February 15, 2012
Application Number
Date Received – 16/11/2011
Site Location 31 Station Street CAULFIELD EAST VIC 3145
Overriding Site Location Land to the rear of Heywood Street and Normanby Road
Proposal (i) To vest Reserve No 1 on LP2446, shown as Lot 1 in PS700473C, in the Glen Eira City Council (ii) To remove the Reserve status from Reserve No 1 on LP2446 shown as Lot 1 in PS700473C
Status Advertising Period Commenced
Planning Officer – Michelle Yu
February 14, 2012
The minutes of last week’s council meeting, record the following public question and ‘response’ on the Grill’d episode.
“I am asking the question of every councillor and would like to know from each of you individually if you were aware that public seating had been removed before you decided on this lease of public land on Jersey Parade at the last council meeting.”
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said: “Your question suggests that public seating in the licence area, that was freehold land and not part of the road reserve, was removed prior to Council considering the matter in the in-camera part of the 13 December 2011 Council Meeting. This is not correct. No public seating had been or has been removed from the area that was under consideration.
To ensure that you are properly informed Council is able to advise you that following on from a Town Planning application in 2011 relating to 86 Koornang Road, for which no objections were received, a footpath trading application was submitted by the applicant that led to a number of old public seats being removed from in front of the address. Newer higher quality public seating has been installed slightly north of the former location that enjoy the amenity provided by the nearby trees. The relocation was carried out under the supervision of a highly qualified Urban Designer.”
COMMENT: This response is both disingenuous and revealing. We assume that the questioner was simply asking whether councillors knew beforehand that public seating had been removed when they made their decision on the lease for Grill’d. The response is technically correct, since the lease was for land in Jersey Parade and not Koornang Rd where Grill’d is situated.
Of greater significance is the admission that the footpath trading application ‘led to a number of old seats being removed’. Hence the application went in and this resulted in the removal of public seating along Koornang Rd. None of this explains why the lease was deemed ‘confidential’, who paid for the removal, and why Grill’d would appear to have been granted some special treatment. For example:
The questions remain –
Finally, we wish to make it absolutely clear that our concerns are with the processes of Council alone and not with Grill’d.
February 13, 2012
Tonight’s community forum on the ‘Community Plan’ was in many respects a pleasant surprise. It was certainly much improved on what occurred several years ago. However, we will withhold judgement until the draft plan is published to see exactly the extent to which council has taken residents’ views to heart. The turnout of residents was excellent with approximately 60 attending.
The chronology of the evening was as follows:
People were invited to sit around 6 tables and were provided with 3 different coloured note pads. They were asked to write down what they considered to be the three main issues or challenges facing the municipality or their neighbourhood. Each priority was to be written down on a separate sheet. These were then pinned up on a wall and collated. Each table assigned one speaker to report back on the priorities. (30 minutes).
The major issues identified were not surprising – Planning, overdevelopment, traffic management, parking, open space, trees, transparency/consultation in council; rubbish collection and street littering; racecourse; high rates.
The rest of the evening involved a ‘visionary’ exercise where people were asked to list things that they would like to see in Glen Eira in 20 years time and what they wanted to see go. Again, the lists were predictable: amenity protection; better uban design and development; open space; crime and safety issues; parking sorted out; better aged care and child care; more open space purchases.
As we’ve previously said, there can be no doubt as to the issues which are causing the greatest angst for residents – the lack of appropriate planning that covers traffic management and open space, as well as good governance. The ball is now firmly in Council’s court. They may have listened, but the question remains – will they act?
February 13, 2012
Tomorrow night will be the first ‘community forum’, ostensibly to seek residents’ input into the so called ‘Community Plan’. Problem is, that Glen Eira does not have a Community Plan. There are no two separate documents! What Glen Eira has is the Council Plan – although it is often conveniently labelled as a Community Plan. “Community” after all, is such a wonderful, heart warming word!
This isn’t a matter of neat semantics, or hair splitting over jargon. It goes to the very heart of what should distinguish a Community Plan from a Council Plan. Here are some definitions –
Banyule – “A Community Plan captures the community’s view of a vision, priorities and actions to enhance the physical, social and economic wellbeing of the local area. A key aspect of community planning is that the process and output is owned by the community”.
