August 15, 2010

Caulfield (Village) Racecourse

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

From Sunday’s Age newspaper:

Anger as racing club plan gets nod 

Mark Russell

August 15, 2010

A CONTROVERSIAL $750 million residential, retail and business village proposed for land next to Caulfield Racecourse is a step closer after a government-appointed panel of independent planning experts ruled in its favour, despite fears it would create traffic chaos.

The three-member panel backed Melbourne Racing Club’s plans to redevelop land north of the racecourse, sparking claims they ignored residents’ concerns about congestion, loss of parking space on race days and the height of buildings, three of which would be up to 15 storeys.

The proposal includes up to 1200 units to house 2000 people, 20,000 square metres of office space and 15,000 square metres of retail space. Under the plans, about 1400 off-street car spaces used by racegoers would be lost.

But the club says the high-density residential development between Station Street and Normanby Road near the railway station fits neatly with the state government’s planning blueprint, Melbourne 2030. It claims the village will generate 3500 jobs during the seven-to-eight year construction period.

But residents fear it will create traffic chaos and further squeeze public transport services, given the government’s decision to fast-track the $350 million Monash University campus expansion on the other side of the rail line.

Malvern East Group’s Mathew Knight said residents were worried racegoers would park in nearby streets if the Caulfield development went ahead. But the panel was satisfied the racing club would be able to accommodate demand for parking.

The centre of the racecourse will continue to be used for parking on race days and for events.

Mr Knight said most residents felt the panel, which held six days of public hearings, had ignored their concerns, including their opposition to the MRC plan to use Crown land. The club has offered to swap three lots of freehold land totalling 7229 square metres for 5865 square metres of Crown land (the Tabaret car park). Part of the swap includes the creation of a park on Booran Road.

Glen Eira Council spokesman Paul Burke said if any swap went ahead, a more appropriate area of land should be made available for public use. He said a report was being prepared for the council, whose decision would then go to Planning Minister Justin Madden.

 

August 13, 2010

Whiteside: the dummy spits continue

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

From the minutes of August 8th 2010 Council Meeting –

Right of reply

(a) Cr Lipshutz – “I wish to make a personal statement and it arises from an article in The Leader that was published today.

Helen Whiteside was first elected in 2005 with me. Indeed we campaigned together and worked closely together since that time. We are not only colleagues but friends, showing very similar views as to what sort of city we wanted Glen Eira to be. Accordingly while I wish to pay tribute to the significant work Helen performed as a Councillor, I have to say I am saddened and disappointed that Helen has not only resigned but has done so with spite and malice in denigrating in such an untruthful way the Council and her colleagues. Colleagues who honoured her by electing her as a Mayor and a Council which she once lead.

I firmly believe that we were elected to make decisions on behalf of residents but equally as a functioning democracy we don’t always win every battle. You win some. You lose some. But essentially the Council or indeed any level of government to function properly there must be respect that the majority decision prevails. One does not take one’s bat and ball home merely because you lost a vote. You didn’t agree with the umpire’s decision. Regrettably, Helen has been unable to accept the majority decision. I recall that when she was first elected, she was faced by attack by certain members of the public about her role as a nurse. She wanted to resign. When she was elected I said only the preferences from Cr Penhalluriack and me she was miffed and wanted to resign. In each case, she was successfully prevailed upon to remain. In this case she could not accept the decision with respect to the re-appointment of the CEO and removed herself from her colleagues. She fomented dissent and division and ceased to be a team player.

 In a leading article in The Leader she cites her reason for resigning as the continued investigation by the Local Government Investigation and Compliance Inspectorate, the re-appointment of the CEO and some Councillors’ unacceptable behaviour.

