Below is a chronological account of the Planning Meeting for the centre of the Caulfield Racetrack.
- No signage at town hall alerting residents where to go. Doors were locked. Eventually informed by Crs. Forge and Penhalluriack (once they themselves found out) that the meeting was to occur upstairs in one of the rooms
- Present 11 residents; Crs. Penhalluriack and Forge (as observers); Magee chaired the meeting and Town Planner was to take notes and ‘explain’ the application. An projector displayed the plans on a wall.
- Not everyone received a copy of the plans since not enough were made available
- NO REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MRC WAS PRESENT
- Magee’s role as chair was questioned since he is a member of the MRC trustees and therefore whether this constituted a ‘conflict of interest’. Magee claimed it didn’t since this meeting was not a ‘decision making’ meeting.
- Several residents began by criticising council and its failure to adequately inform the community of this meeting, as well as failing to provide sufficient copies of plans. Town Planner responded that 432 letters had been sent out; notices placed around the racecourse and advertising in Local Papers. She emphasised that council was adhering to the law since their obligation was only to notify ‘abutting’ residents. Several present complained that they ‘abutted’ the racecourse and had not received notification via council. The point was made that council always acted upon the LETTER of the law rather than the SPIRIT of the law and that this was not good enough. Town Planner retorted that she had received only one objection earlier and one handed in today. A resident present stated that he had submitted an objection and asked Magee whether he had read it. The response was ‘no’.
- Complaints were also made about the indecipherability of the plans; that the meeting should have tabled the application in its entirety. Several residents claimed to have inspected the file, but that in each instance the documents differed.
- Magee explained that the purpose was to act upon the application – not its purpose and use. Town planner affirmed that even though a car park was drawn in the plans, council’s role was only to grant permission for the ‘shovel’ to go into the ground – not how this land was to be used. Argument degenerated into confusion, and semantics.
- One resident walked out half way through meeting
- Major criticisms of the plan included: building a car park on open space and the community’s land; the fact that council officers had ‘negotiated’ with the MRC and hence ‘conflict of interest’ questions arose again
- Magee insisted that the land belonged to the Commonwealth when numerous residents informed him that it belonged to the State as per Queen Victoria’s caveat.
- Magee also informed the meeting that the Town Planning officers would go away and write up their report and it would be available in the agenda items and council would then consider the recommendations. When asked if the public could address council, Magee’s response was ‘No’. One resident pointed out that residents do have the right to address councillors at council meetings upon the discretion of the Mayor! Cr. Forge said that she would be bringing this up with her fellow councillors.
- Other concerns were the ‘legality’ of the application – Magee and Town Planner did not know. Safety issues – ie the pedestrian tunnel to access the centre where people had to walk through dust and dung, as well as car traffic.
The predominant mood of the meeting was anger, and dismay at the failure of council to be proactive in its advocacy for residents. Most present felt that the entire meeting was farcical and a fait accompli!!!!
If you were present and would like to add your comments on anything left out in the above, please do so.
November 15, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Sounds like real democracy at work. All you have to do is keep everyone ignorant and when they wake up to what’s really going on you just pull out the so called rule book and say this is how the law says it should be done. Easy as pie. Glen Eira council to a tee – not just on the racecourse, but everything. All you need for this to succeed totally is complicit councillors and from this report sounds like Magee has really fitted the bill.
November 15, 2010 at 11:17 PM
As one developer explained to me, its all about money. There are
some processes that have to be followed, “tick-in-the-box” stuff
if you like. Ultimately the law is extremely weak, giving
Council the freedom to do pretty much as it likes in terms of
making a decision. Theoretically VCAT can review Council
decisions–and it does–but is notoriously pro-development.
There isn’t a standard designed to protect residential amenity
that VCAT will insist upon if it impinges upon profitability.
Actually Council is obliged to give very little notice. PAEA
1987 spells out the few people who are *required* to be given
notice. Beyond that, there’s a vague clause 52(1)(d): “to any
other persons, if the responsible authority considers that the
grant of the permit may cause material detriment to them.” So
Council just has to deem that what happens to public land
doesn’t cause material detriment to us. As for the notice
itself, 52(2) covers it. Council can choose from a few different
methods, such as “by publishing a notice in newspapers generally
circulating in the area in which the land is situated”. Sadly
the onus is on us to keep informed about the nefarious planning
activities taking place in Glen Eira.
As it happens I have *never* successfully seen the inside of the
racecourse, finding it locked on each occasion. It pisses me off
when I hear developers refer to “open” space that is locked, or
several kilometres away, or in a different municipality, or on
the other side of a dangerous major arterial road, when
justifying their multi-storey development in an area with *no*
open space.
Thinking I must have been careless, I went searching through
Caulfield Leader 9 November, but didn’t spot any notice for the
meeting. I did see several from City of Port Phillip though.
Sight-unseen I could guess who might be the Planning Officer
when I read about retorts from her. I was distinctly unhappy on
another occasion when I heard her attempt to ridicule resident
objectors at a DPC hearing. The members of the DPC that day must
be used to it because they appeared not to notice.
Planning in Glen Eira is not going well. Essentially there are
only “guidelines”, which can be adopted or ignored depending on
the whim of those who make the decisions. The good news is that
we only have to endure the current crop of Councillors for two
more years. If only we could have a similar say about its senior
officers.
November 15, 2010 at 11:46 PM
Reading this makes my blood boil and reveals how warped the entire planning processes are at this council. Sure, Newton may have won awards for ‘innovative’ planning mechanisms that cut time lags and make things ‘easier’. For whom though, and with what quality of decision making? It can only be developers and the bottom line is to cut out residents. Here’s how I see it working.
Planning conferences are meant to be negotiations between objectors and applicants. Both present their points of view and with some luck a consensus is arrived at. In reality this is a rare event. If I’m an objector I bring up my usual points about traffic, shadowing and all such matters. The councillor sits there and is meant to facilitate. Only one councillor mind you – so the other eight have to rely on the planning officers’ reports. Usually there is only one planning officer present. So two people who make decisions hold court. Then we eventually get the officers’ reports and if enough people object it just might make it to council meeting. If it doesn’t make it to a full council then that’s the end of the story. You don’t get to know the reasons why something is okayed or rejected – you’re just the mug objector and don’t count.
Council agendas are put out on Friday arvo. Councillors perhaps get it a day earlier. They read the reports, look at incomprehensible plans and rely on the officers. Then they vote. That’s it! End of story. What makes it worse is that residents don’t know the recommendations that will be made, and once the reports are in you only get one and a half days to even ring someone cos you wouldn’t want to bother councillors over the weekend. Then there is the pretend debate in chambers and the vote. You are excluded. You haven’t really had a chance, or been given the opportunity to comment on the actual recommendations, whilst the applicant can change his plans pretty willy nilly after the vote is taken sometimes. And none of the above takes into account the subtle and not so subtle ways that this administration puts people off. It costs to get a copy of the plans to begin with, then you’re told that vcat can be very expensive and so on. Every hurdle is put in your way. Instead of them bending over backwards to assist you, the opposite often happens. The outcome is wonderful ‘fast tracking’ of applications and continued screwing of residents and all done under the pretense of full ‘consultation’. It’s a joke. What’s even worse is that nothing is ever mentioned about errors, inconsistencies, and at times, plain incompetence.
November 16, 2010 at 3:20 PM
When there is a will, imagination, and commitment it is absolutely astounding as to what can be achieved. Again by way of contrast we wish to alert readers to the ‘Draft Clayton Community Action Plan’ emanating from Kinston Council. This is/was a joint project between Kingston and Monash and says heaps about their collaborative mentality and their recognition of the importance of community – again the direct opposite of Glen Eira. The full document can be found at: http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Files/DraftClaytonCommunityActionPlan_Jan2010.pdf
Below we merely present a few extracts from this document which should indicate how things are done elsewhere and what the potential benefits are when communities are really included in planning issues.
“The Clayton Community is dynamic and diverse with strong community spirit. It is our vision that all our community actively participate in the future development and decision making of the local area.
CONSULTATION PROCESSES
A demographic profile of Clayton and the surrounding suburbs;
A community profile of Clayton South;
One to one consultations with key organisations providing services to the Clayton area;
Three public meetings held during the course of the plan‟s development;
A survey of 850 households in the Clayton and surrounding area
The findings of nine focus group discussions; and
Three workshops with community volunteers who provided the foundation of the community action plan
This process has been supported by a steering committee made up of representatives from:
Monash City Council
Kingston City Council
In the three workshops attended by the community volunteers a number of actions considered important for Clayton were identified. These actions were based on the experience and knowledge of the community volunteers and the different networks the community volunteers had contact with.
The community desires the opportunity to provide feedback to government and service providers about what and how services are delivered to the local community in such a way that they feel confident that they are being listened to and responded to.”
November 16, 2010 at 4:19 PM
If the MRC didn’t even bother to show up this should tell everyone about their willingness to negotiate, listen to residents concerns and possibly compromise. But hey, reckon they don’t have to when they have such willing accomplices as this council. Too right it’s a farce and the victims are local residents. Not only does Magee sound totally inappropriate to chair such a meeting given the perceived conflict of interest, it makes a total mockery of any semblance of law and proper processes. I’ll lay bets that the final report only gives a token nod to what residents had to say. It should be a good test of Forge and Penhalluriack who were present. Will they have the guts to knock this back and what about the other so called independent thinkers on council. Will they find the balls to do what’s right for the community?