BAYSIDE – “The Bayside 2020 Community Plan expresses a vision for Bayside for the next ten years. Based on an extensive and ongoing community engagement process, it sits at the heart of Bayside’s planning framework, providing an essential reference for all of Council’s plans, policies and strategies and an orientation to community engagement, now and into the future”.
There are plenty more definitions but the following diagram from Bayside’s plan illustrates the relationship between the Community and Council Plan. Please note that the former feeds into the Council Plan which then leads on to the Action Plan.
So how does Glen Eira fit into this scenario? Do residents’ vision(s) ever sit at the heart of any policy, framework, or scheme devised and implemented by this council?
In both NSW and Queensland, a Community Plan is mandated by the respective Local Government Acts. In fact the Queensland guidelines state: “The corporate plan is drawn from the community plan…..the objectives, strategies and actions outlined in the corporate plan must be consistent with the vision of the community plan” (p.5) In Victoria, the legislation does not mention Community Plan. Section 125 simply talks about a Council Plan –“ A Council must prepare and approve a Council Plan within the period of 6 months after each general election or by the next 30 June, whichever is later”. This ‘plan’ must include ‘objectives’ and strategies for achieving the objectives as well as a means of monitoring and assessing the overall success of the implementation.
We bring all this to the attention of readers because it is vital that residents understand how Glen Eira is the odd man out when compared with some of our neighbouring councils. If this is really a genuine attempt to pinpoint what the community demands and expects, as well as to gauge their values, which subsequently inform the Council Plan, then many questions require answering:
Obviously, this time around the proof will be in the eating. We sincerely hope that this is not just another expensive and orchestrated charade of ‘consultation’ – that the vision of the community will in the end become the foundation of the Council Plan.
February 11, 2012
As in many other matters, public questions at Glen Eira have steadily become a bureaucratic tour de force. You ask, and pray, that you receive a decent reply. It is no coincidence that the Mayor’s signed letter uses the words ‘council’s response’ since on far too many occasions the ‘response’ is certainly not an ‘answer’! If anything, council’s ‘responses’ often become a game of semantics, evasion, and pure doublespeak.
Glen Eira is also in the minority when it comes to the timing of public questions – at the end of often tedious and excruciatingly boring council meetings, when most of the gallery have left so that there are very few ‘witnesses’ left to the responses and the mumbled and hurried performance by Mr. Burke.
Residents should also note that two public questions taken ‘on notice’ at the December 13th Council Meeting are still to be tabled. That’s two months to receive a reply when residents are told that ‘responses’ will be available within 10 working days and tabled at the next ‘appropriate’ meeting.
By way of contrast, we’ve taken the following from The Mayne Report. Not included are the handful of councils that still have their public question time at the end of meetings. What should be carefully noted are the number of oral and unscripted questions allowed by various councils and that questions may be directed to officers. None of this is permissible in Glen Eira!
Banyule – 15 minutes of oral questions are permitted before the formal commencement of each council meeting with a limit of 3 minutes per resident.
Darebin – unscripted oral public questions are permitted for up to 30 minutes during the formal meeting at the start after councillors have reported back on their activities
Moreland – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say and discuss issues of interest to them
Nillumbik – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say and discuss issues of interest to them
Ballarat – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning of the meeting, which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say
Bayside – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning, which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say and discuss issues of interest to them.
Boroondara – written questions are to be submitted in writing before the meeting, and are addressed at the beginning of the meeting.
Brimbank – The public have the opportunity to raise questions before an Ordinary Council Meeting, which are then answered in the Council Chamber at the beginning before general business. Questions must be submitted on a Council Public Question form
Casey – questions are allowed at the beginning, after confirmation of minutes, but the questioner must be present when the question is read, a maximum of two questions from any one person are allowed at each meeting.
Frankston – A Public Question Time is held at the beginning of each Ordinary Meeting where questions with and without notice are addressed. A maximum of three questions will be permitted per resident per meeting
Greater Bendigo – The public question time is held at the start of the meeting as close as practical to 6:00pm. A maximum of 30 minutes has been provided for registered and unregistered questions
Greater Geelong – Ordinary Council meetings include a Public Question Time segment at the beginning of the meeting, which provides an opportunity for individuals to have their say.
Knox – Council Meeting procedure includes public question time as a standard 3rd item on the Agenda in order to facilitate community participation in the meeting.