It is my considered view that Council has worked well, co-operatively and respectfully to each other and Officers. I am unaware as to any matter of such magnitude as would warrant a resignation and indeed all Councillors without exception and whether or not agreeing with each other have concentrated on the issues and have not allowed any personal differences to impinge upon their work as Councillors. This is clearly reflected in the voting pattern inasmuch as there is no voting pattern. Councillors look at issues and decide on issues and not on personalities. It is decidedly healthy that there are differences of opinion and that those opinions whether expressed here in the chamber or elsewhere are stated without fear. On occasions debate and discussions have been robust but in all the time that I have been a Councillor we have always been able to agree to disagree. There’s only one Councillor in all the time that I have been on Council has been unable to do so – it has been Helen who removed herself in recent times from the Councillor Group. Clearly she does not wish to be associated with the other 8 Councillors. Who was guilty of bad behaviour? 

Helen has also raised the ongoing investigation. Let it be clear that the Inspectors have told me that the Inspectorate will investigate any matter brought before them no matter how spurious. This Council and every Councillor has not only fully cooperated with the Inspectorate but has afforded the Inspectorate access to every document for which a request has been made. I totally and categorically reject any suggestion that Councillors have not complied with the Municipal Inspector’s requests. 

Any suggestion or any or innuendo to the contrary is absolutely false. Helen has also asserted that there has been no that there have been decisions made leading to bad governance. Regrettably again she forms that view because she was a minority position. While we can always do things better I am confident that Councillors are well aware of the need for good governance and we have complied with all requirements. 

I can respect that Helen in keeping with her record of threatening to resign when the going gets tough has now resigned but I find it unacceptable and inappropriate that in doing so she has demeaned and denigrated the organisation that she has led as a Mayor.

It is sad that Helen has sour grapes towards her colleagues but to suggest that Council is not united, to suggest that Councillors are or have been engaged in bad behaviour or that there are significant governance issues is not just incorrect but is plainly wrong. 

I, for one, have never considered resigning, nor will I. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, I will be serving my full term and I am committed to ensuring this Council continues to work as it has to date: co-operatively, respectfully and diligently. When I lose a vote, I will not pack up and leave.”

 

August 12, 2010

Governance, governance – wherefore art thou?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[3] Comments 

The Local Government Act permits a council (ie by formal resolution in an open council meeting) to impose various service charges. Section 162 of the Act states:

 (1) A Council may declare a service rate or an annual service charge or any combination of such a rate and charge for any of the following services-

    (a)  the provision of a water supply;  

   (b)  the collection and disposal of refuse; 

   (c)  the provision of sewage services; 

   (d)  any other prescribed service.

A Special Council Meeting was called on May 11th, 2010 where the following was adopted unanimously:

“The Act requires that Council advertise the proposed Budget i.e. make it publicly available for information and comment.

An information session will be held for the public on Monday, 24 May 2010 to provide an overview of the 2010/11 draft Annual Budget.

The public have until 10 June 2010 to lodge Budget submissions.

Budget submissions received from the public will be reported to Council at the Special Council meeting of 15 June 2010; thereafter, the Budget will be submitted for adoption.”

The PROPOSED BUDGET included the increase in charges for waste collection of a 240 litre bin from $151.20 to $260.00 per annum. An additional $20 was added to the previously announced charge of $240

Yet, in a letter signed by the Mayor, Cr. Tang, and dated the 23rd April, 2010 there is stated unequivocally the following:

“Given the additional cost of collecting waste, the garbage charge for a 240 litre bin will now be $260 for the 2010-2011 financial year’.

We raise this issue and ask:

  1. How can Tang declare any service charge increase PRIOR to a full council resolution?
  2. Did councillors even know of this letter?
  3. What does this say about the governance practices and open decision making at Glen Eira?

Ironically, in the same minutes of 11th May, at item 9.12, we are told that Council’s share of the Clayton tip revenue will reap $637,000!!! The stated cost of the State government land fill levy was also $600,000!!!

The most important issue though is that of governance and due process. Tang’s letter makes it absolutely clear that the decision to impose the $20 surcharge had  been made before it was even discussed in Council. We wonder if other councillors even knew of this letter, or even had the opportunity to debate it before it went out. Not only does it usurp their power as a council, but it mocks the whole principle of transparent decision making and potentially the law of the land.

