Council’s letter announcing the Special Meeting of the Racecourse Precinct Committee contained the following information:
- Purpose was to consider the rezoning amendment
- To ‘facilitate retail and residential development’
- Agendas would be available at libraries, website, on the Friday preceding the Monday 13th meeting
One sentence in particular stood out: ‘You will not have the opportunity to address the council meeting’. The letter was signed by Susan Ross, Strategic Planner.
The results of Saturday’s election however, have cast an entirely different complexion on the issue. We cite a recently received comment from ‘Curious’ – “What an incredible result we got in Victoria. And the unnecessary spend and/or waste and/or lack of services clearly were the key factors in delivering the Government to Ted Bailliue Liberals. But the most surprising outcome is the result in Bentleigh, where Rob Hudson was rolled. I reckon that the unnecessary and therefore quite wasteful spend on GESAC, which attracted lots of money from Labour Governments has became a negative for Rob Hudson.
I think there is a lesson in that for the Glen Eira Council. Do not ignore community views! They were clearly not acceptable by many! The full impact of this huge GESAC project is yet to be revealed. And we are still to see how the issue of Caulfield Racecourse Recreation Public Ground and Public Park issue is going to be resolved by the Ted Baillieu Government? CONGRATULATIONS TO DAVID SOUTHWICK, ELIZABETH MILLER AND TED BAILLIEU FOR A STUNNING SUCCESS.”
What we now have is an entirely new ball game. Madden is gone, Southwick has declared his support for appropriate development of the Racecourse and surrounding precincts and Miller will follow suit. Even Huppert in her response to our questions laid the blame at Council’s doorstep! Now is the time for concerted opposition to Council’s inertia, and neglect of community opinion. Their latest effort in denying residents the opportunity to address the December 13th meeting must be challenged. Councillors must be made acutely aware that ‘a new age’ has dawned and their days of rubber stamping of administrative proposals is a thing of the past. We urge all residents to:
- Email the mayor demanding your right to address Council
- When your request is denied, inundate the wider media, parliamentarians, neighbours and friends with your disgust
- Highlight again and again how the community is being effectively muzzled by the ‘gang of four’ and how undemocratic and anti-community this is
- Demand the suspension of this meeting
Any other suggestions, thoughts, comments by readers are most welcome.
Glen Eira Debates 
November 29, 2010 at 12:00 PM
To hold the meeting now would be sheer stupidity given all the unknowns. If it is held it will be a clear indication of this council’s determination to ram through what they know is highly unpopular and in the face of stern opposition. What is required is the support of the new mps and council’s rejection of the panel report in its entirety. Anything less signals how out of step these councillors are with what the community wants.
Personally I’m thrilled with the election results. Not because I voted liberal, but because it will undoubtedly have a huge impact on how this council will now have to operate. The old alliances are gone and with time so will the ‘gang of four’ be gone. Nor will the previous cosy arrangements between Newton and Labour be such a dominant force.
November 29, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Curious is only half right I suspect. Labour’s profligacy (Mykii, desalination) became legendary. Apart from problems with transport, hospitals, and the other usual suspects, plus the fact that after 11 years governments are generally on the nose, the other major factor was planning – or rather, the lack thereof. Scanning a variety of local papers, each one contained community outcries against inappropriate development. This opposition slowly built into a crescendo in the past year. Bentleigh is no exception. Even in ‘no go’ Residential areas residents see how their streets and suburbs are turning into high density, high traffic congestion, low amenities, less trees, and all the other ills of ill planned and hasty development. Labour copped the brunt of this. But people aren’t that blinkered. When it comes to a four storey development next door, they won’t accept the argument that council isn’t responsible and that all blame should be laid at the feet of the state government. Further, residents who have bothered to object to developments have a good insight into how the system is failing them. Council and the state government are certainly linked in my mind, and I suspect many, many other residents. When this council fails to fight for its planning rights, when it has no structure planning and when it steadfastly refuses to incorporate sustained community involvement in strategic planning, then it sits in the shadow of the past Labour government. Planning is what lost Brumby the election and it is what will cost these councillors their jobs at the next council election.
November 29, 2010 at 1:19 PM
I was an objector to the Neerim Rd development. I sat in council listening carefully to arguments. The approval horrified me. I heard everyone speaking about compromise. 37 units in an already traffic congested area is not a compromise. It is a disaster for me and my family. What rubbed further salt in the wounds was the sickening flattery of Esakoff for all her work. That’s what she’s there for – that’s what they’re all there for! For the life of me I will never understand why compromise should be the main aim of assessing and voting on developments. When I voted for some of you I didn’t know that compromise was everything. I assumed that you would fight tooth and nail for local residents. I hate what your doing to my street, my suburb, and my shopping centres.
November 29, 2010 at 1:40 PM
We haven’t really reported on council’s take on this 9.1 Item from the agenda so here are a few choice quotes that were made:
Esakoff: ‘high density that we can live with’
Tang: ‘recommendation is appropriate’ (there’s that word again!)
Penhalluriack: ‘word of warning….we do need to look at transition – or VCAT will do it for us’
LIPSHUTZ: ‘cognisant of Penhalluriack….real issue is …current government is seeking more housing in our area….I’ve been down there; I’ve seen it. …might tick all the boxes the government wants; it doesn’t tick the boxes we want. What about the people?” (!!!!!!!!!!!!)
What about the people? An excellent question. Over to you councillors!
November 29, 2010 at 6:44 PM
Is it fair to allow a comment that insinuates a previous cosy relationship between the CEO and Labour? No evidence exists and I challenge the Author to Prosecute their case.
November 29, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Newton may not be Michael Danby’s bagman, Concerned Resident, but he has had more meetings with Gavin Jennings over the racecourse issue than he has had with residents.
November 29, 2010 at 9:46 PM
Looks like Newton has also swallowed the Madden planning philosophy holus bolus. Concerned resident – no other council has. Can you perhaps explain this strange coincidence? I’m a firm believer that where there’s smoke there’s always fire.
November 29, 2010 at 7:44 PM
What was also interesting was the seat of Oakleigh. Whilst Ann Barker was just returned thanks to preferences, she suffered a huge 12.5% swing against her and sources tell me the swing was over 20% in Caulfield East, near the racecourse. You can’t tell me that was due to the desal plant – the racecourse issue is huge in peoples minds and this Council is signing its own death warrant if it proceeds with this meeting.
November 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM
Its time for the MRC to have their control of the Racecourse
Reserve and Park removed from them. They can pursue C60, although
I’ll oppose it in its current form, but *absolutely* I don’t
want to see them retaining control of the public assets they
have exploited for so many decades.
I don’t have the energy to go through all the documents that are
associated with C60, and besides, experience suggests most of them
are designed to intimidate rather than inform. For the sake of
choosing one document, I went with the Traffic Engineering Evidence
Statement by Russell Fairlie. He acknowleged traffic and safety
problems at various intersections unless they were upgraded (not
part of the plan), and provided no details of predicted increases
in travel times for various movements through the precinct. Despite
this, he did generally support the proposal.
There was a throwaway line in his report though about parking:
“As part of the proposed MRC development the Members No. 1 and
No. 2 Car Parks and the Tabaret Car Park will be lost. The loss
of these 1630 off-street parking spaces will shift this demand
to more remote parking facilities within the centre of the
racecourse.”
So much for the public gaining their fair share of the precinct.
I reiterate: its time for the MRC to be removed as managers
of the Racecourse Reserve and Park. Glen Eira Council should reject
C60 until such time as a new management arrangement can be found,
one in which a more equitable balance of power is provided, and
breaks the MRC stranglehold on public assets.
In their own words: “MRC have ownership and/or control of land
located within the Caulfield Racecourse and land located to the
immediate north, adjacent to the racecourse. A portion of the
land is owned by the MRC, and a portion of the land is Crown
Land under the management of the MRC.”
November 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM
Reprobate, I’d take your comments even a step further. It’s not just that the C60 cedes power and control over crown land to the MRC. It absolves council of providing what it should do as a local municipality. The MSS contains no real traffic management strategy, yet in the lamentable review that was supposedly undertaken, this issue was shelved into some dim, distant future. Again without public consultation and again without firm timelines established. That councillors passed this review is an indictment of their inability to understand what planning means, or worse, their complicity with the MRC and other vested interests. The community has literally been sold out – and for what? A trifling sum that the MRC will have to pay council. Even if this amounts to $5 or $10 it is nothing more than a drop in the bucket and will undoubtedly be squandered on more memorials to stupendous egos.
November 30, 2010 at 8:29 AM
Don, Frank, Noel, Cheryl et al (let’s use names and not aliases shall we!)…C60 is not the panacea you believe it to be. It will not change the landscape as you purport – it is a specific planning application following the laws of the land as it stands.
By all means have the planning laws changed, but don’t put council business on hold because the state government has changed. If that’s really what you expect then lets just wind up local government.
Oh, whilst on the subject – what did the Libs do regarding the racecourse during the Kennett years? Nothing.