April 13, 2011

Where Will The Cars Go?

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

Speculation is rapidly rising that the ‘gang of four’ will pass the C60 in the very near future. They will do this without solving the major problem of where will the cars go? If this in fact eventuates then not only will mayhem follow in terms of traffic congestion, but it will represent the total failure of this council to deal with its legal obligations – namely to ensure the social, environmental and economic liveability of the municipality.

Major questions remain unanswered and unsolved:

  • What happens on race/event days? Where will these cars go if not in the centre of the racecourse?
  • Why is the C60 being decided before the Centre of the Racecourse issue? We have not been provided with any feasible ‘excuse’ for this decision.
  • Why will most of the traffic be diverted through Kambrook Rd? On what ‘best practice’ planning and traffic management principles has this decision been made?

What is even more galling about the impending decision is that these four councillors, after having listened to the articulate, knowledgeable and reasoned arguments of residents, and heard first hand the angst that is out there, are about to once again thumb their noses at the community and their wishes. It’s incredibly ironic that this also happens to be the week that the so called ‘Engagement Strategy’ has been released for comment. Once again, residents have clear evidence as to how this council operates and the direct collusion of Lipshutz, Hyams, Pilling and Esakoff in ensuring that their masters’ wishes are carried out. Whereas other councils fight tooth and nail to ensure the amenity of their municipality, this council does not lift a finger to support residents, much less acknowledge the validity of their claims.

Residents need to ensure that their memories of this upcoming debacle persist well into 2012 when their disgust will be expressed via the ballot box.

 

April 12, 2011

The Games That Newton Plays!

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[9] Comments 

 

April 12, 2011

Letter to the Editor

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

The MRC is bluffing

 IT has been rumoured that if Glen Eira Council does not strike a deal with the Melbourne Racing Club over C60 that the MRC will walk away from the situation and sell its land to a developer.

The MRC is probably bluffing anyway, to try to pressure the council. If a professional developer came in, they would be required to build a proper residential precinct with proper observance of residential regulations regarding amenity, parking and traffic – something the MRC has tried repeatedly to flout.

As for relocation of current parking for races and events from the C60 site, whoever develops this area will provide parking only for the actual development , not for the MRC’s activities.

 

April 11, 2011

Monash Uni Master Plan

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[6] Comments 
This message was approved for distribution by the Office of the Campus Manager 
for and on behalf of Facilities and Services.
************************************************************************************************
 
The Caulfield campus masterplan can be accessed at http://masterplan.fsd.monash.edu.au/news
Staff are encouraged to attend the following drop-in session to find out more about the master planning process:

Caulfield campus – Wednesday 13 April from 12 – 2pm in Room H1-16.

If you are unable to attend this session, there are other ways you can continue to be involved:  

  • Register your interest on the website to be informed of the project’s development.

For any enquiries regarding master planning please feel free to contact Poul Tvermoes, Manager, Urban Design, from the Facilities and Services Division on poul.tvermoes@monash.edu or 51600. 

 

April 9, 2011

How Good is Newton’s ‘Alibi’?: Part 2

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[8] Comments 

Newton’s response to Penhalluriack’s questions about the timely and/or adequate handling of the ‘mulch affair’, relies heavily on:

  1. Communication with the Victorian Department of Health, and
  2. Implementation of consultant’s recommendations 

Department of Health 

Penhalluriack’s first question was: “On what investigatory grounds did Council twice deny that there was any danger to the community’s health……”.  Newton responded with: ‘The advice was from the Victorian Department of Health’. We go on to learn that this ‘advice’ derives from Mr. Adcock from the Legionella section of the Department.  Of interest is the fact that  Penhalluriack is not restricting his question exclusively to legionella here, but any potential ‘danger’. Further, when arguing against the closure of the mulch depot at Tuesday night’s council meeting, Lipshutz claimed that council had received a Department of Health ‘report’. So what was it? ‘Advice’, or an official ‘report’? The difference is immense.  ‘Advice’ could simply mean a note, a letter, a conversation? It could perhaps even be in response to carefully crafted questions that were forwarded to the Department? Or such ‘advice’ might also be the result of a phone call from one bureaucrat to another – possibly an old mate from the past? 

What we do know is that Newton is meticulous in his use of language. We also know that selective editing, as evidenced in the first version of the agenda items with the deletion of telling and graphic photographs, is also a possibility. A little research reveals that Mr. Adcock is not a medico or researcher, but rather a bureaucrat charged with overseeing the legislation. His section deals exclusively with legionella and the link to water cooling systems. There is nothing on the section’s webpage that mentions anything else apart from cooling towers and other systems of that ilk. So did Newton, or his officers, subsequently ask about ALL POTENTIAL DANGERS, or did he restrict his queries (and answers) to legionella alone – even after Penhalluriack broadened his concerns to other pathogens? Unfortunately, we do not know what was asked, and neither do we have the complete ‘advice/report’. All we have are a couple of sentences without the necessary surrounding context. 

