March 6, 2013

Planning: ‘Reformed’ Zones

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

The committee appointed to ‘investigate’ the proposed new zones has had its report finally made public – together with the government’s response. A quick perusal of the documents indicates that nothing major has changed. What is unique about this ‘consultation’ is that there were 2,083 SUBMISSIONS – surely a record! It’s also worth noting that at the last parliamentary sitting the government promised to table ALL submissions by February 5th. Yesterday’s Hansard records a letter from Matthew Guy which states in part: “Regrettably, the Government is not able to respond to the Council’s resolution within the time period requested by the Council. The Government will endeavour to respond as soon as possible.”!!!

We urge all residents to read the documents contained in the Media Release below since it is a foregone conclusion that Glen Eira Council’s mandatory ‘consultation’ process will be the typical rubber stamping process that has occurred time and time again.

Reformed residential zones bringing new certainty to Melbourne’s neighbourhoods

Tuesday, 05 March 2013

Sweeping reforms of residential planning zones are one step closer as Planning Minister Matthew Guy announced the Victorian Coalition Government’s final details on the reform of Victoria’s residential planning zones.

After a detailed consultation process with over 2,000 submissions from individuals, businesses, councils and community groups, the Coalition Government will now establish the three reformed residential zones on 1 July this year.

A key feature will be the new Neighbourhood Residential Zone which will be the strictest planning zone in Australia, aimed at protecting existing suburbs’ neighbourhood character.

“The Coalition Government’s reforms to residential zones reflect what communities have been calling for, for many years – certainty for neighbourhoods and protection from inappropriate development,” Mr Guy said.

“These reforms will protect what Melburnians love about Melbourne. Our streetscapes, our amenity and our liveability which are too valuable to ignore.

“At the same time the new zones will clearly define the appropriate locations where growth and density should occur,” Mr Guy said.

The Coalition Government’s Ministerial Advisory Council (MAC) on zone reform has suggested a number of improvements to the residential zones as initially proposed last year, to ensure the protection of community amenity and provide clearer rules and greater certainty for the community.

“The improvements recommended by the MAC further protect residential amenity and neighbourhood character and are supported by the Coalition Government,” Mr Guy said.

“Today’s announcement is about the right development in the right locations and the package of residential zones will deliver this for local communities.”

The new Neighbourhood Residential Zone will provide the strongest protections for local neighbourhood character for the first time in Victoria’s planning history. Key features of the zone include:

  • implementing local neighbourhood character policy to provide increased weight to local planning policy;
  • limiting increased residential development through lot size restrictions; and
  • providing an eight metre mandatory height limit.

In contrast, the Residential Growth Zone will be applied in areas determined appropriate for increased growth and density and provide for medium density developments.

Minor commercial uses will be permitted in the Residential Growth Zone to provide additional local services to the population, subject to strict conditions.

“Local communities will now know and clearly understand where growth can and will occur, unlike the previous haphazard approach that was allowed to foster under the previous Labor Government,” Mr Guy said.

“Importantly, these zones will be at the discretion of local council and it will predominately be the view of the local community that informs which zone should be applied where.”

The Coalition Government will work with local councils between March and May to further develop the implementation procedures and criteria. The Department of Planning and Community Development will also provide technical assistance to local council’s in implementing the residential zones.

Implementation of the residential zones will commence on 1 July 2013 and will be completed over a 12 month period.

A copy of the MAC report and the Coalition Government’s response can be found at: www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/reszones

PS: An email from a reader –

Mailand/ Architektur/ Bosco Verticale

 

March 4, 2013

Burke & ‘Pay Back Time’?

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

At the outset we wish to state clearly and unequivocally that we have no interest in football allocations per se. What does concern us is the lack of transparency in any of the decision making that surrounds sporting ground allocations. The article at the conclusion of this post comes from today’s online version of the Australian Jewish News. It is quite feasible to draw the conclusion that this is ‘pay back’ for the Ajax – Caulfield Bears saga of last year in that Ajax did not get their sought after allocation.

As stated above, we have no problem with this. What is a huge problem is:

  • All is left in the hands of Burke and his underlings with no need for accountability, nor transparency
  • There is no POLICY that is in the public domain
  • There is no published criteria to account for the decision making
  • Councillors are out in the cold with no role, no say, no nothing
  • Such ‘secret’ and unilateral decision making is fraught with danger and the real potential for nepotism, secret deals, intimidation, and woeful decision making as with GESAC.
  • Councillors MUST PUT A STOP TO THIS if their credibility is not to go completely out the window!

