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.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 15, 2010 at 11:07 AM
I’ve just read this in The Age today. Would this have happened if council had represented community interests with the best legal representation possible – who knows!
August 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM
This doesn’t make sense to me – there will be 1400 car spaces removed but there will be 2000 new residents and countless shops and offices. Where will the people park? Surely this must be a misprint.
August 15, 2010 at 11:13 AM
The alleged response by Council (ie Paul Burke) is typical of this entire saga and the pathetic stance that council has taken. Instead of condemning the Panel Report all he can say is that there should be a ‘more appropriate area of land’ for the car park. That’s what I call really supporting residents! But of course, since council will be getting millions and millions from the land development levy that the MRC will pay, then of course we don’t want to rock the boat.
August 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM
The MRC development plans for their freehold land presently used for car parking during racedays and special event days will shift to the centre of the course on the ‘flat’. The MRC’s past proposals to develop parkland and recreational use for the public, in this valuable waste land appears to have been a ruse to takeover our public land by stealth.
At the last public forum on 31st July, 2010, for the first time, the MRC unabashedly claimed that the ‘flat’ was for their use for car parking. Why haven’t the MRC made this declaration at least 4 years ago? Will the public ever be given the promised BBQ area, a drinking fountain, a board walk and a lake to fish in?
At present the MRC says this is for “only” 46 days per year, but this will become even more intolerable when their new convention centre is completed with untold use for many more events, (and by the way none of their profits from racing and events are given to the ratepayers – and unfortunately Glen Eira Council has not negotiated for anything in return).
The MRC are literally using our Crown land rent free, and they have been for the last century or so.
August 15, 2010 at 12:52 PM
For those who want to wade through the 147-page Panel report, it can
be found at
Click to access Glen_Eira_C60_Panel_Report.pdf
When I hear mention of “independent planning experts” I naturally
wonder about their independence and what their expertise is. The
Report doesn’t disclose any biographical information. The following
could therefore be wrong, but it appears that Alison Glynn is a
Sessional Member of VCAT’s Planning and Environment List; Ken
Northwood is a member of Planning Panels Victoria and has a
website at http://www.kennorthwood.com.au; and just possibly David Mitchell
is a planner who works for RPS Group Australia (formed from Conics
and other companies).
In the report, the Appearances before the Panel are listed. Glen
Eira used the services of Terry Montebello, Solicitor; while MRC
used Stuart Morris SC with Adrian Finanzio, Barrister; and for
Monash Michelle Quigley SC with Marita Foley, Barrister. [Could
Stuart Morris SC be the *same* Stuart Morris who was President of
VCAT?] There does seem to be a difference in firepower deployed,
probably reflecting the relative desperation of the various parties.
[On a personal note, I recognize several of the Expert Witnesses,
whose reports I have in the past been critical of, companies such
as Cardno Grogan Richards, and Ratio Consulting.]
For those wondering about Glen Eira Council’s views, here are a
couple of quotes: “a reasonable response to the opportunities and
constraints afforded by the land and the area” and “a development
of the magnitude proposed has the capacity to bring about
significant public realm benefits and contribute significantly to
the achievement of community ‘betterment’ leading to a clear net
community benefit”.
Yeah right. Should have known it was all for our benefit.
There are some tricks to writing these kinds of report, and this
one is no exception. Its replete with the usual “weasel words”,
avoiding where possible any quantification. The Panel did admit that
the proposal would create problems for which the Panel had no
solutions, but avoided acknowledging how this violates a fundamental
principle of Melbourne 2030.
The Report also doesn’t disclose the size of public subsidy the
development would require from ratepayers and taxpayers for
associated infrastructure and services. Academic research has
established the average cost for the residential component of
fill-in development to be around $300000 per dwelling. Given 1200
new dwellings, this is $360M.
On the rights of existing residents:
“The intent of the amendment [C60] is to facilitate redevelopment
of the land generally in accordance with the principles of the
existing local policy and designation of the area as part of a
Major Activity centre but with increased intensity to that
previously considered. It also provides for an approval mechanism
that reduces capacity for third parties to object or seek review of
decisions made by Council as responsible authority [sic] for the
area.”
The Panel agrees, and spells out the very few areas where it
believes residents should be permitted any rights. It does however
caution the players to be mindful of the Human Rights Charter.
While it is understandable that people don’t want to plan too far
ahead, there is much that the recommendation leaves unspecified.
Effectively, “Something really big is going to be built that will
affect your amenity. We don’t know what it will look like. You will
have very little say. Current plans may change to suit the
developer. We approve.”
August 15, 2010 at 3:32 PM
Dear Reprobate,
we have been busy analysing the report. In the next couple of days we will post our findings. Keep a watch out. It is a lengthy document so we’ll put it up on a separate link. But thankyou for your comments – they give plenty of food for thought.