Penhalluriack also queries why it has taken a ‘third warning’ before ‘expert opinion’ is sought. Newton simply responds with ‘It is difficult to imagine a more expert source?” (ie. The Health Department). Yet, we’ve already been told that the ‘advice’ from the Department was restricted to legionella alone. Penhalluriack’s broader concern is thus ignored. 

But that’s not the end of the story. We also have the following inconsistency. Adcock, as a representative of the Department of Health, has basically ruled out the possibility of contracting legionella from woodchip/mulch. So how come that the Department of Health can publish the following?

Legionellae are ubiquitous in the environment. They are often isolated from water and wet areas in the natural environment such as creeks, hot springs, seawater, woodchips, mulch and soil. Potting mix is often colonised with Legionella species….” http://www.health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/19902/bluebook.pdf 

Curioser and curioser! How can we, on the one hand be told by a Department of Health official that ‘there is no evidence’ for the link between legionella and wood chips, yet the same Department finds it necessary to issue the above warning? We urge readers to simply do a Google search on these terms to locate literally hundreds and hundreds of scientific articles from reputable organisations and researchers, as well as government publications that highlight the potential link between legionella and mulch – not to mention the countless other conditions that are linked to woodchips and/or mulch. 

What really caught our eye however, was this directive from a Western Australian council dating from 2007 that ordered its staff to wear protective masks, etc. We’ve uploaded this document and urge readers to note the precautions that this one council can take 4 years ago – and not necessarily in relation to legionella, but to other ‘dangers’. 

Implementation of consultant’s recommendations 

Newton states:  “Of the six recommendations, five have been implemented and one is in the process of being implemented. None has been “ignored”. 

Please note the use of language – ‘implemented’ is very definitely past tense, implying completion, gone, dusted, finished. Yet, when we come to the specific actions regarding these recommendations several pages later, we find sentences such as: 

R4. An upgrade to the spray mist unit to allow manual dosing of mulch with water to suppress dust is being designed by engineers.

R5. Fact sheets are being made available on site.

R6. Signage at the site is currently being manufactured by Road Management Solutions Pty Ltd in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report. 

So how many of the recommendations have actually been COMPLETED? Is it 5 as Newton would like to have us believe, or is it merely 2?  The more important issue revolves around time lags. The first draft of the consultant’s report was in Newton’s hand on Feb. 2nd. It went to Audit committee members on Feb. 18th. Newton’s response was in the April 5th Agenda. Hence a time lag of two months! Two months to ‘manufacture’ signs? Two months for adequate ‘fact sheets’ to be made available? Two months for the ‘design’ of dosing equipment? And as Penhalluriack pointed out at Council meeting, the most important words in the ‘temporary’ warnings, somehow omitted to mention the nasty ‘legionella’.

We invite readers to draw their own conclusions as to the role of the audit committee in this ‘mulch affair’ and the validity of Newton’s responses. Do these ‘answers’ reveal a potential ‘cover up’ and the failure of correct risk management? Were residents, and employees unnecessarily exposed to potential health risks?

 

April 8, 2011

Hansard: The Sport of Kings?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

Melbourne Racing Club: chief executive officer 

Ms HENNESSY (Altona) — My question is to the Minister for Racing. I refer the minister to comments made by Mr Alasdair Robertson, CEO of the Melbourne Racing Club, at a government media event yesterday, including sexist and offensive comments he made comparing members of the media to prostitutes and hit men, and I ask: did the minister condemn these comments at the time and does he believe they appropriately promote the image of racing in Victoria? 

Dr NAPTHINE (Minister for Racing) — I thank the honourable member for her question. As members are aware, racing is an important industry in the state of Victoria. It is a multibillion-dollar industry and provides employment for over 70 000 Victorians. Yesterday I was in the grounds of Parliament House promoting what is going to be a significant event for the racing industry this weekend. I was in the company of representatives of the Arab horse group; representatives of Sheikh Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the Deputy Ruler of Dubai and United Arab Emirates Minister for Finance; and representatives of the Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates. We were promoting the inaugural Shadwell Arabian Mile race, on Saturday at Caulfield Racecourse. There was a media event to promote that race, which is an important race because it will be the first time that Arab horses will have raced on Australian racetracks under the Australian rules of racing. It is an important issue. 