By way of contrast, here is part of the Banyule Sporting Allocation policy where the criteria used to decide who gets what is public and easily accessible –

criteria

Numerous other councils don’t seem to have any problem whatsoever in publishing their policies. As always, Glen Eira keeps everything under wraps – that’s if it even exists, and if it does, the promises in the Community Plan to publish ALL council policies are not adhered to. Here are some other Councils’ URLs for residents to check out –

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Assets/Files/14457%20Sporting%20Reserves%20Allocation%20Policy%202011-2014.pdf

http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/experience-moonee-valley/sports-grounds/~/media/Files/Experience%20MV%20Documents/Sports%20club%20information/2010_11_Seasonal_Allocation_Policy.ashx

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/Sportsground_allocation_policy.pdf

http://whatmattersmanningham.com.au/document/show/63

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/mccwr/publications/policies-strategies-plans/policy%20-%20council%20resolved%20-%20allocation%20of%20sporting%20grounds%20and%20pavilions.doc

http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/freestyler/files/Draft%20-%20Sportsground%20Allocation%20Procedure.pdf

Governance is at an all time low in this council as we’ve repeatedly stated. This is just another example of why drastic change is required.

AJAX allocation battle resurfaces

March 4, 2013

IN a major blow for the AJAX Football Club and the local Jewish community, Glen Eira City Council has denied the club from relocating to Princes Park, instead granting access to Old Haileybury’s Thirds and under-19 teams.

AJAX president Ian Fayman expressed his disappointment at the decision, pointing out that even though the club plays in a different municipality to the juniors, it deserves the right to function as one club at the same home ground.

“The argument is that the seniors and juniors are different clubs,” Fayman told The AJN.

“But they have the same jumper, the same sponsors and the same logo, and the community sees them as one club.”

Fayman accepted that the re-allocated club must be from within Glen Eira, but questioned why the opportunity to join the juniors and seniors was overlooked.

“If an allocation has to be from within the Glen Eira municipality, why is it not AJAX?” Fayman asked.

“It’s the most obvious decision that the junior club should have its senior teams at the same home ground to make a strong pathway, which is a policy of AFL Victoria, and so that the local community can follow.”

In response, council spokesman Paul Burke said that the main reason AJAX was overlooked is because it is based in the Port Phillip municipality.

“As the AJAX [senior] Football Club is not a tenant in Glen Eira, council did not contact them in relation to the coming football ­season, just as council did not contact other clubs that are tenanted outside of Glen Eira,” Burke told The AJN.

“[And] to ensure that sports fields can sustain the wear and tear from match play and training, existing tenant clubs are sometimes required to use grounds other than their home grounds for either training or matches.”

The other major disappointment for Fayman and the club is that no public expression of interest was undertaken, which he said the council committed to in a previous letter to an AJAX representative.

“The question is, why a public and very transparent process was not implemented,” Fayman said.

“It cannot be accepted that a decision has been made without a public process.”

He also noted the success of last year’s community day, which attracted around 1500 people,  as an indication of public support.

“The key example is the community day, where the local community wanted AJAX to be there,” Fayman said.

“We have 72 per cent of our members as voters in Glen Eira, and where do Haileybury’s members reside? Yes they are an internal club in Glen Eira, but their school is based in Mentone.”

PS: And here’s the Leader take on the story –

Ajax Football Club denied the chance to reunite juniors and seniors at Caulfield

  • Andrea Kellett
  • March 05, 2013 12:00AM
Ian Fayman and Eugene Routman .

President of the AJAX Senior Football Club,  Ian Fayman with player, Eugene Routman. Picture: Paul Loughnan, Leader

AJAX Football Club is furious its seniors have been denied a move to Princes Park in Caulfield.

The club says it was trying to unite its junior and senior players in Caulfield but Glen Eira Council has overlooked it in preference for another amateur club’s third team.

The council has given the Saturday tenancy to Old Haileyburians Amateur Football Club.

AJAX Senior Football Club president Ian Fayman wants the council to review its decision, hold a public forum and consider shared tenancy at Princes Park.

“AJAX juniors and seniors have the same logo, the same jumper, the same ethos, the same community base,” he said.

“Speak to anyone in Glen Eira and ask is it one club or two and everyone would say, ‘Of course it’s one club’.”