 

August 11, 2010

News Flash!

Posted by gleneira under Miscellaneous
[8] Comments 

1. Councillor Elect

Looks like Cheryl Forge is a shoe-in to be declared the new councillor following Whiteside’s resignation. We’ve done our sums and on preferences Forge is way ahead of the other candidates. With a long history as advocate for public access to the Caulfield Racecourse, and planning issues in general, the community anticipates some interesting times ahead.

2. Elsternwick 10 storey application

There’s a planning meeting organised for this high rise development in early August. For full details please see: http://elsternwickcommunity.wordpress.com

 

August 10, 2010

Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way!!

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication
1 Comment 

This post is meant to be illustrative. That is, for residents to realise that the Glen Eira way of doing things is no longer valid, nor effective. By way of illustration we invite residents to compare the following two approaches on consultation for councils’ community plans.

Bayside has created a committee consisting of 13 community members and a blogsite which is open to all. Minutes of their meetings, and rationale, are online at http://planforbayside.wordpress.com/

In stark contrast have a look at the Glen Eira response to public submissions and the ‘we can’t do anything’ mentality that is contained in the document – http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/Consultation_response.pdf

The difference is obvious. Isn’t it about time that councillors stood up on their hind legs and demanded that for once this council actually gets off its backside and really listens to what the community thinks and wants?

 

August 9, 2010

Planning: Is this what we want?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
1 Comment 

Map-Housing_Diversity_Areas_policy-1

The Planning Scheme Review Report is significant in that:

  • There are no recommendations for review of Housing Diversity Policy
  • Developers are currently pushing the boundaries everywhere. Latest is Coles Supermarket (7 storeys/137 units) and Elsternwick (10 storeys)
  • The Planning Panel recommends over 20 storeys and 5-6 storeys in Residential 1 area of in Caulfield Village. This is like the New Residential 2 Zone proposal by the State Government with no rights of appeal
  • No increase in developers’ contribution levy – remains stagnant at 0.25% whereas other councils stipulate between 4% and 5% for all areas
  • No plan to increase the accessible Public Open Space
  • No program to get Caulfield Racecourse into Public Use and remove horse training & fencing
  • No Public Realm policy development
  • No integration of land use with Integrated Transport plan
  • No environmental or ESD plans for buildings
  • No plans to exhibit the Final Report of this Scheme for comment by the public before sending the document to the Minister

Conclusions:

  1. This Review Report excludes the public from commenting on details as done by other Councils.
  2. If Caulfield Village Planning Report is accepted then the Housing Diversity Areas Policy Framework is now unravelling into a defacto acceptance of the State government’s Residential 2 Zoning which will see high rise developments throughout Glen Eira with the tacit approval of Council and practically no rights of appeal.
 

August 8, 2010

Planning Scheme Review: Where is the public open debate?

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Planning
1 Comment 

Council has finally released its Planning Scheme Review. The Recommendation is: “That the attached Planning Scheme Review 2010 Report be endorsed and forwarded to the Minster (sic) for Planning as required by statute”. Fait accompli is seems. Where is the public open debate on this vital document? Public ‘consultation’ has been limited to 3 so called ‘information’ sessions and the call for submissions over a period of two months, and all this based on a ‘discussion paper’ that was short on detail, analysis, and ‘reality’. Totally inadequate when dealing with such a complex and far reaching strategic issue. Readers should compare this approach with Stonnington’s as a first step in a long process. (See: http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/SSG_13_Final_Planning_Scheme_Review_Report.pdf).

In the end, the Review becomes what it was always intended to be – a political document endorsing a vision that has never seriously engaged the community, nor adequately informed of its major ramifications. The Review is nothing more than a self congratulatory exercise in obfuscation.

The obfuscation is most evident in the use of dubious statistics. Glen Eira relies exclusively on data drawn from the State Government’s VIF (Victoria in Furture: 2008) statistics. What it fails to notify residents of is the caveat placed on these statistics:

“Victoria in Future 2008 – first release population projections are not predictions of the future, nor are they targets. They analyse changing economic and social structures and other drivers of demographic trends to indicate possible future populations if the present identified demographic and social trends continue.”

In contrast, the ABS statistics, used by Melbourne, Kingston and numerous other municipalities clearly states:

“To provide a more accurate population figure which is updated more frequently than every 5 years, the Australian Bureau of Statistics also produces “Estimated Resident Population” (ERP) numbers. Based on population estimates as at 30 June, ERPs take into account people who missed the count on Census night, including people who were temporarily overseas, plus an undercount adjustment for those who did not complete a Census form, and an overcount adjustment for anyone who was double counted.”

The result is that VIF consistently underestimates population and dwelling figures. Yet, these are the figures that Glen Eira embraces wholeheartedly. Why?

The table below indicates the population explosion that is now and will remain the situation in Glen Eira if this document is endorsed.

ABS Population Changes per Year

Years Glen Eira Bayside Kingston Monash Stonnington Port Philip
1996 Base 120,271 86,365 129,655 160,677 88,562 76,089
1996/2001 567 489 846 493 283 893
2001/2006 1,335 584 1,182 1,113 1,007 2,000
2006/2011 2,153 1,475 2,683 2,577 1,271 1,953
2011/2016 2,231 1,478 3,107 2,701 1,151 2,083
Total Increase 31,426 20,130 39,090 34,420 18,557 34,643
Total 2016 Population 151,697 106,495 168,745 195,097 107,119 110,732
% Increase 26.13% 23.31% 30.15% 21.42% 20.95% 45.53%

 

Please Note:

  • These figures do not include the Caulfield East development which will add 2,500 to GE population. Taken this into evaluation gives a total of over 154,000. Adding Caulfield East figure gives a 28.21% increase;
  • Port Philip is an inner ring Council and GE should be a middle ring Council;
  • Kingston has Southland, which can justify the projected growth, not so GE;
  • The worst effect of Caulfield East development will be felt economically by Caulfield North and Caulfield South areas with Glen Huntly, Carnegie, Ormond and Murrumbeena suffering additional traffic problems;
  • Glen Eira has no Economic Analysis and assessment of its population expansion and impact of Housing Development C25 guidelines. That should be done every 5 years and reviewed. Melbourne & Kingston Councils are doing it. Why not Glen Eira?
  • Glen Eira is focused totally on statutory planning considerations and very little on Strategic and Future Planning. It simply quotes what Victorian Government is saying;
  • As a recognized local level of Government Glen Eira should be doing its job of strategic planning per each Suburb and argue its case with anybody else, whether it’s private developers or another level of Government. It should be doing it on a Strategic not just Statutory level;
  • As a recognized local level of Government it should be engaging and involving the community in a debate of its Strategic and Future Plans to ensure that community input is incorporated in the plans and that the community supports GE plans. The best way to do that is through an extended Structure Planning process. This is not happening;
  • As a recognized local level of Government its representative members and leaders i.e. Councillors must engage with the community in a debate, particularly if they have a different view to some community members. This is not happening. Councillors are being ‘muzzled’ or being shut out by the statutory process. The result is that GE Council is seen as an autocratic and not a democratic Council.
 

August 6, 2010

A Real Dummy Spit?

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance
[9] Comments 

From Agenda items for Tuesday’s Council Meeting:

“Cr Whiteside’s submitted a three page letter of resignation. Councillors have been provided with a copy of her letter. Her resignation took effect on Friday 30 July” 2010.”

AND

“Determine whether to publicly release former Cr Whiteside’s letter of resignation with any redactions as may be deemed necessary pursuant to S77(2) of the Local Government Act 1989.”

Once more there is plenty of scope for speculation. Did Whiteside spit the dummy over policy issues? If so, then surely the community has every right to know the bases of such policy disagreements. Only when issues are out in the open, and individuals given the opportunity to mount their case will residents receive the kind of council they expect. The cloak of silence is anathema to good governance.

Or, did Whiteside’s letter denigrate officers/councillors? If so, then this still is no excuse for secrecy. Both Councillors and officers are afforded the opportunity under Local Law to engage their ‘Right of Reply’. This has been done numerous times in the past.

Or, was the Municipal Inspector’s involvement the catalyst for this final spitting of the dummy? Who knows?

One thing is clear – Whiteside could have announced her retirement at next week’s council meeting. She chose not to. Three typed pages also does not suggest an amicable departure. Nor does the potential gag of the ‘confidentiality clause’ fill residents with confidence. The test now is to see what individual councillors decide and their ‘reasons’ for such decisions.

 

August 4, 2010

Planning: Once Again in the Dark!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments 

Seems like Glen Eira Council are experts when it comes to Clayton announcements. We are ‘told’ about something, but all the relevant and vital detail is somehow missing. The latest example of this comes via the August issue of The Glen Eira News. Listed rather innocuously on Page 3 there is this little gem:

High density

Council urged the State Department of Planning to consult the community on proposals for high density accommodation at the Caulfield Campus of Monash University. The Department replied that tight funding timeframes required expedited assessment with minimal consultation on those proposals, but there would be broader consultation concerning other proposed buildings on the Campus.

Questions:

Is this about the 28 storey building application that is allegedly sitting on Minister Madden’s desk at the moment?

What exactly does Council know and why isn’t the community being fully informed?

Exactly how much do councillors know?

When will the community be let in fully on this ‘higher density’ arrangement?

 

August 3, 2010

Panel Report: Council Fails Again

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

Prior to a full analysis of the Panel Report, we felt that it was important that the community be made fully aware of Council’s performance in this matter.

Panel reports for different municipalities have extolled the level and depth of collaboration between objectors and councils. For example, in April, 2010, the Panel reporting for a Banyule City Amendment stated:

“most objecting submitters explicitly commented on the constructive and helpful approach adopted by Council in this matter” (Page 1).

This definitely was not the case in Glen Eira. Submitters/objectors were given short shrift by both the Panel and the City of Glen Eira.

As to the actual Panel hearing, residents should also take careful note of the following:

1. Council was represented by Terry Montebello, Solicitor

“Expert” witnesses called for council:  

Kent Dodgshun, Urban Designer, GE Council

Terry Hardingham, Traffic Engineer of O’Brien Traffic.

2.Melbourne Racing Club represented by Stuart Morris, SC; with Mr Adrian Finanzio, Barrister

Witnesses called by the MRC: –

Steve Hunt, Traffic Engineer of Cardno Grogan Richard;

Andrew Biacsi, Town Planner, of Contour Consultants;

Mark Sheppard, Urban Designer, of David Lock Associates;

Justin Ganley, Retail Analyst, of Deep End Services;

Reg Jebb, Retail Consultant

3.    Monash University represented by Michelle Quigley, SC with Ms Marita Foley, Barrister

Witnesses called by Monash University

Mr Lloyd Elliot, Town Planner of Urbis

Mr Russell Fairlie, Traffic Engineer of Ratio Consultants.

Apart from legislation, and (outdated) policy documents, the other ‘evidence’ most relied upon was:

Market Assessment for the Caulfield Mixed Use Area – MRC

Village Retail Impact Assessment (April 2010) – MRC

Open Space Strategy (1998) – Council

In short, Council retained a solicitor, whilst the MRC and Monash invested in SC’s, barristers, indepth consultants’ reports, and a barrage of ‘expert witnesses’. The community is free to draw its own conclusion as to how well council prepared, presented, and represented their constituents. They are also free to speculate as to the reasons why this occurred, and what hidden agendas are at play.

Our next posts will explore the Report in full detail.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »