The Caulfield (Village) Racecourse Panel Report is a lengthy document of 147 pages. It makes for incredible reading. The undoubted highlights are:
- Removal of much third party (and hence resident) objection rights
- High density development of at least 8 storeys
- Traffic congestion
- Loss of public open space
- Impact on retailing and businesses throughout neighbouring commercial centres
- The abject failure of Council to adequately prepare and present on behalf of residents
Rather than include an extremely lengthy post here, we have uploaded a copy of selected quotes from the Report. The quotes are organised under specific categories such as ‘purpose’, ‘density’, ‘open space’, etc., so readers may go directly to the issues that interest them.
We have also BOLDED many sections that we believe are vital in grasping the overall impact that this report is likely to have on the community. We have already commented on the fact that the MRC and Monash were represented by Senior Cousels, and consultant ‘experts’ in stark contrast to council’s meagre performance. This failure to present a plausible case is also bolded where appropriate.
Finally, the document will be permanently available by clicking the link on the left hand side of the webpage, under the title ‘C60 Planning Report’ or the following: https://gleneira.blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/c60-panel-report-revised-1.doc
We urge all readers to go through this carefully and to express their views.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM
I had objected to the development by providing a submission and was not even informed of the hearing taking place – it seems the panel only read favourable submissions and ignored the many many objectors to the development.
August 16, 2010 at 7:15 PM
Hello,
A neighbour just pointed out your website and thought I should point out my comments submitted to the panel(below). The panel had also ignored me but I was very persistent in being heard and they finally relented. I shouldn’t have bothered as they had made their decision well before the hearings.
Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today. It was disappointing that I only found out about the panel when one of my neighbours mentioned it in the street, especially considering that I had lodged a submission to Council. It does not provide a good start, as I would consider that all submitters should have the opportunity to be heard on this crucial issue.
This reminds me of the process adopted by the Priority Development Panel (PDP) who were involved in the Monash University Western Campus development at Caulfield. Right from the start the process surrounding the development seemed wrong. Local council were for some reason excluded, with full responsibility given to the PDP chaired by Jane Monk. Even though we are one of the closest residents, there was no formal notification of the development, only hearsay. Despite this lack of communication, there were over 140 objections. However in reality residents concerns never stood a chance at being heard. The Weekend Financial Review article on 11/11/2006 provided a quote by Jane Monk, “The Kath and Kim’s don’t get it, and it is very difficult to tell the people who don’t get it that we have some superior view”.
The PDP did hear selective submissions but could not grasp this simple point: there are no rights to develop a property, just as there are no rights to drive a car. Each comes with responsibilities to the public.
My father would often use an expression: “the church has to remain in the middle of the village”.
By this he was not referring to Caulfield Village and that a church should be included in the plans but it means that development needs to be balanced. The proposed amendment C60 is far from balanced.
The area of the proposed Caulfield Village is as significant a site as Docklands and there are lessons from the well documented failure of planning at Docklands that can be used at Caulfield as contained in articles such as Docklands a wasted opportunity, Docklands – A precinct on the edge, Public Spaces Gone wrong and Doyle call for council to take on Docklands. Docklands is a failure not because it is planned but because it was badly planned. If the panel accept amendment C60 I fear in a few years time we will be reading articles entitled Caulfield Village a wasted opportunity, Caulfield Village – A precinct on the edge or More Public Spaces Gone wrong and each will be referring this amendment.
A robust planning process is needed bringing together Monash University, Zagames, the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC), Residents and the State government, particularly in light of the recent Eddington report proposing a Caulfield to Footscray rail tunnel. The Phoenix Policy which was a heroic attempt by Council to do this has not been followed by either the MRC or Monash University. The current method of planning seems to be every man for themselves with little consideration to the community and other interested parties.
I submit that this application should be rejected for a number of reasons until a full thorough review of the entire Phoenix Precinct planning be undertaken for a number of reasons listed below:
· The Traffic Engineering Assessment Report by Cardo Grogan fails to take into account the full Phoenix Precinct and only considers Racecourse traffic flows. It ignores Monash University, Caulfield station commuters, the Derby Road shopping Precinct and the fact that the area is a natural conduit for people travelling through the south eastern and bayside suburbs.
· By the MRC deciding not to renew the Guineas carpark lease agreement with Monash University, it will just transfer the car parking issue from one stakeholder to another. Another reason why the area needs to be considered as a whole.
· Amazingly the approved massive Monash University Western Campus development is not considered in any traffic or parking reports. It is also understood that Monash University has recently requested the Department of Planning to amend the Priority Development Zone Schedule and Incorporated Plan for their three 15 storey towers to in excess of 25 storeys.
· Car parking in the area is insufficient. To say that the centre of the course can accommodate an increased 500 car parks to a total 3,500 is certainly tongue in cheek. You might as well say that it will accommodate 10,000 cars by parking them on the racetrack because people do not use the centre for parking due to traffic congestion in getting out of the car park. It is never full and even at peak demand on Caulfield Cup day accommodate less than 1300 parking spaces. The Guineas car park cannot be used for events or key race days as it is filled with Marques on those days and therefore parking is not available. There needs to be a car parking review for the whole Phoenix area including on street car parking on Queens Avenue.
· Part of the land is Crown Land reserved for Recreation Ground and Public Park. The proposed development is designed for commercial use. The concessions given by Minister Gavin Jennings for the MRC to acquire the triangular land currently used as Tabaret car park was that the land is to be valued and any difference between the value of the two pieces of land is to go to the Crown, and that the land swap will not occur until the MRC has fulfilled its commitments in relation to the centre of the racecourse and signposting to better inform the public of the land’s availability. Further, the MRC will have to pay commercial rent for the areas it uses for training, and that rent is, according to Minister Jennings is to “be available for the ongoing maintenance and development of the park or other Crown public land within the Glen Eira area.” He also flagged that he could see Council being the manager of the land in the middle of the racecourse that is to be a public park. To date nothing has occurred. Surely the Ministers requirements must be put into place before we could even consider the development.
· Further the MRC plans have provision for two multi storey car parks to be built on Crown land in the Guineas car park. Whilst for some reason this has been excluded from Amendment C60 the panel should recommend that this Crown land should be safeguarded from any such development. Unfortunately the MRC has a poor track record with this piece of land and the community. In 2003 the MRC removed the children’s playground that had been there for many years to extend the car parking and build a tunnel to the centre of the course. Despite their assurances it was never replaced.
In summary, I submit that this application should be rejected for the reasons outlined above and that a full thorough review of the entire Phoenix Precinct planning be undertaken, otherwise the key stakeholders to this amendment being Monash University, Zagames, the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC), Residents and the State government are running the risk to jeopardizing our good community and I have to say: “the church does not remain in the middle of the village”.