November 16, 2010 at 7:49 PM
Will you stop wingeing just keep quiet. Andrew Newton, Paul Burke and the Trustees of the Melbourne Racing Club know what is best for the residents and the area, not you lot.
November 16, 2010 at 10:35 PM
Do we detect a touch of irony? The tongue firmly planted in one’s cheek:-)
November 17, 2010 at 6:56 AM
hi guys. if you want to make submissions on the issue of plans for the middle of the racecourse you can still do it before the council meeting that considers this issue. if you are really concerned then now is the time to make a formal submission to explain your concerns. in addition you should send a copy of such a submission to mrc, racecourse trustees and all candidates for the state election asking them what they are going to do about your concerns. if you do not do that now then i do not think you are serious about your complaints and you do not deserve any consideration from either the council, the state governments or any political party. essentially you do not deserve any support for your complaints.
November 18, 2010 at 7:57 AM
To those of you that believe the claptrap of most of these ill-informed bloggers, good luck. To those of you that have actually read the planning application, you will know that this has NOTHING to do with the MRC commercial planning application. This is all about whether local residents like you and I can use the proposed recreation area and whether we can park in one of the handful of spots designated and avoid walking through the tunnel.
I live alongside the course and those who claim here that it is always locked are either mistaken or deliberately mischevious.
November 19, 2010 at 4:24 AM
From the reading one could see the whole idea of review from the hundreds of residents who were sent these so called phantom letters explaining the racecourse robbery once again.
THe councillor is in fact a Trustee of the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees which is a body supposed to facililitate the Racecourse for Racing, recreation and passive enjoyment.It would seem that this body is dominated by “government approved memmbers” who represent the MRC too so our council trustees, there is only two at present, have little hope of ever having the wishes of 140,000 residents implemented. TYhe “best the council could do was to appoint one of the CRR to chair the meeting who allowed the town planner to head the table at the moving feast… this event galloped around the town hall, locking the doors without notice something like described in the story “The Name of the Father” so as to deprive residents of their oportunity to commment in yet another way.
I hear there were a few more persistant beings (in factm ore than the council officer had expected) so there was no document of study available to them on the table but rather a map on the wall with miniscule writing on it an of course in this case there was no pointer to be found not even a witches broom to assist dull residents with clarity.
It is said over 400 hundred letters sent… maybe to the dead letter office again.. a simple survey has only revealed one lucky person to receive this by way of a mailed letter which did not bear any details of it’s sender and was not signed… it was on City of Glen Eira letterhead though.
One hears that some in attendance questioned the right of the Melbourne Racing Club to make application for such works when Queen Elizabeth had not been notified. I think I’ll ask her too as the MR onml;y rents the area where the grandstands occupy and a few other isolted areas but rules over the remainder of the territory with it’s iron gates.
Now thge gates, those at the station end and that sewer pipe was locked from about Septs 22 to October 22 continually and since then on Sunday November 14 a trap was set one gate open, so the imprisoned visitor had to climb her way out or walk kilometres to escape the compound.
Now on examining the MRC Plans at council which fortunately was in the file when I visited the Town Hall although there were no officers there to discuss the matter, prodeced by professional leisure company made deliperately hard to read as the captions could only be read when the map was upside down and disoreintally impossible to read, but a very ovservant person could see at a glance that the MRC (which must be only interested in MRC interests) presented a pretty picture with a little “sugar coating which council officers failed to see. The total expenditure of only $1,500,000 was for many kilometres of black chain mesh 2.1 metres high, kilometre plus kilometre of concretised paths to accomodate 25 car spaces for the public,a toilet with baby change room, and guess what an application for Melbourne Racing Club Car Park around one of the lake edge rather than underground parking as is the case at Southgate in Brisabane!!! This was probably for hundreds of cars “on all racedays and days of major events… this is in fact 363 days a year!!!! As part the plan, like other ‘GE Parks’, for the big time pedestrian crossing, probably the same designers who have overlooked the idea of the purpose of the Crown Grant which was an attempt by the Queen, to give all Victorians, the opportunity of finding and using an open space free from all signs of daily commercialisn and cars.
WE call once agaiin on our representative to bat for us as well as Cr Magee and Effy the Town Planner who represented the MRC so well as CRR TRustee/Glen Eira Councillor and the Town Planner who was unable to bring the file or a pointer so all questions/solutions were guesswork!! One big disguise was the fact that the large carpark which will become a yet another permanent one for the MRC use was not advertised in the Glen Eira Leader. There is another question someone simple asks is why a councillor from another area is the chair person and why he also represents the CRR Trustees… how can he be impartial?? Good luck to the people of Glen Eira as we will soon have the least open space per resident of all municipalities throughout the whole of Melbourne counting the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and all the other “parks” whioch have quickly become covered with roads, and many hundred carparks which again make it imppossible to play a casual game of ball with young children!!!