Maroondah – question time is the second order of business at every Ordinary Meeting, to enable the general public to submit questions to Councillors or members of Council staff. Up to fifteen minutes will be allowed for the answering of all questions. A person must not submit more than two questions to a Council Meeting and must be present
Melton – Persons present in the Public Gallery will be given the opportunity to present any questions to Council during the meeting at the beginning, before items of business. All questions must be in writing and placed in the facility available in the Council Chamber Foyer by 7 pm on the evening of the meeting. A limit of one question per person per meeting will apply
Moonee Valley – From 6pm to 6.45pm, there is public forum and question time, and covers listed presentations, issues raised by citizens and questions without notice, so therefore it is not listed in the minutes. Formal meeting begins at 7pm.
Stonnington – unscripted public questions are permitted during the formal meeting at the beginning
Yarra Ranges – They can be lodged until 5pm on the day of the Council Meeting. A maximum of 15 minutes each meeting will be allocated to Question Time at the beginning as the last item before business. A limit of one question per person per meeting will apply
February 10, 2012
Caulfield Campus – Concept Design for new Faculty of Law/Business & Economics building
For many years the University has been proposing to develop the western end of the Caulfield campus; indeed over the last 10 years there have been a number of proposals put forward to bring about such a development. The University’s Estates Committee of Council have now endorsed a Caulfield Campus Master Plan available to view at URL, which provides that any development of the western end of the campus should have as a centrepiece a major new academic building.
http://www.monash.edu.au/study/campuses/campus-masterplan-caulfield.pdf
It is presently proposed that such a building should accommodate staff of our Faculty of Law (currently based at Clayton) and Faculty of Business and Economics along with a range of revitalised retail offerings to service the local community and Caulfield campus staff and students.
At this stage this is only a proposal, but the university has endorsed a major fundraising campaign, that if successful could provide a funding base to enable this proposed building to be constructed. To support the fund raising campaign, the Monash Facilities and Services Division will shortly be calling for expressions of interest for architectural design services to produce a concept design for the proposed Law/Business building. This design will be a major support component of the fund raising campaign.
As you would appreciate the University can make no formal commitment or provide a clear time frame to undertake this building project, as, when and if the project moves forward is entirely contingent on the success or otherwise of the fundraising campaign. Therefore, at this stage all we will be seeking to do is to develop the concept design over 2012.
I hope this advice clarifies where we are with respect to this proposed facility, however if you have any questions regarding this concept design project please contact Bradley Williamson, Director, Strategic Planning and Development on bradley.williamson@monash.edu
February 9, 2012
COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS
Penhalluriack’s question, as included in the agenda items, reads: “The tabling of a petition by constituents of this city was not accepted unanimously, but was opposed by certain councillors at the council meeting on the 22nd November 2011. A petition is one of the oldest and most sacred means of expression used by citizens. Tradition dictates that even the King must pay heed to his petitioners. I ask those Councillors on what grounds those (sic) they opposed its presentation to this Council?”
HYAMS: ‘aware that petition was being promoted through a blog’… (that always presents an) ‘unremittingly negative’ (view of council)……(gave example of Leader reporting on Community Satisfaction results and the blog printed this and not the later recant which was only referred to in a comment and this was to support) ‘a ludicrous conspiracy theory’ (about the Leader and Council. Went on to state that if the blog owners ‘have the confidence (about ‘accusations’)…’they would put their names to them….(which says a lot for) ‘their honesty and integrity that they hide behind anonymity…..(Regurgitated the Community Satisfaction Survey where 86% assessed council performance as ‘excellent’ and this ‘speaks volumes for the objectivity….of that blog….there has never been a positive post about Council…..unrepresentative ….of community sentiment…..(Thus the people who signed the petition) ‘were given misinformation in order to procure their signatures’ (and that’s why Hyams won’t accept the petition)…..’Question implies that petition should be received as a matter of course……we have the discretion to choose not to receive them….I chose to exercise this discretion…..Councillors should carefully consider every decision they make (and shouldn’t automatically accept everything).
LIPSHUTZ: ‘I concur with your comments’
ESAKOFF: ‘I also concur with your comments’.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
One question relating to insurance for sporting groups was declared inadmissable due to ‘harassment’. Penhalluriack then rose and asked for an explanation of why the question is regarded as ‘harassment’. Hyams responded that council had ‘received over 130 questions’ in the space of a year ‘on one topic’ after which ‘the Council determined….(harassment and) this is another question along the same lines’ (therefore harassment again)…..