AJAX juniors have trained and played at Princes Park for two decades, while the seniors train and play outside the municipality, in Albert Park.

The club has long wanted to have its senior in the Caulfield area.

Glen Eira Council does not consider the seniors an “existing” tenant.

AJAX controversially offered another club, the Caulfield Bears, $175,000 last year to leave Princes Park so it could play there. The money was never paid.

The council’s community relations director Paul Burke said the council proritised the needs of Glen Eira clubs first.

“AJAX Senior Football Club is not an existing winter tenant in Glen Eira and has never been a tenant in Glen Eira,” he said.

In a letter to Glen Eira Council, Mr Fayman said the council had reneged on a promise AJAX would be consulted about the new ground allocation.

“The AJAX Junior Football Club, which is the current existing tenant on Sunday of Princes Park, was not given any opportunity to make an application for Saturday ground allocation,” he wrote.

“We believe AJAX FC is the local community football club that represents the local community interests and should have at the very least been given the opportunity to make a formal application to have its senior teams play from the same home ground.”

Mr Burke said the council had not called for “new” tenants.

“Council is not offering a new tenancy.

“We are accommodating the requirements and needs of existing tenants,” Mr Burke said.

AJAX Junior Football Club president Daniel Antman said as long as the council considered the seniors an outside club the dream could never be achieved.

“AJAX is one of the few clubs in the region that has a senior club based outside the region, for reasons beyond our control and desire,” he said.

Old Haileyburians Amateur Football Club did not wish to comment.

COMMENT: ‘New tenants’ is an interesting phrase to say the least! The Old Haileyburians are fielding an entire ‘new’ team – the thirds! The game of semantics is alive and well in Glen Eira! See: http://www.sportingpulse.com/club_info.cgi?client=1-3232-36895-0-0&sID=61506&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=22252086

 

March 4, 2013

When Will The Bullshit End? – #2

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[15] Comments 

Only 2% of planning applications come to the full council for decision. Hence, 98% of all decisions are made by officers either through the Delegated Planning Committee or under ‘managers’. These committees are held during work hours, and officers have already made recommendations as to accepting or rejecting the proposal. Objectors are given the opportunity to attend, but we suggest that their chances of altering the recommendations at this late stage are basically buckleys and none!

The INDIVIDUAL decisions of the DPC are NOT MADE PUBLIC, except for those which result in an appeal to VCAT and are therefore listed in the regular VCAT Watch as an item on every Council Meeting Agenda. Official figures state that the number of VCAT appeals each year totals approximately 160  – that means that THE DETAILS of about 1000 decisions made by the DPC or ‘managers’ are not made public. Residents therefore have absolutely no idea why these 1000 applications were accepted, or rejected. No minutes are made public (or maybe even kept) and the criteria, decision making processes used to assess each application is also top secret. There is no tabulated, clear or regular reporting on any of these decisions. Other councils report fully every month so that residents know exactly what decisions have been made under the planning delegations. Below is just one example from Kingston which goes on for pages and pages. In Glen Eira this doesn’t happen. The ‘secret society’ of officers keeps everyone, and we believe even councillors, in the dark! If councillors do not even know what applications have come in, nor when DPC meetings will be held, nor are they invited to attend, then all pretense of these councillors actually representing their constituents is a myth!

Pages from Ordinary_Council_Agenda_25022013

At last week’s council meeting a public question on this exact issue was asked. It read:

“Currently there is no public reporting of the results of DPC meetings which do not involve appeals to VCAT. In the interests of transparency and full accountability will councillors ensure that the results of all DPC meetings, including property address, planning proposal, and decision, are included in every Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda and Minutes?”

Here is the council response to the question –

“Your statement is not correct.

Council’s Planning Application Register is publicly available on Council’s website. This Register contains details of all Glen Eira planning applications lodged and the decisions made. This is a complete list and is not specific to any one decision maker.

The Quarterly Services Report for 31 March 2013 will contain information on decisions by Resolution and by the Delegated Planning Committee according to number of dwellings, number of storeys and number of objections.”

COMMENTS:

  • The statement IS CORRECT! Council’s Online Planning Register DOES NOT tell us whether decisions were made by the DPC, COUNCIL, or a ‘manager’. It also does not ‘tabulate’ any results as noted in the Kingston and other councils’ versions. A user must first enter a street name, or suburb, and then hunt through all the resulting ‘hits’. Unless someone is willing to spend hours on scouring every single entry in the database they will not know which properties are, or were up for consideration and they certainly won’t know who made the final decision to accept or reject. The question asked for links between individual planning application decisions with those responsible for making the decision. To therefore say ‘there is a complete list and is not specific to any one decision maker’ is not answering the question but just affirming the current inadequacies of the situation.
  • Again, the Services Report is a useless document that is almost indecipherable and reveals nothing in terms of what the question is asking. We challenge any reader to make sense of the following which is taken directly from the last Services Report. Not only are they illegible, but neither link individual applications to decision makers.

Pages from February05-2013-MINUTESPages from February05-2013-MINUTES-2

  • A ‘new’ version will apparently materialise in March. We do not hold out much hope that this will be any more informative, nor decipherable. Will this link property address and decision makers? Will any information of value actually be forthcoming – or will it be another exercise in sham information provision?
  • Finally, the comment needs to be made that this is the direct result of councillors signing away their oversight roles via the delegations to officers. We reiterate – there is no councillor call in; there is no clear criteria as to when applications will go to full council; no councillor attends DPC meetings; councillors we expect don’t even get a full report on upcoming applications and most importantly THERE IS A TOTAL FAILURE FOR COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. This isn’t surprising. When councillors can’t even open their mouths and insist that public questions are answered appropriately then there is no reason why the ‘bullshit’ of reporting on planning applications should be any different!
 

March 1, 2013

When Will The Bullshit Stop? – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance
[14] Comments 

We have literally had a gut full of the way this council treats its residents in terms of their responses to public questions. Whilst falling legally short of outright lies, each response is deliberately vague, misleading, irrelevant to what was asked, and totally non-informative. Residents have to read between the lines in order to come within cooee of the truth.

What is even more offensive is that 9 councillors sit there in total silence and accept these carefully crafted works of fiction without anyone questioning the content of the responses. That is not what these people were elected to do. They have a legal and moral responsibility to provide sound oversight of council operations. That includes ensuring that everything that goes out in their name is accurate and bona fide. Moreover, it is their responsibility to ensure that what residents were promised over a year ago is delivered. They are also responsible for ensuring that council resolutions are in fact carried out! (more on this in a moment)

In this post we will examine several of the public questions asked at the last council meeting and illustrate why residents should be outraged at the duplicity of the responses and the failure of these councillors to ensure that open and transparent government occurs at Glen Eira.

QUESTION 1 & 2 ON GESAC BASKETBALL COURT ALLOCATIONS

There were 2 different questions demanding answers on what was promised in December 2011 – namely that the GESAC court allocations would be ‘reviewed’ in a year’s time. Pilling on his blogsite had this to say when the decision to award the WARRIORS the contract was made 15 months ago – “This allocation is for twelve months – There needs to be a far better process in place next year to prevent this unfortunate situation occurring again”. (December 15th, 2011) We’re now well past 12 months. Not a murmer from council about reviewing anything or undertaking a new season’s allocation!

Below are the questions and to save space we will only include one of the ‘answers’ SINCE THE SECOND RESPONSE WAS A VERBATIM REPEAT OF THE RESPONSE TO THE FIRST QUESTION MINUS THE FINAL PARAGRAPH REGARDING FEMALE PARTICIPATION. We therefore have the totally farcical situation where two different questions are asked but they each receive an almost IDENTICAL ANSWER!

QUESTION 1 –

“With limited basketball courts available throughout Glen Eira can Council tell ratepayers when the seasonal allocation process, spoken of in the December13, 2011 minutes, will begin for the 3 court GESAC facility. If not why then are girls not given the opportunity to play domestic basketball at GESAC?”

 

QUESTION 2 –

“Can council please inform me of why the twelve month seasonal allocation for the use of GESAC basketball courts is no longer a process being adopted. In the minutes dated 13/12/2011 seasonal allocation is referred to as the on-going process for future allocation. Further to this question , who has made this decision and can an accurate audit be done on the finances of the basketball operation as per the contract originally agreed to with the occupying basketball association.”

 THE ‘RESPONSE’

“As advised at the Council Meeting on 24 July 2012, the indoor courts at GESAC are multi-use. They cater for netball, basketball, indoor soccer, badminton, development programs, all-abilities programs, gym classes and more.

GESAC opened at short notice. The builder advised of Practical Completion on 3 May 2012 and GESAC opened to the public on 7 May 2012.

Most sports played in the indoor stadium are team sports which are played in Seasons. As it was, GESAC opened mid-season. The agreements with sports recognised that full utilisation would arise from the start of the Season after GESAC opened.

The seasonal allocation process for GESAC based sports will be undertaken in a similar manner to the allocation process that is undertaken for other sports with seasonal allocations in Glen Eira.

Girls are given the opportunity to play domestic basketball at GESAC. I have been advised that there are currently 120 girls of various ages in the Warriors Basketball Program. GESAC has more than 10,000 members. A majority of members are female.”

COMMENTS: Sifting through the meaningless verbage of this answer, we find the truth! It is contained in this single sentence –“ The seasonal allocation process for GESAC based sports will be undertaken in a similar manner to the allocation process that is undertaken for other sports with seasonal allocations in Glen Eira.” In other words, the promises made over a year ago will not be acted upon, much less fulfilled. The Warriors will have permanent allocations – unless they fold!  Our questions then become:

  • Who made this decision? When was it made? And why is this not ratified by council?
  • Why is there still no definitive answer as to whether ratepayers are in fact subsidising the current court usage or, whether the current occupiers of the courts are fulfilling the complete terms of their contract?
  • It is entirely disingenuous to compare the GESAC basketball courts and other sporting ground allocations in the same breath. They are NOT IDENTICAL. GESAC allocations represents a formal contract involving the payment of monies on a regular and weekly/monthly basis. Other sporting allocations we believe simply require a ‘permit’ and money is handed over at the start.
  • Much of question 1 and 2 remains unanswered. Not a word about financial audits, and not even one single word about ‘when’ the new allocations for anything will start! And not a single word about who is responsible for deciding that GESAC and a game of ‘organised’ frisbee are identical and will be treated identically!
  • Under what precise piece of legislation are officers granted the right to make such unilateral decisions? Where in the delegations is this signing over of authority documented?
  • Why are councillors so incapable of simply moving a motion that states clearly that GESAC basketball court allocations will be decided by council resolution!
  • And why oh why do these 9 councillors allow such garbage to go out in their name without the semblance of public protest?
 

February 28, 2013

From A Concerned Resident

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance
[24] Comments 

letter

002

 

February 26, 2013

Vale Democracy! All Hail Spin!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
[16] Comments 

Burke read the petition. Lobo spoke first and said that since Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff are ‘mentioned’ in the petition that he ‘believed there is a conflict of interest’ and that these individuals shouldn’t be in the chamber when the petition was being discussed. Hyams responded that since Lobo’s comments ‘didn’t relate to the running of the meeting’ that this wasn’t a point of order. Hyams went on and said that he trusts that ‘the next time you put your hand up for a committee’ or deputy mayor or mayor that he would declare a conflict and leave the meeting.  Delahunty moved to accept the motion and Magee seconded.

DELAHUNTY: short and sweet and basically moved to accept

MAGEE: said nothing

HYAMS: thought that the petition was ‘pathetic’ and didn’t want to ‘set a precedent’ where ‘we’re rehashing council decisions because some people don’t like it’ and that would lead to petitions on all council decisions.Said that the government appointed the 3 councillors ‘who came first in their wards’. Read out the numbers of first preference votes for each of the three councillors that people ‘are happy to have those councillors representing them’ and ’64 people come along and think they are more important’ and this ‘shows at the very least an exaggerated sense of their own importance’. Went on to say that it was ‘very sad’ that people can be ‘so spiteful’ and that he knows what’s ‘behind it’ and the ‘people behind it’ and it doesn’t ‘surprise’ him at all.

LIPSHUTZ: said the petition was ‘ridiculous’ but that ‘when any member of this council’ is appointed that they’re appointed as ‘representatives of council’ and ‘we in fact act on behalf of the community’. Spoke about the Leader article and Magee and ‘what he tried to achieve’ and that was following council policy and he’s (Lipshutz) asked for the same things since ‘2005’. This wasn’t ‘something new’ it was what ‘council has approved’. Council doesn’t want training at the racecourse which is what Magee was advocating and it’s what council wants too. The petition is ‘ridiculous’ and just ‘shows the small minded people’…’we’re councillors and we’re here for the benefit of the community’. People mightn’t like every decision but the choice is ‘vote us out’. Voters had ‘confidence’ about all 9 councillors and even though they’ve got different views on things ‘we are a councillor group as one’ and as trustees they ‘will be there to support the community’

PILLING: said that this is the first time he’s had a petition like this which ‘is really a personal attack’ and ‘defamatory’. Thought that there are time when ‘you should draw a line in the sand’ on ‘what’s fair, what’s reasonable’ and that council needs to have ‘some standards’ so in that context he won’t be supporting the motion.