At that conference questions were raised with me about not only that event but also other matters to do with racing. Subsequently there were issues raised about some comments made at that event. I can assure the house that I did not hear the comments made at that event. I was not aware of them in any way, shape or form.

Ms Allan interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! The member for Bendigo East!

Dr NAPTHINE — Just take your time.

Honourable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER — Order! The minister was giving a serious answer to a serious question. I ask members of the opposition and members of the government to refrain from interjecting. 

Dr NAPTHINE — I was advised this morning that the Melbourne Racing Club official who made these comments has apologised for what he described as his stupid and inappropriate comments. An article that appeared online at http://www.smh.com.au at 12.43 p.m. on 7 April reports: ‘In the heat of the moment I made a stupid comment and I’ve actually openly apologised for it this morning’, Mr Robertson told radio 3AW. 

Of course I do not agree with those comments. Indeed I believe those comments were totally inappropriate and totally wrong and should be condemned. There is no place for those sorts of comments in racing in Victoria. Anybody who suggests that the racing industry of Victoria is at all sexist is absolutely wrong. People of both genders have served the racing industry well in Victoria and across Australia at all levels, whether as jockeys, as trainers or as officials. Males and females have served the racing industry well.

It was an inappropriate comment for which the person responsible has apologised. I did not hear the comments at the time, and I condemn them, but I say at the same time that this should not distract in any way, shape or form from what will be a great event on Saturday — the Shadwell Arabian Mile. It is the first time we will have Arabian horses racing on a Victorian racetrack. It is absolutely vital and important for the future of this state.

Honourable members interjecting.

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

 The following address highlights again the difference between Glen Eira and other councils. Readers should remember that Lipshutz was against the introduction of an alcohol free zone in Bentleigh, since it would necessitate more staff for the currently already overworked 1000 staff, and in his view, the police were against it! 

City of Kingston: alcohol-free zones  

Mr LIM (Clayton) — I rise to congratulate the City of Kingston for introducing alcohol-free zones. As a progressive city, Kingston has always been at the forefront of introducing and maintaining safety measures to provide a secure environment for its residents to live, shop and socialise. The recent introduction of two alcohol-free zones in Clayton South and Clarinda, in the electorate of Clayton, is testament to the determination of the City of Kingston to improve its family-friendly and kid-friendly culture, as well as its residents’ sense of security. 

There has been a growing trend of binge drinking in general, as well as people drinking outside their local bottle shops. Local businesses and community groups have long supported the establishment of alcohol-free zones to address irresponsible drinking behaviour. Residents and beach users in Kingston have also submitted petitions to the council, calling for the further restriction of alcohol consumption. The City of Kingston’s decision to introduce alcohol-free zones means that consumption of alcohol will be prohibited in designated blocks. Consumption of alcohol will be regulated and controlled in those public places. I have confidence that this policy will play a crucial role in curbing the unhealthy trend of binge drinking and related antisocial behaviour. More importantly, this policy will help make local residents feel more secure and make Kingston a great place to live, work and raise a family.

 

April 7, 2011

Why Bother?

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

Council has posted its minutes for the C60 meeting on Monday night. We’ve uploaded it and ask:

  • Could any set of minutes be any less informative than these?
  • Why was it necessary to name one speaker when they obviously did not wish to be named by refusing to give a surname? What is the motive behind such actions?
  • One motion reads: ‘That the minutes of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee Meeting held on 17 March 2010 be confirmed”. Unless we are terribly mistaken, these minutes have never been put out in the public domain which CONTRAVENES THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT. As a ‘Special Committee’ of Council, both agendas and minutes are to be freely available.  Our questions are: who has seen these ‘minutes’ apart from Committee members? Have other councillors set eyes on these minutes? If not, then again, doesn’t this contravene the motion unanimously passed by council?
  • Secrecy and more secrecy – that’s the only possible conclusion that comes out of this entire farce!

CORRECTION: We have made a mistake. The Special Committee minutes were from 2010 and not 2011. We misread the item. Unlike Council however, we openly admit our errors! Our other criticisms still stand! Why bother to produce minutes when they reveal absolutely nothing of what went on? Yes, these minutes are ‘legal’, but given the wide interest in this issue, the elecorate has every reason to expect a full and extended report of what occurred. As numerous residents said, so very, very little respect for the community!

 

April 7, 2011

Council Meeting: April 5th

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s), GE Planning
[6] Comments 

A petition was handed in regarding parking problems at McKinnon primary school. Burke announced that only part of the submission would be accepted, since the signatures weren’t all on ‘original’ papers as per the guidelines – some had been “attached to the document”. Penhalluriack then requested that all signatures be included since he was of the opinion that this was a technical issue rather than an attempt to ‘forge’ or misrepresent numbers. Esakoff responded that in order to be ‘valid’ each page had to have the identical ‘heading’. Burke explained that council had to ensure there was nothing untoward. Tang then moved a motion that the petition (minus the questionable signatures) be accepted and that ‘council investigate petitioners’ concerns’ and A REPORT BE PREPARED ON THE ISSUE.  This was voted in unanimously. This is the first time in living memory, that petitions have not merely been ‘noted’, only to then disappear into the dustbin of history! Our congratulations to councillors for this one small step forward on the road to democracy and taking charge of matters!

Item 9.1 – 95 Nicholson St. – Rejected application (unanimous)

Esakoff declared 2 conflicts of interest. Magee/Lobo moved motion to reject permit application on grounds of ‘excessive mass’, ‘overdevelopment of site’, ‘excessive scale’, and fails to respond/respect to neighbourhood character, etc. Gallery was informed that this property had been ex Mayor Bob Bury’s residence. Magee lamented the loss of Jacaranda trees from the property and that someone could come along and put up ’22 little boxes’. His language included ‘monstrosity’, ‘decimate’, ‘eyesore’’, ‘height shouldn’t be… (anywhere) that should be in Glen Eira’ (yet 8 storeys were ok for elsewhere, Cr Magee?). A developer friend from elsewhere told Magee that ‘he hates developing in Glen Eira’ because our rules ‘were too strict’!!!

Rest of councillors spoke pretty much in the same vein. Pilling was on the ‘borderline’ because he would ‘like to see more development’. Penhalluriack, Tang, Lipshutz, Hyams also warned residents that this site was ripe for development and that it would occur.

Magee concluded by stating that Elizabeth Miller, MP was also an objector and hence she was ‘really criticising’ her own government’s policy. He challenged her to stand up in Parliament and state this. “I don’t want her to be involved to be popular, I want her to be involved to make a difference’. Also went on to claim that VCAT members who have no idea of the local area, don’t see the site, make decisions for ‘hundreds and hundreds’ of residents. [We wonder if Magee has ever read VCAT judgements and noted that in at least 95% of such judgements, the member DOES VISIT THE SITE and does ‘smell the roses’!!! We suggest that instead of grandstanding, Cr. Magee first establishes his facts!]

Item 9.2 –  Centre Rd. – Application rejected (unanimous)

Hyams – nothing else of this height; too bulky; ‘shows a lack of respect for….neighbourhood character’. Pilling concurred stating ‘it just doesn’t fit there’. Tang also spoke of ‘overdevelopment’, ‘very bulky’, ‘landscaping’ and ‘visual amenity’. Magee wondered what’s in ‘developers’ heads’, they put up boxes and ‘let’s see how we go’. ‘We’re not gonna pass it, just a bloody waste of time’.

VCAT REPORT

Lipshutz skimmed over very quickly the VCAT decision on the 10 storey building on Glen Huntly Rd where the member had basically stated that since council had approved 8 storeys he couldn’t see much difference between that and granting the 10 storeys. Hyams stated that he could tell the difference. Tang also spoke about MP Miller and related it to past practice of Rob Hudson in coming out against council decisions. That ‘we need to see this followed through with action’ through their colleagues. In a direct reference to we presume Glen Eira Debates, Tang then stated that he had read how ‘people’ say that the fault lies with Glen Eira’s planning scheme. However the real fault in his view lies with VCAT because ‘they ignore our policies’. All this ‘indicates a lack of respect for council decisions’. Tang then explained that he was in favour of 7 storeys in Glen Huntly Rd., because this was the height of the existing church spire, so that the 7 storey development would not ‘tower’ over the spire!!! We respectfully suggest, that a tapering spire, is vastly different to a square, massive tower block of equal height!!!!!!!

 

April 6, 2011

Part 3: C60 & Monday’s Meeting

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
[5] Comments 

Please forgive this very long post, but we believe it’s important. Before we present the rest of the speakers’ comments from Monday night we wish to highlight 2 things – part of a recent VCAT decision and a resident’s comments on the whole mess that is C60.

VCAT decision

“The existing character is not how the area will remain if the Council’s policies are successfully implemented. The Scheme directs change to take the form of more intensive buildings and more residents. The site is in the Carnegie Urban Village, a major activity centre, where the highest residential densities are sought….. Mr Marinelli (resident objector) expressed surprise at the policies and said these were unknown to residents. I accept that some residents may not fully appreciate the consequences of the changes to the Scheme that have been through processes of public exhibition but I am nonetheless bound to decide these proceedings based on the provisions of the Scheme as I find them. Lack of knowledge by residents is not a matter that itself causes the proposal to fail but it does influence their expectations for development of the land….. ”.

We’ve cited the above because it goes to the heart of the problems with this Council. One speaker on Monday night accused council of poor ‘communication strategies’. We have witnessed this time and time again – lack of real publicity, lack of consistent and comprehensive information provision, and total lack of real engagement with the community. When this occurs with something as important as planning schemes, then the consequences could be immense for the individuals involved. Would they have bought their property, if they knew and understood the planning scheme? Would they have protested at the time long and hard? etc. etc. Council repeatedly claims it ‘consults’, but does it adequately INFORM? Or does it simply fulfill the meagre legal requirements?

A Resident’s View

In the same vein. we highlight a comment received yesterday from ‘Reprobate’. 

“I have just noticed that my collection of documents re C60 has reached 67MB. So were entrusting 4 individuals to read, digest, absorb, understand, critique and respond to more than the collected wisdom of the Bible, Koran, Torah, Bhaghavad, Mahayana and Book Of The Dead. Fat chance. They need help, and they’re not going to get it from those who have a vested interest in C60 being adopted. Something that emerged from last night’s meeting is that few people could possibly know what C60 *is*, including its proponents, and certainly not Council. Council officers haven’t decided what it is yet. In effect, C60 is the planning equivalent of a blank cheque. “Sign here and trust us”.

C60 removes third party appeal rights from people so that the MRC can implement something that might or might not look like what its suggesting in one of the incarnations of the Incorporated Plan. Even that is only half true. What matters (if it was to be enforced) is the Development Plan, which doesn’t exist. Theoretically the Development Plan should be in “general accordance” with the Incorporated Plan, but that’s up to the responsible authority, which really means Council officers. As for the Incorporated Plan, it too is in a state of flux. The Panel strongly urged (demanded) multiple changes be made, but we don’t know which changes Council will insist upon if they choose to adopt C60. Despite Cr Lipschutz’ insistence that the racecourse itself is outside C60, the Incorporated Plan contains a prominent photo of the racecourse replete with 2000 cars parked in the Public Reserve in the centre. Hmmm.

At the meeting the MRC representative did tell the meeting that the development would meet all its parking needs from within the development, a total of 2000 parking spaces. Maybe. Yet the draft changes to the Planning Scheme that Council has published clearly show a requirement of 0 spaces for retail shops other than a supermarket [PDZ Schedule 2 8.0]. Flood victims denied an insurance payout would be aware that these things matter. What is the building envelope that adoption of C60 would authorize? We don’t know–the public hasn’t seen the final draft of the Incorporated Plan. [I’m assuming this because the Panel wanted lots of changes.]

At the current rate of growth (about 1 storey a month) the focal point of the development will become Australia’s tallest building. One of the myths of planning is that proposals are assessed on their merits. That is so wrong its unfunny. First you decide what you want, then you seek the policy elements that support your decision. That’s what the Panel Report did, and they’re experts at it. There are some tricks to this. Use weasel words. Avoid if possible quantifying anything. Emphasize the policy elements that support your view. Don’t mention the others. If you have to mention them, then downplay, such as “not considered fatal to the proposal” or “can be managed at the Development Plan stage” or “an unreasonable constraint given the circumstances”. Reemphasize “strong policy support”. Ignore residential amenity. Planners ultimately rely on public ignorance, so its in our interests to be better informed than they are.

 Amongst the Objectives contained in the Planning And Evironment Act 1987 is to provide for “the fair…and sustainable use…of land” and “to secure a pleasant…and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians”. It didn’t say “shaft 20% of a municipality so the other 80% can have their amenity fully protected”. That’s an invention of our Council, subsequently ratified by that most odious of public undemocratic institutions, the Planning and Environment List of VCAT. C60 ultimately is what Council wanted, and now its got it.”

Finally, the rest of the comments made on Monday night –

SPEAKER 21 – cars are ‘bumper to bumper’ – ‘have a look’. No discussion of what will take place when construction going on. Lost track on how many times the plans have changed. C60 is about private development only. Quoted planning frameworks and how this development doesn’t fit into any of the major criteria. ‘This is about the applicant wanting to achieve maximum profit’. (loud applause)

SPEAKER 22 – all of the objectives can be met by an ordinary planning permit and need not go through this process. (loud applause)

SPEAKER 23 – not against development and not against strip shopping. You’ve been elected by the community and you’re supposed to represent them. ‘All of us here expect that you represent’ those views. C60 is large development and economic development in the end is between 10 and 20 billion dollars. The impact will be huge and can’t be looked at simple on the immediate surrounding area. The impact will be far greater and wider. C60 hasn’t considered the larger picture – gardens, open space, etc. Application is on basis of private property but function of council is to look at impact on area around it. (loud applause)

SPEAKER 24 – we chose Caulfield because it’s a quiet suburb and a development like this will change it. Trying to get out of Eskdale Rd there’s a long queue. How will trains, trams, schools, rubbish amenities that are required, will be supplied. (loud applause)

SPEAKER 25 – appropriate development is three storeys. Students should have accommodation but if it fills up with all student accommodation then ‘you can say goodbye’ to upmarket shopping strips. Work out how much of crown land has been encroached on by the racecourse and use this amount of land for open space as a park.

SPEAKER 26 – understands Penhalluraick’s conflict of interest. But since Penhalluriack was voted in on this platform then he represents the views of his constituents and ‘if you councillors want to stay in government’ then they should consider his views. (very loud applause). Told Southwick that he should consider a career in gymnastics since he can ‘backflip’ so easily.

LIPSHUTZ ‘I’m not going to permit’ what he termed ‘personal abuse’. A member of the audience then said that it’s important that he outline what he considered to be the ‘personal abuse’. Lipshutz – ‘I’m not going to get into a debate’ – audience – ‘It’s not a debate, it’s a question’ Lipshutz: ‘we as a council have to make a decision and that decision may be a very difficult one’, we want to hear what people have got to say ‘but it’s got to be on track’

SPEAKER 27 – third party rights of appeal and urban design. All rights are for applicant. Cited MRC consultants reports and said that according to this will mean ‘4000 extra people in our backyard’. Scale of development is awful. Cited changes in planning law and what the Liberals had amended since they came to power. Also quote VCAT tribunal member who said that whilst redevelopment is encouraged in activity centres it shouldn’t proceed ‘at all costs’ that neighbourhood character is important. Tribunal has said ‘time and time again that a balanced approach needs to be taken’. Pointed out that where development abuts neighbouring properties that height should be reduced. (loud applause)

SPEAKER 28 – there’s nothing in the report about proper site coverage and in view of the recent floods this is important. Also missing was detail about diversity and ‘styles of accommodation’ since most will be single units. There should be a range of accommodation to suit a diversity of demographics. Public transport needs development and natural wildlife since with development birds, possums are losing their habitat. We need holistic lifestyle that looks at environment or is this separate entirely from the development? Statements that are dubious need to be verified before amendment is passed. And also what’s plan b if found that the statements are incorrect – ie. traffic projections? (loud applause)

SPEAKER 29 – have lived here for years and just seen the traffic increase and increase. I used to be able to play everywhere on the racecourse and now I can’t. Spoke about current ‘use rights’ but now there are many, many more events. MRC is not replacing existing car park not giving extra car parks. (loud applause).

SPEAKER 30 – spoke about the history of the site. ‘I think council is as bamboozled as we are but they won’t admit it’. Everything’s run by the MRC and rich backers. ‘How do we tackle this lack of respect for the public?’ Population growth is because ‘capitalist interests want ever increasing profits’. We can’t rely on council because ‘they are incapable of making the changes we want’. The MRC ‘runs rings around them’ and the State Government denies everything ‘because the State government is owned by the developers’. ‘We’ve got to organise ourselves’. Lipshutz then said that the ‘last speaker’ will be Southwick. Outcry from the audience since there were many people with their hands up still waiting to speak. Lipshutz: ‘we’ve had two hours’!!!!! Relented and speakers continued.

SPEAKER 31 – lived in Glen Eira all my life but never realised that the racecourse was a public park. So went over and found gate after gate locked. Gradually everything is taken over for car parks. Spoke about the similarity with docklands and why that’s a failure and this is a failure. Spoike about the need for residents, council, government mrc to sit down and ‘properly plan’. Lack of consultation all the way through this. Take a step back and ‘get some input’. (loud applause)

SPEAKER 32 – submitted on application. Should conform to every standard that every other application has to conform to and we’re talking about future generations. Environmental performance targets are needed – such as power, water, climate change in ten years time. There’s nothing in the plans about this. Meeting current standards is not good enough. Have to think of the future. (loud applause)

SPEAKER 33 – object strongly. Monash wouldn’t have got permission but it’s federal. So MRC argument that their proposal is less is nonsense. Should try to keep open space so the racecourse is important. Half the year it’s now used for different things. Have to keep what’s happening at Monash in mind. Have a look at what’s happening at the building in the city which are environmentally friendly. The MRC should look at environmental value. Has to be appropriate to our area. (loud applause)

SPEAKER 34 – area abutting is minimal change zone. It’s low density, leafy, green and space on either side. So now there’s a high rise of less than 10 metres away. Witnessed an accident in Eskdale road so safety is also an issue, especially when cars are parked on both sides of the road. Suggested that the plans be put out for tender.

SPEAKER 35: ‘no wonder the MRC is willing to pay for 1 hour parking signs’ when they get all the other parking. This makes it really cheap for them. (loud applause)

SPEAKER 36 – land that was swapped and if that land ‘could be reinstated’ as part of open space parkland. It was out land and now we’ve been given a ‘tiny bit of land’ which is no use to station, racecourse or residents.

SPEAKER 37 – spoke about trains and asked councillors if they had ever caught a train from Caulfield at 7 in the morning. Hard to get on and concerned about the amount of people who would be living in the new development and how trains could then cope with this influx when they can’t cope now. Wondered if any of councillors had spoken with Department of Transport to ensure that there would be more trains. Took Lipshutz to task saying of course ‘people are going to talk about traffic. What do you think they’re going to talk about’? Pointed out that Lipshutz hadn’t attended any of the meetings and that of course traffic would ‘keep coming up’ as an issue. Stated that looking at councillors’ faces today has ‘been a disgrace’ (applause)

SOUTHWICK : stated that many people have made many ‘valid points’ – height, transport, etc. All are important and ‘sure that council will take on board’. Important to have these sorts of these forums because council knows about the specific issues and they should be the ones to see what the specific issues are and to take that into consideration. Minister guy has said he won’t be calling the amendment in. I campaigned on this because with the previous government ‘you would have got everything and more’. We want councils to work things through so that they can take everything into consideration and we ‘need to get what is the best possible outcome for the area”. Council is given a guidelines on what they can and can’t do. Stated that he believes it’s important that crown land on the racecourse ‘is opened up’ and to ‘ensure that there is as much access to the people as possible’. Looking at the C60 again ‘need to ensure that we get the best possible result available’. The past has shown that there’s the MRC and then there’s the community and that there’s been ‘clear separation’. MRC and racing is ‘part of this community’ so important that ‘we all need to work together’, ‘open up dialogue’ and try to get ‘best possible result’ in terms of open space. Said he was sure that council would consider all these issues. ‘I’ll continue to campaign for open space in this area’ (applause)

LIPSHUTZ; stated councillors had all taken notes and that public would be informed of when the matter is to come up in council.

 

April 5, 2011

Scorecard: Penhalluriack One – Newton, Lipshutz, Tang – Zero!

Posted by gleneira under GE Council Meeting(s)
[12] Comments 

Frank Penhalluriack achieved a remarkable victory at council meeting this evening. The mulch heap at Glen Huntly Park will be closed down and removed because of the fear of potential health risks. Penhalluriack’s motion to close the facility was supported by Forge, Pilling, Lobo, Magee, Hyams, Esakoff and opposed by Tang and Lipshutz. The discussion went as follows:

Penhalluriack: Stated that there had been a lot of discussion amongst councillors but ‘on the evidence I have seen and researched this mulch….is a dangerous thing….can though fungi and bacteria…..cause legionella disease’. Penhalluriack said that he recognised that there had not been any deaths reported in the area that could be associated with mulch. ‘Research would indicate that deaths come more from woodchips’ when people get legionella. Stated that council organised ‘through the audit committee’ an extra opinion to look at the issue and their reports said ‘exposure to shredded mulch can carry a risk of exposure to various fungi, yeast and moulds and bacteria, including legionella’. ‘Is it worth anybody dying?’ ‘while the risk may be relatively small the risk is definitely there’. Elderly are especially susceptible ….’The third page….was unfortunately missed from the agenda and has been replaced tonight, but only in the black and white version’. The colour version shows ‘quite clearly what is not shown in the black and white verion’ – ie. the dust cloud that is created by the bulldozer pushing the mulch around. ‘It’s those very fine particles’ which carry the disease according to scientific tests to ‘at least 200 metres’. Within 20 metres of this mulch heap ‘we have a playground’, barbecue and school. ‘It’s not worth the risk. I know this is a great convenience to consumers…but the second photograph’ shows the mulch sitting way outside the container. ‘the recommendation from the expert is that it should not be outside’. There should be warning signs to the public to wear masks and gloves and wash your hands after handling. Said that the notice had been put out, and held up the sheet with the expert’s opinion, then said that he’s highlighted the legionella risk ‘but for some reason on the notice inside….those words have been missed. Those words are the most crucial’. It’s a risk that shouldn’t be taken by Council.

FORGE: outlined her experience as a physiotherapist where she had dealt with many people who had thoracic diseases such as emphysema, asthma, bronchitis ‘which may take up to thirty years to develop’. We shouldn’t subject any man, woman or child to further pollutants in the air given the evidence. ‘We have to take the much bigger picture and not just the possibility of legionaires’…’we have to take this seriously as well’.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘this is scaremongering….there are other ways …it’s true to say that the audit committee obtained a report…the issue here is how far do we go? ‘There are always risks in everything we do….we have a government report which says there is nothing wrong with this…and in fact that it is okay….Penhalluriack has got other data’. The consultant’s report ‘nowhere does it say we should close’ down. That’s not an issue – ‘i don’t want to have any danger to children or adults….we can take things to the nth degree…..’there is no clear indication of danger’…’ knee jerk reaction’….’let’s do testing, let’s see and if that at the end demonstrates that things are incorrect, close it’

TANG: stated that he’d had many conversations with Penhalluriack about this. ‘my issue with this suggests that it is a knee jerk reaction…it’s like a nanny state’. Used the analogy of car crashes that instead of implementing traffic lights, seat belt, we stop people driving. Penhalluriack ‘agitated’ for the report and after reading it, Tang agrees that ‘we certainly need to take steps to mitigate against these risks’…’I’m not debating the fact that there is a risk of legionella’. Read other sections of the report which said that the air testing results were not elevated when compared to surrounding areas….’you’re quite right to be concerned about risks and here we have some suggestions about how…so the conclusion I came to from reading the report …council should implement every one of the recommendations…council should close the facility until such time that every recommendation in the report is fully implemented and people should be fully aware of what the risks are…..and the signage should be larger’. Said that there was some concern about wind conditions when the tests were conducted, so suggests ‘that the site be tested at least once a month for six months immediately after you reopen’

PILLING: the mulch facility is a service to the community but the placement is wrong ‘wedged between a playground and a secondary school’ ‘I think it should be moved’. ‘The children’s playground was there first and we introduced this mulch heap, it was probably a poor decision then’. He hoped that a better site could be found in the future away from playgrounds and schools.

HYAMS: argued against Tang’s analogy with cars since everyone knows about the dangers and the need to wear seatbelts, but this isn’t the case with mulch and its dangers. Went on to state that he had no idea that diseases could be associated with mulch and that ‘a lot of people wouldn’t know that’. Warning signs aren’t enough – we have warning signs for everything and people still ignore them. ‘I don’t like the idea of a nanny state, but sometimes you need to protect people from themselves…in this case I think we’ve got to err on the side of caution’.

MAGEE: spoke about the timber industry and spoke about green and wet timber. ‘I cannot go to a green saw anywhere in Victoria without’ masks. Related that he is an asthmatic, and that the highest number of deaths of people working in the timber industry was in people working in green sawmills. ‘The only common denominator is dealing with wet timber’….the bacteria stays on the outside of the bark …’I think there is a very big link between wet timber and asthma’

ESAKOFF: ‘I too was sitting on the fence here’ but decided if ‘there is a minute risk’ and even though ‘I don’t like a nanny state’ but given it’s location near a playground caution is warranted.

PENHALLURIACK: stated that he thought that the installation that Council currently has is contrary to the Australian Standards. Further the mulch that council has is ‘not pasteurised’ and the Standards Australia says that commercial installations should produce only ‘pasteurised mulch’. Said that he wouldn’t like the state authorities to come and have a look at the mulch facilities and find that they are not up to the standards.

Motion was carried 7 to 2.

CONCLUSION:

  • The central issue of WHY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE DID NOTHING has not been addressed
  • Tang’s declaration that he agrees that ‘you’re quite right to be concerned about risk’ is another black mark against the Audit Committee for not passing this information (report) onto the rest of the councillors. He admits that he only got to read it after Penhalluriack’s urging.
  • One of the rare times that administration has been publically criticised in their lousy decision to place this mulch heap near a playground
  • Newton has not answered the questions as to why the report lay on his desk for at least 12 days before being tabled at the audit committee and the need for various versions?
  • Why is the word ‘legionella’ not included in warning signs as recommended?
  • Why did Lipshutz, a lawyer on the audit committee, not insist that the report go to council?
  • This issue is far from resolved. What Glen Eira Debates can claim is that we have at least forced Newton to produce the full text of Penhalluriack’s memo to the Audit Committee. We doubt very much if it would have been included in tonight’s agenda items unless we had not analysed and made a fuss about this selective editing!!!!
 

« Previous Page — Next Page »