August 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Re Age article today – ‘Anger as racing club gets nod’.
Has the GEC sought the opinions and advice from a top SQC specialising in Public Land? If so why not and if so, what is the report? We have Legal and democratic rights for better access and use of our Crown land. We want to see our parkland and can’t through corrugated iron fencing on the east,south and western boundaries, (erected in 1943 to provides a campsite for the US troops).At Randwick racecourse,NSW,along side a very busy carriage way,there is open palisade fencing and beautiful landscape plantings, which have opened a magnificent panorama to the public, with no encumbrance on horse racing. Gai Waterhouse has testified publicly that horses are not spooked by cars and are very adaptable animals.
If all of our public parks were locked up with corrugated iro fencing there would be a public moratorium. GEC and the MRC – show us action and results.
August 15, 2010 at 7:12 PM
You don’t have to go as far as Sydney to see open fencing, Cranbourne racecourse on the busy South Gippsland Highway has it. Lets face it, the MRC are greedy and couldn’t give a hoot about the local community and have bought others to assist them. The residents and local community don’t stand a chance.
August 23, 2010 at 3:46 AM
The Planning Panel Report on Amendment C60 dealing with rezoning issue for Caulfield Village will be voted on shortly by the Glen Eira Council. There is yet to be the Officer’s Report on the Planning Panel Recommendations. However, it is a forgone conclusion that Officers will recommend to accept it They will argue that Council has no choice but to follow State Government’s legislative planning arrangements and Planning Panel suggestions. Also, they cannot reject an Amendment approved by the Council.
Caulfield Village development is the biggest issue in Glen Eira, much bigger and much more important than GESAC ever was. There are so many reasons for it, not least of which is the associated Caulfield Racecourse issue. All of the troubling issues are a result of the lack of Public and Public Realm considerations. The critical problems are:
• Unwanted high rise development;
• Traffic congestion;
• Insufficient parking;
• Unnecessary training on Crown Land;
• Public barrier fence and inaccessibility to Public use of Public Crown Land;
• Increased use of betting and pokies facilities on Crown Land;
And the resultant effects include:
• Likely increase of unwanted and unruly social behaviour;
• Likely increased environmental degradation of the Racecourse Crown Land and due to Caulfield Village high rise development;
• Likely non-equitable and low economic return on the greedy grab of monies made by MRC and VATC of its immoral and exclusive use of Crown Land since at least 1948
The outcry and action by disaffected and angry residents is yet to be fully expressed as the issue unfolds further. Whether Caulfield Village and Racecourse will become a political hot, hot potato is still uncertain, because it will depend on if, and how, those issues will be dealt with in the first instance by the Council. But if this issue is not resolved before the State election of November all politicians, local, state or federal will eventually be drawn into the quagmire of anger, first at the Council decision on Amendment C60, Planning Scheme changes, Municipal Strategic Statement modifications and various Ministerial responses to upcoming Council decisions.
The Victorian State election may then be fought on that issue with a number of MPs being challenged on those unresolved Public issues. It is not clear at this stage which Party and which candidates in the State election will pick-up this issue and run with it. It is certain though that the fight for the seat of Caulfield will become embroiled in that issue. So who is there at this stage? Helen Shardey is retiring and David Southwick is the Liberal Party candidate for Caulfield. We will not know until all other candidates are known who else will enter the fray for the seat of Caulfield.
Then there is the Upper House Southern Metropolitan Region, which covers Caulfield with five MPs vying for re-election. They are: ALP John Lenders Treasurer and Jennifer Huppert, LP David Davis and Andrea Coote, and Green Sue Penniciuk. Jennifer Huppert is a resident of Caulfield and has her office there. She became an MP as a result of Evan Thornley’s resignation from Parliament. Thornley’s election to Parliament was marginal and based on preferences. Hence Jennifer Huppert ‘re-election ‘in her own right is rather tenuous. She may not be elected if there is a backlash against the Victorian Government’s unwanted decisions regarding Caulfield Village and Racecourse.
Fundamentally it depends on how well the residents organise themselves to oppose Melbourne Racing Club developments of the Caulfield Village and Caulfield Racecourse. Large group political action may result in the State Government to react to mollify residents’ grievances. However, if it is just a bunch of rowdy individuals their concerns will be ignored by all politicians at local, state or federal levels.
Finally, this development is only the first step! Given council’s pro-development stance, and its refusal to address crucial issues through its planning schemes, then Glen Eira can expect the onslaught of inappropriate development to continue throughout the municipality. This isn’t only about people living close to Monash and the Racecourse – it will embroil all residents, regardless of whichever suburb they currently reside in. The community needs to voice and demonstrate its opposition to developments they do not want in an organized and coherent way on all fronts – local, state, and federal.