LOBO: fully understood what Hyams had said and that ‘i’m a councillor as well’…’I didn’t feel too happy when you said there are no grounds’. Mentioned ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of choice’ and the importance of saying what one feels and that’s why he’s been put in this council by Tucker Ward residents

ESAKOFF: wasn’t going to speak and doesn’t want to give this ‘any further oxygen’ since it doesn’t ‘deserve any’. The petition is ‘vexatious’, ‘nasty’. ‘Unfortunately it’s been moved and seconded’ whereas she would have preferred for this to ‘lie on the table’

DELAHUNTY: felt obligated to move the petition since it’s ‘come before us in the proper manner’ but ‘accepts’ that those councillors named may find it ‘vexatious’. Lipshutz made a good point about acknowledging the work of Magee in that ‘he certainly brought matters to the fore’ and ‘raised the profile of the MRC’ in the community. She hoped that the new trustees would be able to ‘carry on that momentum’ and that the community ‘would like to see a review of the trust structure’

MOTION PUT. IN FAVOUR OF ACCEPTING PETITION – DELAHUNTY, MAGEE, LOBO
AGAINST: Hyams, Esakoff, Lipshutz, Pilling, Sounness, Okotel

 

February 26, 2013

Leader & Petition

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[28] Comments 

crr

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

A petition of 60+ signatures was submitted for tabling at tonight’s council meeting. It reads:

“TO HIS/HER WORSHIP THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS OF THE CITY OF GLEN EIRA IN COUNCIL ASSEMBLED

This petition of certain residents of the City of Glen Eira draws to the attention of the Council the recent nomination of 3 councillors (Crs.Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff) as Trustees to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. We do not believe that these individuals are suitable candidates to adequately represent the interests of the community.

Your petitioners therefore pray that Council writes to the Minister requesting a revision of this decision and the appointment of different councillor representatives. And your petitioners will ever pray.”

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

southwick

Source: http://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/funrun/

PS: AND NOW CRYING POOR!

Melbourne Racing Club struggling to profit from racing activities

  • by: Rod Nicholson
  • From: Herald Sun
  • February 26, 2013 12:00AM
Miracles Of Life

Melbourne Racing Club is owed money from Nathan Tinkler for his sponsorship of the Blue Diamond Stakes. Picture: Wayne Ludbey Source: Sunday Herald Sun

AUSTRALIA’S wealthiest race club will report a record profit at the end of the financial year – but a massive loss for its racing activities.

Melbourne Racing Club, which runs Caulfield, owns Sandown and is in partnership with Victoria’s biggest country club, Mornington, lost $5 million last year and is heading towards a $6 million loss this year from racing.

The purchase of eight profitable hotels with gaming facilities, on top of its two massive enterprises at Caulfield and Sandown, will provide the record profit.

The club has spent millions of dollars kick-starting a new precinct, branded Caulfield Village, which will have 340 residential units, a supermarket, specialty shops, professional services, restaurants and cafes.

It has already been paid a sizeable sum this year, boosting its profits, and anticipates massive financial rewards when the precinct is completed in 2017-18. But the club is so concerned with its racing activities, treasurer Brodie Arnhold has taken on the full-time responsibility of investigating every department in a bid to curtail costs.

The money woes have been compounded by the lack of payment of sponsorship by mining magnate Nathan

Tinkler for his Patinack Farm’s naming rights to Saturday’s Group 1 Blue Diamond Stakes.

He is yet to pay what club chairman Mike Symons describes as “significant and substantial money”.

Tinkler, now having finished the last year of a three-year deal, was not bound to pay until after Saturday’s event.

The club is already talking to prospective new sponsors but remains hopeful Tinkler will honour his agreement.

Symons said the club had three areas of operation.

“The investment in gaming and other activities is highly profitable, and we have received money from our investment in the Caulfield Village,” he said.

“We will deliver a record profit for 2013, but the costs of our racing are getting out of control and we need to make that side of the business as efficient as possible without sacrificing our service to patrons.”

The club recently spent spent millions upgrading the Caulfield racetrack.

It also spent millions merging with Mornington Racing Club.

