The following comment was received from one of our readers. We believe it deserves to be put up as a separate post. To read the other comments on the Racecourse/East Caulfield Village, follow this link – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/rage-at-racecourse/#comments
PLEASE NOTE: If you would like to see your comments as a post, then please let us know. Glen Eira Debates welcomes the opportunity to publicise residents’ views and seeks to engender genuine debate on important issues.
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.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 23, 2010 at 6:44 PM
Spot on. The Caulfield racecourse development on public land (the triangle where a 15 storey tower is planned to be built) sets a precedent for not only Caulfield but the rest of Melbourne. I would argue that this is the Number One issue in the City of Melbourne at the moment…the misuse of public land. With the handover of parkland surrounding the MCG to the Melbourne Cricket Club by Brumby away from the Council, how long will it be until a multi-storey car park is built on that land. And similarly how long will it be before the MRC develops not one but two multi storey carparks on public land on the corner of Queens Avenue and Station Street. Not long if the MRC has its way. A political career will be made from these events, with Frank Penhalluriak and Cheryl Forge just the start.
August 24, 2010 at 5:35 PM
there’s a report on the 10 storey Elsternwick development planning conference at; http://elsternwickcommunity.wordpress.com/
August 24, 2010 at 8:34 PM
What happens if Glen Eira accept the proposal for development at the racecourse – is that it, does a 14 storey monstrosity get built on the reserve with no say by the community?
August 24, 2010 at 9:34 PM
Reading the Elsternwick report on their planning evening and anonymous’s question regarding a say by the community – it doesn’t matter what the community says. What does matter is that this council steadfastly refuses to do anything which will at least attempt to stop these ‘monstrosities’. We can go through the pretense of meetings, objections, and even council refusal, but we all know that without tighter controls such as height limits, and structure plans, this is only the start of all out skyscrapers everywhere. it simply suits council. They blame everyone else, and get off scot free, whilst pocketing all the loot.
August 25, 2010 at 10:50 AM
C60 is one element (albeit a big one) of Council’s desire for
development in “strategic” parts of the municipality. For reasons
that have not been made public, some Council Officers have been
pushing very hard for Glen Eira to be seen to be leading all other
municipalities in encouraging development, provided its in the areas
they nominate.
The expiry of Development Contributions Overlays has meant that in
Glen Eira no contributions are sought from developers to contribute
to the cost of infrastructure (and public subsidy) needed to
underwrite their profits. The scale of the shortfall is staggering,
based on academic research, but is the natural consequence of
encouraging development at a rate faster than there is the
political will to fund infrastructure. The costs for processing
Applications for Planning Permits for large developments far
exceed the fees paid by applicant. The community is subsidizing
them in multiple ways. They really should be nicer to us on this
ground alone.
Planning law (the Planning And Environment Act for example) is
pathetically weak. Putatively Council should abide by it (insist
developments have a Planning Permit where one is required for
example), but Council is not legally obliged to do as its Planning
Scheme says. Anything that might restrict development can be
categorized as a “guideline” and is not binding.
In my opinion there should be a periodic audit of the Planning
Scheme by somebody independent of Council. The recent publication
of Council’s own Review of the local components of the Planning
Scheme show why when its examined critically.
I don’t believe Council has the skills to manage large-scale
development, and under the circumstances, yes, it is extremely
likely there will be problems for which no solutions are offered,
due to the need for the developer to maximize their profit. As
one developer said to me, “Its all about money”.
That pursuit of money is why we see so few 3-bedroom apartments,
why most of the units constructed are rented to young people without
families, why once-vibrant shopping centres are losing their range
of services (with food outlets almost universally replacing other
activities), why open space is considered not necessary in Urban
Villages, why statistics around demographics and transport patterns
are not sought or required during the planning process, why any
standards that might restrict development are so casually waived.
But God help you should you try to subdive your block to build a
second house at the back in a Minimal Change Area. Expect the full
wrath of Council.
We have at least 2 more years of the current regime. While we have
no direct say in development in *our* municipality, we can at least
maintain some political pressure on the nefarious parties involved.
Council has lots of policies, including unofficial policies about
which policies they have no intention of complying with. I hesitate
to say the community deserves better, because significant chunks of
the community have remained silent, perhaps grateful that Council
intends to protect their amenity at the expense of somebody else.
I got involved in Town Planning matters in Glen Eira because I saw
things happening to other people that I wouldn’t want happen to me.
Council’s enthusiasm for development has resulted in Council losing
an ethical dimension to their decision-making, and a similar
malaise has affected VCAT’s Planning and Environment List and the
Minister against Planning’s Department. “Power tends to corrupt
and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Its time to curb their
power.
December 22, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Protest Glen Eira Leader C60 Article
The Caulfield Glen Eira Leader (21/12/2010) includes an article on Glen Eira Council’s decision to delay voting on the C60 Amendment, the MRC sponsored Caulfield Village Development. For a newspaper which claims have the experience and resources to exceptionally and truly connect to what’s going on in a community (refer to the Leader Newspapers website), the GE Leaders coverage of the C60 Amendment has been remarkably absent; when not absent it is poorly researched and frequently incorrect. The 21/12/2010 article is a classic example of this.
Minimal research (reviewing this wordpress site, contacting an objector or even reading the C60 Planning Panel Report) would have revealed the increased building heights and all the concerns about this inappropriate development. Reading the article I suspect that research was limited to receiving a phone call from Brian Discombe, the MRC Development Manager.
The online leader enables readers to comment on the article. I suggest all readers access the online leader and indicate their dissatisfaction with the Leaders lack of coverage of the C60 amendment and the inaccuracies included in the 21/12/2010 article.