change from a housing diversity area to a minimal change area, as recommended by its Amendment C90, which will result in the loss of dwellings.

As Mr. Bissett pointed out (for developer), Amendment C90 is not a seriously entertained planning proposal. It has not been on exhibition and it is premature to implement the setbacks recommended in this amendment. The approach should be one of the particular set of circumstances and the context of the site: that is whether the proposed setbacks of the various floors an acceptable interface with.6 Emma Street and 4 Lonsdale Street.

Given all this, questions have to be asked:

Why has a council resolution not been carried out?
Who made the decision to withdraw or abandon? When was it made? and most importantly – WHY was it made?
What is the real agenda behind all this?
Why are councillors allowing employees to rule the roost?
Why aren’t residents afforded the full protection as originally intended?
Why after two years has nothing happened? What aren’t residents being told?
Why didn’t this development come to a full council meeting in the first place? What is the precise criteria that determines whether an application remains in the hands of the hired help?
When will councillors start exercising their mandated duties and INSIST that proper transparency and governance occurs in this council?
When will councillors finally get off their backsides and insist that ALL of the outcomes of the 2010 Planning Scheme Review are carried out. 3 years of deferment, inaction, and silence is not good enough.
When will they stop being accomplices to the continued failure of good governance in Glen Eira?

April 15, 2013

Public Safety In Glen Eira?

Posted by gleneira under GE Service Performance
[9] Comments

PS: SSSSHHHHH! GENUISES AT WORK!

April 13, 2013

Is Consistency Too Much To Ask For?

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

Item 9.1 of last Tuesday night’s agenda concerned the amended permit application for a Tavern in Centre Road. Please note:

We are not questioning the right of anyone to submit an application
We are not questioning the right of any commercial enterprise to grow its business

What we are questioning is the woeful decision making capacity of this planning department and councillors; the continued shonky reports that fail to come up under scrutiny and finally the clear bias evident in the report. We are also highly critical of the inconsistency trotted out by Lipshutz and some others.

In July 2011 (that is LESS THAN 2 YEARS AGO) Lipshutz and Hyams moved the motion to accept the conversion of a ‘café’ to a ‘tavern’ that extended the hours of opening, waived car parking, and included a liquor license for footpath trading. The motion was carried unanimously. At the time objectors also claimed that the premises had been operating ‘without a permit’. Now there’s another application to extend existing hours to 3am, include live music and increase seating from 24 to 64 plus an increase of staff. All well and good, EXCEPT that the current officer’s report just happens to state – “The site context has not changed significantly from the time the previous approval was granted in that the residential properties to the north are still separated from the subject site by an Australia Post dispatch facility and a petrol station that is open 24 hours a day.”

In other words the surrounding environment, which has not changed, was good enough for the planning department to impose limits on numbers, hours, music and staff back in 2009, but not today when these exact some conditions persist! So, if nothing much has changed then how can something be regarded as having an adverse impact in 2011 and 21 months later suddenly be deemed as appropriate for a threefold increase in clientele, staff, and hours of operation? Did Ron Torres just happen to conveniently forget what he wrote at that time and now just regurgitates what happens to suit the decision for the go ahead?

We’ve drawn up a table that compares the officer’s report from 2011 and 2013. There’s much, much more that was in the 2011 report that has suddenly disappeared from the current version. What is repeated is merely all those points that would provide support for the current application. If that’s not ‘doctoring’ a document, then we certainly don’t know what is.

July 19^th 2011 Minutes	April 9^th 2013 Minutes

28 properties notified; 48 notices sent (owners and occupiers)	6 properties notified; 29 notices sent (owners and occupiers)

N/A	Since then, the business has continued to grow and the restrictions on their current planning permit have become onerous.
The current approved hours of operation are considered to be low impact in terms of causing significant noise that would affect the amenity of the local area.	The current approved hours of operation are considered to be relatively “low impact” in terms of potential to cause significant noise that would unreasonably affect the amenity of the local area.
The focus of this application is on the 3 additional hours Monday to Thursday (11pm closing) and the 2 additional hours on Friday and Saturday (1am next day closing).	The focus of this application is on: the 3 additional hours on Monday to Thursday (closing at 1am); the 3 additional hours on Friday and Saturday (closing at 3am); the 2 additional hours on Sunday (closing at 1am); and the associated additional live music performances.
Noise from patrons leaving after 8pm weeknights and after 11pm Friday and Saturday would potentially disrupt the amenity of local residents.	MISSING
It is considered that a reasonable closing time for Monday to Thursday would be 10pm. An additional 2 hours on weeknights is unlikely to significantly increase detriment to the amenity of the nearby residential area if it is combined with conditions that limit noise levels in accordance with EPA guidelines and a requirement to limit live music to Friday, Saturday and Sunday and to prohibit the sale and consumption of liquor on the footpath.	The proposed closing time for Sunday to Thursday of 1am the following day is considered excessive for a weeknight. A more reasonable closing time for weeknights (Sunday to Thursday) would be 11pm. This is a reasonable compromise to what is being sought in light of the context. An additional 1 hour on weeknights (as recommended in the appendix to this report) is unlikely to significantly increase detriment to the amenity of the nearby residential area if it is combined with current permit conditions that limit noise levels in accordance with EPA guidelines.
For Friday and Saturday nights, it is considered that a closing time of 1am the following day is likely to cause disruptive late night noise and a closing time of midnight is recommended. Additionally, live music performances on Friday, Saturday and Sunday will be required to be finished at least 1 hour before the closing time to further ensure that the impact on the nearby residential area is moderated.	For Friday and Saturday nights a closing time of 3am the following day as proposed is likely to cause unreasonable disruptive noise in the early hours of the morning to local residents. A closing time of 1am is recommended as a condition in the appendix as 1 additional hour on weekends is considered reasonable and will have minimal additional amenity impacts.The current permit restricts live music

Recommended conditions will prevent live music in the rear courtyard. No dance floor will be allowed.	The current permit does not allow live music performances within the rear courtyard yet the proposal seeks to allow them between 12 noon and 7pm. This is considered reasonable as the courtyard is adjacent to commercial car parking areas which provide a buffer of over 30 metres to nearby residential land located to the north, and after 7pm the live performances will be restricted to inside the venue.
	Patron numbers are proposed to increase from 24 to 64, with one additional staff member (4 in total). The increases would allow the business to fully reach its potential and have the ability to conduct more viable private functions. The additional staff member will contribute to the efficiency and general operation of the venue. The proposed increases are considered reasonable.
The impacts on the amenity of the area from additional night time parking and traffic would be noticeable to the local residents.	Council’s Transport Planning Department do not object to the proposed extension of trading hours.ANDGiven the above, the increased impacts on the amenity of the area from additional night time parking and traffic will not be unreasonable.
Council’s Transport Planners have confirmed that Centre Road can accommodate the additional parking that is likely to be generated by the use. The amount of additional parking will be kept to a small increase by applying a condition to restrict the maximum number of patrons to twenty four (24) at any one time. This figure matches the number of patron seats applied for. Staff numbers will be kept at the current level of three (3).	Patron numbers are proposed to increase from 24 to 64, with one additional staff member (4 in total). The increases would allow the business to fully reach its potential and have the ability to conduct more viable private functions. The additional staff member will contribute to the efficiency and general operation of thevenue. The proposed increases are considered reasonable.
Victoria police • Caulfield Police have confirmed that Roo Baa has been operating within its current liquor licence hours without significant disruption to the local area.However, concern was expressed that noise from live music might impact the nearby residential area. The Police confirmed that they can issue fines for breaches of noise restrictions.	Victoria policeCaulfield Police have confirmed that Roo Baa has been operating within its current liquor licence hours without significant disruption to the local area. Support the proposed increase in patron numbers and increased hours of operation. Support live music performances on all days subject to it finishing by 11pm Sunday to Thursday and 1am the following day on Friday and Saturday.  No issues with live music performances being conducted in the courtyard between 12 noon and 7pm.  The sale and consumption of alcohol in the footpath seating area should be prohibited after 9pm to minimise the effect on residents directly across the road.  Restricting staff numbers is not beneficial to the proper running of the venue and do not support a restriction placed on staff numbers.

So how did councillors handle all this? – especially those who were party to the original permit? Here’s what happened –

MAGEE: moved that a permit be granted for 12 months only. Delahunty seconded. Magee went on to say that ‘this gives the operator what they are wanting’ and since there have been complaints from people and ‘council has some concerns‘ the permit is only for 12 months and the applicant has to then come back and reapply. The objective is for the applicant to ‘show us’ that ‘you can adhere to this permit’ and then council would issue the extension of the permit.

DELAHUNTY: said that this motion would ‘strike a balance’ between business and community ‘wants’. Said that it’s in everyone’s best interests to have ‘private business’ in the city but ‘they must be good neighbours’ so the motion is trying to ‘strike a balance’ between these two things. Looked forward to a year down the track and that the applicants can ‘show they’ve been well behaved’.

LIPSHUTZ: at first he was going to support it but ‘I’ve changed my mind’. He’s got emails from people complaining and that recently officers had discovered that there were more people on the premises than allowed and that ‘bands were playing’ so they ‘had breached their license‘. So, when people come and ‘seek the indulgence of council’ you have to come with ‘clean hands’ and not treat both residents and council ‘with contempt’. Magee’s motion does ‘put them on notice’ that they have to ‘do the right thing’ but ‘they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with more’. It’s only ‘when you can show you’re a good neighbour’ that you should come to council instead of ‘asking for more’.

PILLING: supports the motion. Outlined where residential and commercial properties are. The motion ‘does strike a balance’ and he thinks the times are ‘reasonable’ and a good ‘alternative’ and ‘respects the wishes of residents’.

SOUNNESS: was at the planning conference and noted that ‘there comes a point when a development has reached its capacity’ and more makes it an ‘over development’. With this application there can’t be more space since the building isn’t big enough. Thought that the development was ‘overly ambitious’ and that there had been issues about ‘management’ of the place. So even though Magee’s motion takes this ‘down the right path’ it doesn’t take it ‘far enough’.

HYAMS: said it was a ‘strange planning conference’ in that there were opposite views expressed. People from ‘500 metres away’ said they could hear the music but patrons said that they ‘go there’ so they can actually talk with each other ‘above the music’ so ‘it’s not that loud’. Said the police were happy for the extended hours and that officers on the occasions they went there ‘reported’ that the tavern was ‘conforming’ to the permit. But then Lipshutz has said that ‘on one occasion they weren’t’. So he’s ‘happy’ with the ‘sunset clause’ and that the place will be ‘monitored’ and ‘if we’re happy’ then they ‘can go ahead’. Said that at the planning conference objectors said that people were urinating outside but this was denied by applicant. So there is a need for more staff to supervise this outside.

MAGEE; said that council ‘want to see business succeed’ and for residents to ‘live in peace and quiet’. The applicant has now got 12 months to show that ‘they are good operators of the business’. The tavern is a ‘bit of an icon’ in Bentleigh and gives the area ‘its bit of uniqueness’. It’s never ‘raised its head before as a concern with me’. He had walked past there recently and all was well. Hoped that ‘the business will succeed’ and that surrounding people ‘will accept it’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED. VOTING AGAINST – LIPSHUTZ & SOUNNESS

COMMENT: This is not the first time that breaches of conditions have occurred on numerous permits and not the first time that nothing much has been done about it by council. In the past Lipshutz and his cohorts have seen fit to ignore such breaches and to vote in favour of the permits. All that has been said by them is that council will be ‘vigilant’ and will come down on them ‘like a ton of bricks’ if the new permits are abused. How hypocritical then of Lipshutz to now get on his high horse and say that this application should be refused because the applicants have treated council with ‘contempt’. If Lipshutz is to stand on his record then the public has a right to demand consistency.

We draw readers’ attention to his stance on the extended 1A Albany Court decision (as just one example!) which involved a synagogue that had continually breached its conditions and which the VCAT member made absolutely clear that council had done nothing to ensure compliance. See https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/vcat-more-council-failures/. This is not an isolated example.

How many more times will we hear about council not informing all relevant parties on VCAT hearings as in the above judgement? How many more times will some applications get up because of what can only be reasonably perceived to be clear, vested interests and despite the fact that they have treated the permit conditions with ‘contempt’? How many more times will this planning department be permitted to produce reports that are short on argument, detail, and full justification for their recommendations?

This entire application history epitomises the failures of this council to embark on any decision making that is consistent, transparent, and protects residential amenity.

April 13, 2013

The ‘Business’ Of Racing

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
1 Comment

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.

Glen Eira Debates