Penhalluriack then made the point that ‘harassment’ is from an individual and not about a subject…’a topic can’t harass’….’and isn’t the question also’ directed to Cr. Lipshutz?
HYAMS: repeated the 130 questions business and said that the intention was to harass council ‘until councillors saw things the way’ (the group wanted them to see it)….’on that basis we decided it was harassment’.
PENHALLURIACK: ‘May I move dissent’.(from the ruling)?
HYAMS: ‘Yes, if you can find somewhere in the Local Law that allows you to do that’
PILLING: wanted to ask a question. Wanted a judgement on a clause in the Local Law
BURKE: basically (mumbled) that the chairperson has authority to rule. Burke then read out the followiing questions which included one to Lipshutz asking whether he would apologise for potentially misleading council via his statements of December 2010.
Lipshutz responded that he hadn’t mislead council so no apology ‘is required’.
Another question asked about the Facebook page published on this website and whether the public would be correct in concluding that there was a conflict of interest.
LIPSHUTZ: ‘never bother to read the blog…..(never) ‘anything positive about the council’….(when reading the blog you have to conclude that council is incompetent)….(reiterated about the Community satisfaction rating and ‘hiding behind anonymity’… (this anonymity would not protect the blog and moderators) ‘from damages claims….’I do not read the blog….(if his son’s name did appear on the blog then he was ‘unaware’ (and did not) ‘authorise’….’you have little knowledge or no knowledge of how Facebook operates’…..
TANG: wanted to ask Lipshutz a question
HYAMS: stated that there was no facility within the Local Law for councillors to question other councillors
BURKE: read out next question which asked whether council had finally validated the signatures for the petition and for the final number of signatories.
HYAMS: Stated that the petition had already been dealt with on November 22nd and that it wasn’t council’s ‘role to validate the signatures’ on the petition.
PENHALLURIACK: that he had a ‘second response’ to the question. ‘I dissent….(referred to council website and the need to submit petitions 2 days prior to council meetings and the purpose would be so) ‘that officers can count and validate the sigatures….I am disappointed that the petitioners…..(weren’t counted since it sets a poor precedent for future petitions) ….‘subject of a petition should be irrelevant to the way it is handled‘…(here the subject matter) ‘has meant that petitioners have been treated with less respect’ …’for my part I apologise for that’.
February 8, 2012
The Planisphere Report recommends that approx 1000 homes in 17 streets and areas are worthy of greater protection. Planisphere also sees as dangers to “neighbourhood character” some of the following:
If these are all “dangers” to neighbourhood character then we submit that the current building stock within most of Glen Eira is susceptible to these exact same “dangers”. In fact, it would be extremely difficult to wander down any street that hasn’t already experienced some of the above. We have instances galore, especially in Minimal Change Areas where: box like structures, some of multiple storeys are acceptable; where trees are not protected; where driveways proliferate at the expense of street trees; where bluestone curbing is ripped out and not replaced.
We urge residents to consider the above dangers and why the current planning scheme, together with the proposed amendment only deems 17 areas as suitable for greater statutary control. We would also welcome contributions about specific streets – ie. do you regard the street you live in as “intact’ and having “significant character”? Let us know which streets YOU WOULD NOMINATE – especially since council does not appear to be interested in allowing residents to name these areas!
It’s also noteworthy that the advertisement for the C87 Amendment appeared in last week’s Leader Newspapers. This week there is no repeat ad. Bad luck if you happened to miss it last week – especially when Council’s home page is also totally silent on the C87. We can only again point to the lengths that other councils go to keep their communities informed and up-to-date. For example the Stonnington home page features these planning issues: Chadstone Planning Scheme Amendment; 590 Orrong Road and Mandatory Planning Controls for Chapel Street. Once again we remind Council that ‘community engagement’ can only happen when the community knows that their views are sought!
February 8, 2012
Item: Financial Report
LIPSHUTZ: “once again a very good performance…..(surplus of $4 million) GESAC….impact on council…short term some slight impact on our (income)…(can be proud of the fact) “that we do spend our money on capital works…trees, drains, paths… …(every month except December has increased in capital works expenditure)…..’improving our drains….improving our infrastructure….(this council) spends money for the benefit of residents….good result….demonstrates once again that Mr. Swabey’s team are handling our finances very admirably….