 

February 23, 2013

The Stench Is Getting Worse!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance
[16] Comments 

Hansard of August 15th 2012 (Legislative Council) records MP Pennicuik reading parts of a letter that Cr Magee wrote to the Premier in regards to the countless governance issues that surround the role and function of the MRC Trustees  . The letter was dated the 26th July and requested a response from the Premier. To the best of our knowledge, no response has been forthcoming. The full letter (minus address details) is presented below:

“Dear Mr Baillieu

Re: CAULFIELD RACECOURSE RESERVE

I am writing to bring to your attention concerns about the governance of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and the responsible financial management of some $2 billion dollars’ worth of public land.

Earlier this year, I was elected Chairman of Trustees.

  1. Composition of the Trust

The Trustees are appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister for Crown Lands, the Hon Ryan Smith. The Trust is comprised of six nominees of the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC), three Councillors of the City of Glen Eira and six nominees of the Minister.

Those arrangements appear to date back more than a hundred years.

The MRC being the tenant and comprising 6/15ths of the Trustees seems to institutionalise actual or perceived conflicts of interest which do not seem consistent with contemporary standards of governance.  One option would be to reconstitute the Trust as independent of all interested parties.

  1. Non-adherence to Government Guidelines

The Department of Sustainability and Environment publishes “Committee of Management Responsibilities and Good Practice Guidelines” (Guidelines). The Trustees received a copy of the Guidelines and advice from the Office of the Victorian Government Solicitor Anthony Leggiero, on the 24th February 2012 that in his opinion,”

“It is clear that members of the general public could reasonably form the view that the Nominated Trustees may experience a conflict between their private obligations’ to the Club and their duties as Trustees, which could influence their decision-making in relation to Reserve tenure issues.”

Guidelines recommend that the Nominated Trustees manage this perceived conflict of interest by:

  1. “Disclosing their potential conflict to the other Trustees:
  2. Recording this disclosure in the meeting minutes: and
  3. Implementing a transparent and accountable process to manage the perceived conflict.”

The Majority of Trustees have decided not to accept the advice or Guidelines.

  1. Responsible Financial Management

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is Crown Land with a commercial value of approximately $2 billion.  The land is used for a range of purposes including racing, racing related, recreational and commercial.  At present the commercial users pay their rents to the MRC and not to the Trustees. The Trust has virtually no income with which to discharge its responsibilities.

The Trustees are currently dealing with the appropriate leasing of the Reserve or parts of the Reserve for different purposes and tenures.

The governance arrangements referred to above and the non-adherence to the Government’s Guidelines raise urgent issues concerning decision-making on these very important leases.

  1. Tenure of Trustees

While Government and MRC-nominated Trustees retain their appointments for long periods of time, Trustees nominated by the Council are regarded as losing their eligibility at the end of each Council Term and, if re-elected it takes many months for them to be reappointed.  That is likely to happen again when the Council Term expires on 27 October 2012.  The Victorian Government Solicitor advises that the leases are likely to be finalised in the period immediately after this and the Council may be unrepresented in that process.

  1. Parliamentary scrutiny

These arrangements were the subject of an all-party Report by the Select Committee on Public Land Development in 2008, chaired by Hon David Davis MLC.  The unanimous Report was critical of these arrangements and called for reforms.  No response was made to that Report at the time and it would be appropriate for those concerns to be addressed urgently.

For all these reasons I would appreciate it if the Government would give urgent and serious attention to ensuring that the Crown Land is subject to appropriate governance arrangements and that the process for establishing leases over this land meets all government requirements.

Yours sincerely

Cr Jim Magee

Chairman

For and on behalf of the Trustees

Of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve

Copy

Mr Des Pearson, Auditor General

Mr George Brouwer, Ombudsman

 

February 22, 2013

Laying The Foundations For Calcutta!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning
[14] Comments 

Whether pure coincidence given the recent announcement of the new councillor MRC trustees, or simply superb timing, the groundwork for the MRC is being rapidly put in place. Tuesday night’s council meeting features Item 9.3 – subdividing the land that will basically consist of the C60 into 9 lots.

The Officer’s Report tells us:

  • No public notice is required for this subdivision
  • “This application is a separate planning application from Amendment C60. There is no development proposed under this application. The intention behind this application is to tidy up the several land titles. Separate planning approval is required in the form of a “Development Plan”. This process will include a 28 day community consultation period. To date, no development plan has been submitted.”

