There is a deafening silence from the vast majority of State Candidates about the Caulfield Racecourse and the entire Caulfield Village development. Only two candidates have expressed views:
- Peter Brohier – Independent Candidate for Caulfield District campaigns for extensive infrastructure development to become the junction between East and West of Australia and to link Hastings Ports to Tasmania. He sees the Racecourse as a Public Asset to be used properly by the Public for the Public use;
- David Southwick – Liberal Candidate for Caulfield District (replaces Shardey) campaigns against an inappropriate development in Caulfield and in particular around the proposed MRC Caulfield Village. He wants to work with the community and the Glen Eira Council to resolve the issue of Public use of the Racecourse.
No other Candidates are campaigning on the issue of the Racecourse and the development of the greatest asset that Victoria has got according to Peter Brohier. The value of the area, which was also examined in the Sir Rod Eddington’s Report, is between $10 billion to $20 billion at present. The proposed developments plus the likely future developments may either double the value or if it is NOT done properly it may destroy the area and ALL other areas around the proposed Caulfield Village.
On the grapevine we hear that both major parties are divided about the proper use and future development of this area. Baillieu is totally against the development and Brumby has not said a word.
There will be 17 MPs in the Parliament, whose votes are important for the Caulfield Racecourse Public Recreation Ground and Public Park with its surrounding areas. The Public deserves an answer from ALL candidates on this big issue that will affect the whole of Victoria and Australia as this transport hub should be developed into a major link between East and West.
We ask each candidate to state their position on the following:
- immediate public access to the middle of the racecourse
- development as a public recreation ground and public park
- appropriate development of Caulfield Village
- development as a major transport hub
- involvement of local and wider community together with stakeholders at each step of development
Glen Eira Debates 
November 23, 2010 at 2:05 PM
These are the very questions that should have been uppermost in all councillors minds years ago. This council has simply rolled over time and time again, content to take the money from the C60 and run. There has been no co-ordinated action between council and residents, no strident advocacy on behalf of the public, and certainly no public demands made on all these politicians. Every facet of council’s involvement has been destined for defeat simply because this may be part of the hidden agendas to begin with. Regardless of the electioneering, congratulations to Peter Brohier and David Southwick for at least recognising the importance and value of this resource and honing in on public sentiment. That’s a lot more than Newton and the vast majority of councillors have ever done.
November 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM
I got excited when I heard that this weeks Leader would grill the Caulfield and Oakleigh candidates on planning which I had guessed meant the inappropriate development of Caulfield Racecourse. Yes lets find out which way they will vote when the development proposal comes up to them, because I am a swinging voter and this issue alone will determine which way I vote on Saturday. But my excitement turned to disbelief when no planning questions around Caulfield racecourse were put to any candidate. Is the Leader being censored or has the journalist lost all true questioning skills?
November 23, 2010 at 2:49 PM
Different editors obviously have different priorities! The following from today’s Stonnington Leader, where the paper apparently organised a ‘candidates forum’.
“Council role central on planning pitches Stonnington development issues cast a long shadow over the candidates’ forum
DEVELOPMENT issues loomed large as a towering issue for the audience at Stonnington Leader’s forum.
While candidates responded to topics ranging across abortion, clearways, education, employment, environment, public transport and roads, questions about planning policy and development dominated the queries.
The Prahran electorate session set the tone, beginning with an audience question fielded by the two main parties concerning the 2.5ha development of apartment towers planned for 590 Orrong Rd in Armadale.
Liberal candidate Clem NewtonBrown said he would continue to fight the development and derided the Government’s policy of directing big sites close to heavy transport routes.
‘‘We all live within 400m of a heavy transport route in
VC71 simply consolidates planning into one document.
TONY LUPTON Prahran,’’ he said. ‘‘We are at risk of destroying what we love about this area.’’ He did not provide an alternative plan for housing Melbourne’s growing population.
In response, Labor MP Tony Lupton said it was his stance that the Orrong Rd site would be a decision for Stonnington Council to make and was in no danger of being ‘‘called in’’ by Planning Minister Justin Madden as it was only at the rezoning stage. ‘‘I think that the council should continue along the path it is on,’’ he said.
He defended the Government’s VC71 planning amendment, which opponents have criticised as promoting high-rise development, saying it simply consoli-
Armadale should be kept
low-rise.
MICHAEL O’BRIEN dated planning into one document. Prahran candidates were also called to address concerns about the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal powers and the practice of the Planning Minister ‘‘calling in’’ projects. Greens candidate Meni Christofakis said the previous Liberal Government had started the practice of ministerial call-ins, but they had continued under Labor. Planning powers needed to be returned to local communities, she said. ‘‘There should be a democratic process so that the community is involved in the decisionmaking process of their communities,’’ she said. In Malvern, similar questions”
November 23, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Its even worse. Here are the questions asked of candidates for Yarra –
What would you do to ensure that Westlink doesn’t lead to increased traffi c in Kensington, Flemington and North and West Melbourne?
Should mandatory height limits be introduced to the planning scheme across the electorate?
As Melbourne’s population increases, which parts of the electorate will need more kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools?
What is it about the Caulfield/Moorabbin/Port Phillip Leaders that readers are continually short-changed. Delivery is woeful and irregular, and content abysmal. It should be used for wrapping one’s fish and chips if that was still allowed.
November 23, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Same old bull from council in their latest media release. Nothing about planning. All about sport pavilions, level crossings, and kindergartens whose responsibility is again put squarely on state and federal government. What’s interesting however, is the paragraph which talks about ‘educational facilities’. In other words, council won’t give up any of its properties, won’t build anything, and won’t digress from its official line of ‘it’s not our responsibility’. They’ve simply picked the safe topics, but not the ones that gets up everyone’s nose when a 4 storey development takes place next door, or a ten to 20 storey block is erected on public land. A media release which seeks to highlight these issues is simply beyond this council. Well done Tang – you’re following his masters voice exceedingly well.
November 23, 2010 at 8:18 PM
The silence from candidates is deafening. At this stage my vote is informal as I live in the Oakleigh electorate and Brohier and Southwick are both vying for Caulfield. My legislative Council vote is also up for grabs if anyone is interested (Greens, DLP, anyone).
November 24, 2010 at 11:18 AM
I am just Curious how ‘gleneira’ has come to the value of $10 billion to $20 billion dollars? If ‘gleneira’ is only guessing, would anyone know the value of this area?
November 24, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Dear Curious,
We’ve worked out the economic value of caulfield east as follows:
The way we have estimated the value of the area of Caulfield East plus the trapezoid of Kambrook Rd, Normanby Rd, Smith St and Station St is to add the known property values of:
• Caulfield Racecourse over $2 billion
• Caulfield Village proposal over $750 million
• Monash University area over 2 billion
• Zagame area say $1 billion
• All other properties in Caulfield East over $250 million
That makes it about $6 billion dollars give or take. So the estimate of between $5 billion and $10 billion is on the money. Then if you run a business on such a land your turnover should roughly be the same amount. That is how we got the current economic value of the area to be between $10 billion and $20 billion.
Of course the Council Admin knows precisely the property values of this area, but they keep it to themselves. Even the Councillors do not know the real value of this area. It would be nice if the CEO would divulge that information as part of his Public Information responsibility.
November 24, 2010 at 1:18 PM
oh my, oh my. isn’t that interesting. andrew newton keeps this kind of info to himself. treat everybody, in particular councillors like mushrooms, in the dark and feed them bulshit! but then again may be the guy just does not know how to do it? after all he is not an economist of any kind and there is no economic expertise on his staff. neither is he a town planner in the architectural sense. all his town planners aspire to be like lawyers dabbling in rules and regulations. they like nothing better than argue with the legal eagles. as for planning, there is very little. in all his years as a ceo he has not engaged even once an economist to give the council an overview of the economic health of glen eira! what we do get is the view of individual developers when they apply for a planning permit. andrew newton expertise is in governance! that of course suits the lawyers on the council. they understand that or so they think. the main role of lawyers is protection of rights, property and status quo. hey that really suits the ceo and admin to a tee. if you want any change as is the case invariably with new councillors, forget it. so the longest serving councillors esakoff, lipshutz, hyams, and tang have got it all over the others. community has no chance. by the wayside goes also open, transparent and accountable government. all can be wieseled out by the governance rules and interpretation. who by? of course by lawyers and aspiring lawyers, statutory town planners!
November 24, 2010 at 6:02 PM
The following comment was put up by ‘AFM’ under the C60 Planning report page. We felt that it should also go here:
The stink is not horse manure
The sham planning process (Age, 13/11/10) practised by the Victorian Labour Government includes circumventing the planning process by doing secret deals which favour developers over the public. The case in point is the inappropriate and ever burgeoning Caulfield Village development proposed by the Melbourne Racing Club. The site of this overdevelopment is the Caulfield Racecourse Members Carparks 1 and 2 (MRC free hold land) and the triangle of now former Crown Land (currently used as a carpark) bordered by Station and Smith Streets and Normanby Road, Caulfield North. This 5867 m2 triangle is in a prime location and represents approximately 30% of the proposed Caulfield Village site.
On 8th December, 2009, the Labour Government’s Land (Revocation of Reservations and Other Matters) Act 2009, which removed the restricted Crown Land status of the triangle, was passed and the Act become operative on 1 July, 2010. Subsequent to passing the Act, a Ministerial Directive from the Department of Sustainability and Environment authorised the transfer of the now former Crown Land, together with control over the surrounding public roads, to the MRC for generous terms. This unpublicized sale by stealth to the MRC was contrary to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Land Development (Sept. 2008) and opposed by Glen Eira and Stonnington Councils.
The above occurred prior to the “independent and objective” review of the Caulfield Village proposal by a Planning Panel on 18-28 May, 2010. Clearly, the planning consultation process was circumvented. The sale was not conditional on the development being approved after the planning process had run it’s due course.
In exchange for the Crown Land, the MRC
1. paid $4.8m – the former Service Station and High Performance Car Engine Service Centre buildings and property located at 2 Station Street is a third the size of the former Crown Land Triangle and was sold at public auction in July for $4.5m (despite the added costs of demolition works and potential soil toxicity issues), and
2. swapped 3 parcels of land
a. 954 m2 of MRC freehold land which is to be integrated into the Racecourse Reservation and hence will remain in the control of the Melbourne Racing Club (since the Reservation Trustees have handed daily control of the Reservation to the Melbourne Racing Club).
b. 691 m2 of MRC freehold land, currently used for stabling, which will remain in MRC control for approximately 10 years. (A horse a year?)
c. 5584 m2 of neglected MRC freehold land which the MRC is to landscape as a public park then hand over to Glen Eira Council (an unwilling recipient). This land is smaller and of much lesser commercial value than the former Crown Land Triangle. Access is limited to the busy intersection of Kambrook, Booran and Glen Eira Roads and there is no provision for parking – provision of parking will diminish the size of the park. As such Glen Eira Council has deemed it to be of little value, and not practical for community use, yet will be responsible for ongoing park maintenance.
It is hard to see how the above complies with the DSE Land Exchange criteria of “greater public value” or that the Victorian public will gain an area of equal or greater social, cultural or historic significance.
Little is known of any performance standards or failure to perform provisions being included in the sale/land swap agreement. Given the well known poor performance of both the Trustees and the Melbourne Racing Club in managing and maintaining the Caulfield Racecourse as a race course, public recreation ground and public park it is extremely concerning that such standards and provisions are not known. How will the government ensure that the Trustees and/or the Melbourne Racing Club fulfil these legal responsibilities and the commitments?
What is known is that as a result of the sale Victorian’s will receive a large residential/commercial and retail development which is out of context with it’s environment, that is difficult to access and is short on of parking. They will also receive a substandard park. The MRC, which obtained freehold land from funds raised from activities on minimal rent public land will become awash with funds (a minimum half billion). What Victorian’s could have received is not known as the widespread community consultation process recommended by the Select Committee on Public Land Development (2008) did not occur.
In the words of a fellow objector “the stink is not from horse manure”.
November 24, 2010 at 7:10 PM
LOST OPPORTUNITIES COST US BILLIONS WHAT APPROACH WILL YOUR NEXT POLITICIAN TAKE?
FIX THE CAUSE OF UNNECESSARY DEVELOPMENT To better use our infrastructure – build on the recent prioritisation of our two cities by Port Phillip Bay – Melbourne and Geelong suggested by Peter Brohier during the Higgins by-election. Save billions by linking the Port Phillip Heads and use the existing $200B road and rail system around the Bay more effectively, both ways at peak hour. Intense inner-suburban residential development can be unnecessary with development spread over these two cities, each having substantial existing infrastructure. Reduce carbon emissions by faster travel – without needing to cut up Melbourne to implement the whole of a largely unfunded $37 billion Victorian Transport Plan. BENEFIT FROM EXISTING BASS STRAIT FEDERAL FUNDING – GRADE SEPARATE GLEN EIRA’S RAIL CROSSINGS Unused resources and massive federal funding, obtained by Peter Brohier and his National Sea Highway Committee, can be applied by Canberra, in weeks, to bring huge benefits to Victoria by delivering a fairer Melbourne to Hobart transport corridor. Adelaide enjoys 3 effective inter-capital corridors. Victoria asked, but got just 2. Based on equity and geography, Canberra owes us billions. Using this massive funding, the two cities solution to Melbourne’s traffic congestion and grade separation at Glen Eira’s rail crossings, as part of an upgrade of this new inter-capital city link, can be funded in preference to existing Infrastructure, Australia priorities – also a new Melbourne icon, a fabulous toll – free road and rail bridge over Port Phillip heads makes very sound economic sense to connect all three inter-capital corridors. MAKE CAULFIELD MORE LEAFY AND VALUABLE To deliver a leafy and more valuable Glen Eira by planting canopy trees over our major roads – just like Orrong Road and in Toorak. EXPERIENCE A FABULOUS NEW SHOPPING, SPORTING AND CULTURAL PRECINCT To establish a new fabulous billion dollar inner-city regional shopping, recreational and cultural centre at the Caulfield Railway Station transport hub – easily accessible by rail, tram and bus from many parts of Melbourne. Reduce our taxes by avoiding needless duplication of similar facilities elsewhere. Enhance the wider economy of Glen Eira – benefit existing stakeholders. VIEW & USE A NEW BILLION DOLLAR PARK To replace two corrugated iron fences and greatly increase the visibility of Caulfield’s $2 billion recreational and racing crown land. Substantial use of this open space, especially near the Caulfield Station, will lead to increased revenue and savings which can be applied to reduce our council rates or fund other necessary facilities. ENJOY CHEAP ACCESS TO THE AIRPORT For long overdue access to Melbourne Airport by tram on a Met ticket – a 6 km tram link from Airport West can be very cheap to build and can be delivered now. Fast rail may take over 10 years & may not be available on a Met ticket. With air critical to everyday transport, it’s time to integrate airports into our suburban transport system. ENSURE ELECTION PROMISES ARE KEPT Be a supporter of the National Public Lobby and balance the influence of paid lobbyists – give the public the best chance of ensuring election promises are kept after an election – make our democracy work much more effectively.
IDEAS AND EQUITY COSTING VICTORIANS ALMOST NOTHING
FROM PETER BROHIER – A LAWYER AND LOBBYIST WHO KNOWS CANBERRA VERY WELL
MAPTAG.COM.AU Authorised and printed by Peter Brohier 143 Kooyong Road, Nth. Caulfield. VictoriaIndependent Candidate for Caulfield Mob 0415 941 314 Please hand this to others.
November 24, 2010 at 8:43 PM
The usual wacky ideas just cluttering up a blog. Interesting that the people of Geelong do not share your view of building a bridge over the Heads to enable them to get to Melbourne by an alternate route (2.5 hour trip anyone?). I will be interested to see if you gather more than the 208 donkey votes in the Higgins by-election. Good Luck.
November 24, 2010 at 10:22 PM
Who knows what the people of Geelong think. What do the people of Melbourne think?
The Bay Bridge is not just about offering the people of Geelong an alternate route. It’s not even just about Geelong having access to the east of our state without having to pass through Melbourne.
It about moving our population around the Bay offering them two CBD’s without the over development of Melbourne. It can stop much of the carving up our city with a $37 billion transport plan stop the increase in our population outward to the north, hills and towards Gippsland leading to empty roads and trains in one direction and full ones in the other, High Street traffic and high rise next door.
It about an efficient circle rail line and a ring road through Caulfield and then around the Port Phillip Bay and the spreading of population over two cities by the Bay. It is about efficient use of existing transport links and other infrastructure around the Bay and connecting them.
It is about grade separation and about equity for people.
I stand to put these issues forward. You have responded.
If you want to vote for these ideas then please vote for me. Otherwise, please vote for those who advance more general aspirational goals that we will need to fund.
Perhaps we may think of the Bridge when we sit behind traffic, including container transport, needing to unnecessarily traverse Melbourne or travel in full trains at peak hour.
Authorised and printed by Peter Brohier 143 Kooyong Road, Nth Caulfield.
November 30, 2010 at 8:10 AM
Congratulations Peter, 116 votes – you sure showed us all. I didn’t realise you had such a large family. Does that mean you forfeit your deposit…AGAIN?
Just another time waster.
December 5, 2010 at 2:01 AM
If 116 people voted for me, I wish to thank each one of them.
My policies will continue to be advanced after this election. I consider my low investment of $350 to stand was well worth it – compared with the amount of free publicity the policies have generated. You have done well by informing readers of the public funding mechanisms that can advantage much larger campaigns.
December 5, 2010 at 7:11 PM
We’re getting to the pointy end of planning decisions regarding the Racecourse, and there has been a substantial shift away from Labor. I was one of them (not that I was ever a fan of Labor’s version of democracy). Our ex-Minister against Planning has gifted the MRC a significant parcel of Crown Land, yet ensured that most of the land within the Caulfield Racecourse and Park Reserve remains under the control of the MRC. The MRC desperately needs its much-sought planning permission to build a massive carpark in the centre of the racecourse reserve since it plans to develop the Member Carparks 1 and 2. As their justification for C60 states, they need to find ways to make more money because interest in racing is dwindling. So much for being a non-profit organisation.
A key question is just how much of public assets should be devoted to helping that clique make money. They have been poor custodians of the crown land in the centre of the reserve for 140 years, and little wonder as we increase density that people are keen to break their monopoly. I have absolutely zero confidence in my Council to plan for the area, since over the 4 years I have taken an interest in planning matters:
* Approved dozens of 3-storey developments that fail to comply with the standards contained in Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
* Approved 4+ storey developments next/adjacent/opposite to single-storey developments (not GEPS policy).
* Ignored traffic congestion as an issue, going so far as to lecture objectors because the problem will go away in 20 years.
* Decided that open space is not necessary to support high density living.
* Accepted that developer profit is sufficient reason to waive non-compliance with GEPS.
* Made cars a higher priority than pedestrian safety in Carnegie Major Activity Centre.
* Allowed a major development to build without a Planning Permit for 8 months (9 Morton Avenue).
* Failed to ensure the so-called Spotlight Centre (Carnegie Fringe) complies with its Planning Permit.
* Contradicted Parliament’s Road Safety Committee’s report that strongly recommended strengthening standards for off-street parking, by arguing for no standards with respect to gradients and sightlines.
* Published a review of the Planning Scheme in which *no* changes to the scheme were recommended, and failed to identify a single problem with the current Scheme, while unilaterally deciding that no multi-unit development should or need comply.
* Failed to publish any statistics to show whether all the development activity they have supported have contributed to their stated goals (e.g. housing diversity, employment, ageing population, reduction in greenhouse gases).
* Supported 100% site coverage and no landscaping, to help developers make more money.
* Allowed a developer to build something that failed to comply with their Planning Permit, then support the developer at VCAT in getting a retrospective amendment to make it legal.
* Usurped limited playground space at Carnegie Primary School for a kindergarten to replace the land they wanted redeveloped at the former Uniting Church.
* Allowed the Developer Contributions Overlay to lapse, so that developers don’t have to contribute to the costs of infrastructure to support their developments. Ratepayers are expected to subsidise not only the Developers’ planning applications, we’re expected to subsidize all infrastructure, and accept a loss of amenity from congestion, safety, loss of diversity.
* Restricted the provision of valuable services close to where people live, preferring that they drive to one of the 3 “major activity centres”, but then creating the economic conditions that make those centres far from active. Its one of the few arguments in favour of C60, or otherwise people will in the future need to do their shopping in another Municipality (e.g. Stonnington).
Essentially GEPS is a fraud. It has been used both by Council and VCAT to support development, regardless of the clauses designed to protect residential amenity. This situation exists mostly because people allow it, choosing not to get involved until they are the target. I don’t like that attitude. We should be insisting on fair and ethical treatment of all residents, on the basis of how we would wish to be treated ourselves.
December 6, 2010 at 3:59 AM
Peter, you are delusional. But at least you acknowledge one of the real reasons you keep running for public office – PUBLICITY.
Now you’re up to 159 votes…clearly something must be wrong with the 32,000+ who didn’t see your point of view.
December 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM
Given my total election expediture was about $350, being the cost of my registration, please do not expect that all 32000 voters were in a position to even see or understand my point of view. Perhaps the 159 who voted for me were well informed and will now be in a position to act and advance the issues for which I have sought publicity.