PILLING: Basically endorsed Lipshutz’s statement and that GESAC (when it’s opened) will be a ‘wonderful facility’…at this stage of the cycle things are tight…but with good management….healthier prospect…’
PENHALLURIACK: ‘I am concerned…..(with statement that we’re in a healthy state of affairs when the Auditor General labelled this council as) high risk….for a reason….a high risk council is a high risk council…(Spoke about council’s deposits of which) 73% are (in funds which have been downgraded from triple AAA to double AA and )that concerns me because this council has always had a sound financial footing….(referred to page 9 of the report on cash flow and that the Auditor General thought that this was) important enough to downgrade council……GESAC is a problem and I don’t want to say I told you so….has a very unusual effect on our books because ($25 million dollar borrowings) and we negotiated that loan prior to 2 rate reductions (hence paying more without) any income from GESAC….even when we (get income)…it still won’t be paying back the interest….(plus) costs of running GESAC…..it’s going to have Mr Lipshutz some impact
LIPSHUTZ: interrupted with ‘Cr. Lipshutz’
PENHALLURIACK: Cr. Lipshutz beg your pardon……I think we need to look very closely at this…(spoke about increasing rates to 9% and said that in NSW they’d brought down legislation to fix rates at 3.6%) that should be a maximum for us as well….we need to look at this without our rose coloured glasses on…..see what we can do to rationalise….(we do have a) serious financial situation….and need to face up to it….
TANG: Didn’t want to comment on the report itself but just ‘the things that have been raised in relation to the report…..(said that in raising the Auditor General’s report Penhalluriack made some) ‘false connections’…’I don’t think anything is a surprise…..councillors….(would have liked) GESAC to be open in December….the fact that we’re going into 25 million dollars debt…the fact that it will have an impact on our liquidity….reserves….we won’t be delaying (capital works)….have to forego other (unplanned projects)…none of this is a surprise….(Penhalluriack made these arguments when he voted against going into GESAC)….’we knew we would be here’…’we knew that we expected that the community would pay….none of this is a surprise….(Auditor general didn’t make any connection between income. Council is high risk because) we preplanned for ….we would go into debt….for a fixed period of time. Asked Penhalluriack – ‘Are you aware of how many (criteria the auditor general used to assess council and) which factors influenced the Auditor General’s decision?’…..
PENHALLURIACK: ‘I’m not an accountant….(but respects the Auditor General’s) judgement…
TANG: ‘I think we see eye to eye on that….(did auditor general make his decision on anything) other than liquidity management which council knew was going to be an issue?
PENHALLURIACK: I don’t know the answer to that question…I would be very disappointed if that was simply the only reason
LIPSHUTZ: Asked Swabey to explain the ‘issue of council’s current status…’
SWABEY: Said there were about ‘5 or 6 ratios’….in four or five council exceeded….ratio requirements….liquidity we fell slightly under 1…the prescriptive nature of the auditor General’s assessment …..(due to current ratio)…(council runs down its funds around June or July) ‘at that point we were slightly under our current liabilities….at no stage….any problems….(always pay creditors)…..Spoke about the Strategic Resource plan and that debt repayments haven’t been delayed; interest is fixed;)…yes we do have forecast which says we will still have close to 1 liquidity ratio….we don’t expect this to be the case as of 30th June 2012….low liquidity ratio for a number of years….we expected that….high capital program…..
Hyams then asked about the consequences of being rated high risk
Swabey responded that council now has to report every 6 months on council position. Also said that liquidity ratio ‘changes from month to month’
LIPSHUTZ: Didn’t like Penhalluriack’s ‘scaremongering’….(knew what we were) ‘getting into….when GESAC is up and running and we’ve got 3000, 4000 members….I told you so…(Spoke about the past and the two pools and that the Northern memorial pool was) ‘a drain on council….unsustainable….we owe it to the community to have something that is worthwhile….state of the art pool that we knew would impose (some problems on community)….but also knew….short term pain for long term gain….this council is looked at as ….one of the best managed councils…clearly there is nothing to fear….sound….
MOTION PUT: Carried – Penhalluriack voted against.
The rest of the meeting will be reported on in the coming days.
February 7, 2012
We’ve repeatedly contrasted Glen Eira’s approach to development applications with those of other neighbouring councils. To jog people’s memory, here are some facts on council’s performance:
When compared to the actions taken by Stonnington and Boroondara in recent times the failures of Glen Eira literally stick out like sore thumbs. We invite readers to compare and contrast.
126 Apartments Axed
Progress Leader – Holly McKay – 7th February
Plans for a 10-storey development in a suburban Hawthorn East street have been rejected. Boroondara Council refused the application, which included 126 apartments, a 65-seat café and two offices in Montrose St.
More than 110 objections were received, with worries that included parking, overshadowing, traffic congestion and overdevelopment.
Montrose Place resident Chris Chan said he was not anti-development, but proposals needed to be “appropriate”. “developers need to take the surrounding environment into consideration,” Mr Chan said. “A 10-storey building next to a five-storey one is not appropriate.”
Hawthors East resident Liang Tang said she was please dthe council had made a “sensible decision. “This has given them a chance to think about what is an appropriate development,” Ms Tang said. “I also think future processes should involve public consultation.”
Boroondara councillor Jack Wegman put forward the notice of refusal on the grounds it would have an “unreasonable impact” on the amenity of the area.
Developers Ration Consultants Pty Ltd did not return Leader’s calls before deadline.
Chaos over control
Stonnington Leader – Greg Gliddon & Nicole Cridland – 7th February
City needs minister to step in over plans
STONNINGTON Council is pressuring Planning Minister Matthew Guy to respond to a request for interim planning controls over the contentious plans for 590 Orrong Rd in Armadale.
The council was unanimous in rejecting plans for buildings up to 13 storeys and 475 dwellings last week. But Mayor John Chandler said current planning controls could allow the developer, Lend Lease, power to change its application before an expected appeal at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. VCAT can only use the planning scheme that exists at the time of the hearing to make a decision.
Cr Chandler said the council had made two requests to the minister, which had yet to be dealt with. ‘‘At this stage we are assessing the planning application under the existing planning rules, which are pretty open,’’ Cr Chandler said. ‘‘I asked the minister if he could deal with these requests and he asked when council had made them. ‘‘I suspect the (planning) department hasn’t put them before the minister as I’m not sure he was aware that we were waiting on these decisions. The minister told me he would deal with the interim controls last week.’’
Spokesman for Mr Guy, Nicholas Mcgowan, said the requests required close consideration because they conflicted with the existing local planning policy that the project had been assessed against. ‘‘The minister is looking at it with a view to making a position known in the very near future,’’ he said.
Lend Lease Apartments general manager Ben Coughlan said the decision did not recognise major redesign of the original plans — which were knocked back by the council in December 2010 — responding to community concerns about shadows, height, density, traffic and open space. ‘‘We will now consider council’s position before making a decision on next steps,’’ Mr Coughlan said.
PS: From the Moonee Valley Leader – 7th February – Linh Ly
MOONEE Valley Council has asked for more information before it makes a full assessment on the proposed Moonee Valley Racecourse master plan. The council has met the Moonee Valley Racing Club to discuss its development proposal. The proposal includes plans for 2000 new dwellings and buildings of up to 25 storeys.
Council chief executive Neville Smith said the proposal was missing a sufficient amount of detail to justify a development of such size. The council is seeking more detail on a range of areas, including population size, traffic and parking, housing mix, running of events, open space and the impact on existing facilities, businesses and residents.
The club will need to provide more information before the council will consider seeking permission from Planning Minister Matthew Guy to start community consultation. Racing club chief executive Michael Browell said the club would review the council assessment and consultant reports but it ‘‘in no way constitutes a final decision on the master plan’’.
The club is expected to meet the council again in two weeks.
The council also met residents from Save Moonee Ponds to discuss the development plans.
The full assessment and consultant reports are available online today at mvcc. vic. gov. au/ race course”.
Finally, we’ve had a quick scan of the Moonee Valley Council’s response to the development plan for the racecourse. It’s uploaded here. Again, the Council’s response – ie demand for detail; criticisms; and holistic appraisal, puts Glen Eira’s responses to the MRC/C60 plan to shame. We again suggest that all residents take a close look at this report and just consider the question of whether Glen Eira Council is really doing all it can to support and protect residents and their local amenities? Also worthy of note is the extensive external expertise that the Moonee Valley Council used.
Glen Eira Debates 