The information accompanying the recommendation is barely half a page! Residents, thanks to the gang and the Racecourse Special Committee, are stuck with the ‘Incorporated Plan’ prepared by the MRC. We are still no closer to knowing whether the ultimate ‘Development Plan’ will consist of 20 storeys, 23 storeys, 1200 units, 1500 units, etc. The ‘incorporated plan’ that was included with the C60 Amendment is short on detail, and big on euphemisms, spin, and vagueness. We remind readers of some of these statements:

The scale of buildings in the Mixed Use Precinct can be described as ‘urban’ in character, emphasizing the vertical aspect of the buildings. Retail, residential and commercial uses and off street parking will be accommodated whilst maintaining an appropriate scale and activation of street frontages

Passive design strategies that take advantage of unassisted cross-flow ventilation and building orientation to manage thermal comfort are encouraged, particularly in residential buildings.

The street edge on the western side of The Boulevard will have transitional periods of sunshine during the day in winter and street activation such as outdoor dining is encouraged.

The Smith Street Precinct is capable in urban design terms of the highest level of development. The Smith Street Precinct will be a ‘bookend’ to the higher buildings located to the north of the railway line.

The scale of buildings in the Smith Street Precinct can be described as ‘urban’ in character and scale. As such the building envelopes, setbacks and height must encourage the creation of good urban form

But there’s even more important things to consider now that things are up and running. This Council has literally dropped the ball on so many development issues that it is frightening. There is no vision, no views on the future, and no proactive involvement by the community and councillors. Everything has been left in the hands of developers and council remains the compliant hand-maiden.

We urge readers to check out this website. http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/index.php/featured/infrastructure-australia-update/ia-appendix. This is the blueprint for the future. At least half of the projects outlined here will have a direct and detrimental impact on all the residents of Glen Eira. Yet, where is the council view? Where is the vision? And where is the consultation and planning with the community? Yes, this is all in the future, but it is essential that planning takes place now.

We point out again that in stark contrast to other councils, Glen Eira has:

  • Dropped its Development Contributions Levy – so what will the MRC ‘contribute’ to the public purse on this project? Readers should check out this document from Stonnington and how they go about a major project. Every single cent that is to be levied is depicted, explained and justified. Nothing like this has ever existed in Glen Eira – or at least it’s not made public.
  • When will the MRC hand over the Open Space Contributions for the C60? Why isn’t there one single word about this in the officer’s report? As a ‘major development’ other councils attract an 8% levy. According to the C60 Glen Eira was bought off with a mere 5%. Why?
  • Why can the Moonee Valley Raceclub submit a Master Plan for the Principal Activity Centre and that Council fight tooth and nail to protect residents, even taking on the Minister. See: http://mvcc.vic.gov.au/planning-and-building/major-developments/proposed-major-developments/draft-master-plan-and-rezoning-proposal-from-moonee-valley-racecourse.aspx
  • Why do they see fit to have residents as participants in all working parties and Glen Eira does it all via 4 specially selected and obedient councillors?

The farce of the entire Glen Eira approach to development is exemplified by one item from the current VCAT Watch. It concerns what was initially an application for a 14 storey development in Glen Huntly Rd that readers will likely remember. Newton at the time declared a conflict of interest because he lived close by. Council resolution was permission for 7 storeys. Naturally the developer went to VCAT, got his ten and then put in amended plans for 11 storeys! THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE DPC!!!!!!! So we have the ludicrous situation that councillors vote for 7, and it ends up as 11 on the vote by employees! And Hyams still has the gall to argue against height limits!

The writing is definitely on the wall. Unless there are drastic changes within Glen Eira such as structure plans, height limits, an open space levy that applies across all districts in Glen Eira, and a real interest in the Public Realm, then this municipality is ripe for the picking and will definitely become the new Calcutta!

PS: Off topic, but we thought readers would be interested in the photo below –

crr

PPS!!!!!!

racecourse

 

February 20, 2013

News Flash: The Gang As Trustees

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance
[29] Comments 

The Minister has announced that the new councillor trustee representatives on the Caulfield Racecourse are non other than our infamous gang – Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff. What a surprise, eh? And what does this bode for the community voice? Zilch we suggest!

At the very least we can say that what is required is a full Royal Commission into the wheeling and dealing that has been going on for the past century and the unsavoury role of vested interests, politicians, administrators and councillors.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »