Thursday, 3rd March –
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Questions resumed.
Planning: Caulfield Village development
Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Western Metropolitan) —
My question is to the Minister for Planning, and it relates to the C60 planning scheme amendment. The Melbourne Racing Club has been attempting to resolve issues related to the Caulfield Village proposal with the Liberal-controlled Glen Eira City Council for some four years. The Caulfield Village represents an up-front investment by the club of some $20 million and a close relationship with Monash University. It is a project that has been endorsed by Planning Panels Victoria. The club has received positive endorsements from council officers who have recommended that the amendment be adopted, yet council will not act on the amendment. I ask: what steps will the minister take to resolve this matter so that this major investment can proceed?
Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — I appreciate the question from Mr Pakula. It is very timely. I met with staff from the Glen Eira council this week to seek their views on the proposals that have been put forward for the redevelopment of Caulfield Village. There are issues around car parking which are yet to be resolved. Unlike its predecessor this government will play a key role in trying to facilitate an outcome that suits both the council and the redevelopment of the course to ensure that we achieve for the community the effective use of open space and a great new development for the Caulfield Village.
Supplementary question
Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Western Metropolitan) — In relation to some of the concerns that have been raised by council and the local community, I am advised that the club has agreed to develop the infield to include barbecues, play areas, toilets and jogging tracks as well as providing the public with permanent access to an area around the lake — —
An honourable member interjected.
Hon. M. P. PAKULA — No, it was by the club. Despite this, the council has recently advised the club that they will not support parking in the infield of the racecourse for race day purposes — a situation that means racing may become unviable at Caulfield Racecourse. Coupled with the council’s refusal to address the C60 amendment, this in effect leaves the club without recourse and threatens not just the development but the future of racing at Caulfield. My supplementary question is: are there any circumstances in which the minister would step in and bring the matter to a conclusion?
Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — Again I say to Mr Pakula that these are very timely and important questions in relation to the future of that redevelopment opportunity and the issues that council has raised. As Mr Pakula would know, the questions raised by council are not new. They have been around for a long period of time. I have given a commitment to the council that I will allow it to get on with the process of the C60 planning scheme amendment. I have also met with the Melbourne Racing Club a number of times to ensure that we resolve those issues so that ministerial intervention would only be an extreme last resort, although I believe very firmly that this government will work with the council and the MRC quite cooperatively. Without pre-empting anything I am very confident that there will be an outcome which will render that unnecessary.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 4, 2011 at 3:24 PM
There’s one word missing from this whole section. Residents! We are the bunnies without a say, and without any rights to determine what happens. After all the neat little tete a tetes between Newton and his friends at the MRC you can bet your bottom dollar that the deals have already been made and signed up. Matthew Guy’s statement that he won’t intervene unless necessary is simply the convenient escape loop if some councillors such as Penhalluriack and Forge dare to rock the boat any further.
March 4, 2011 at 5:16 PM
Pakula owes the MRC for all the hospitality provided. He is not a local resident and even represents the Western suburbs. If this is all the MRC can use in Parliament for doing their lobbying, then they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
March 4, 2011 at 8:17 PM
It goes even further than this. As a member of the Racing Club, he should have declared his interest.
March 4, 2011 at 8:36 PM
That is very interesting if true. Martin “Myki” Pakula is obviously trying to distract Parliament and the Public from his pathetic performance as the Minister of Myki.
March 4, 2011 at 5:30 PM
It’s not only Labour you have to worry about. Look at all the Libs that have ties to the MRC. Naphtine to start with! Then there’s Baillieu with all his connections. The game’s rigged right from the start. The ‘big end of town’ doesn’t give a damn what some councillors says. Newton hopped on board years and years ago.
March 4, 2011 at 6:09 PM
Obviously Paluka (misspelling intended)is nothing more than a stooge of the MRC and is quite prepared to get up in Parliament and speak about something he doesn’t know anything about. Why else would make such statements about the centre of the racecourse and C60. What a cretin, thankfully he doesn’t represent us. If this is the best the MRC can do there might be a faint hope.
March 4, 2011 at 10:33 PM
Since making this post I have learnt that Paluka* (misspelling continued intentionally) is the shadow minister for racing – he should be well aware of the saga of C60 and the well documented historical failure of the Trustees and MRC/VATC to fulfill their legal obligations re the centre of the racecourse. Yet still unabashedly makes such a speach in parliament. Under the Brumby Govt he was Minister for Public Transport ….. need any more be said.
*Dictionary definition = an idiot
March 5, 2011 at 1:10 AM
I think it is spelt “palooka” but agree, let’s call him paluka from now on because that is what he is – stupid and incompetant.
March 4, 2011 at 7:33 PM
And where were the Greens? They have been most disappointing in all of this mess.
March 4, 2011 at 10:54 PM
Has anyone recently set foot inside? If not, go and have a look. The MRC have decided that they need another training track – right on Crown Land. The sheer arrogance is unbelievable. This lot have treated the racecourse as their own personal property for far too long and without any warning, notification or giving a damn about the C60 and the current application they’ve gone ahead and started this new track. They’ve basically said stuff you council, we’ll do exactly as we’ve always done and will continue on our merry way. That’s ‘negotiation’ and that’s what Pakula is talking about when he said the MRC “have been attempting to resolve issues for the past four years”. Sure, resolution means doing what they want.
March 5, 2011 at 1:00 AM
I would be outraged on the new track if I could actually get access to the racecourse. The caravan show is on and once again, members of the public are denied access to the centre of the course. As for Paluka, I can only refer you to the SunRRA website- he is hated by his own electorate just as much as he is now hated by the residents of the Eastern suburbs.
March 5, 2011 at 9:12 AM
Whatever Mr. Pakula says is unimportant. This is all about politics and money. He is now fulfilling the role of opposition. That means knock everything that is possible to be knocked. The same goes for Mr. Guy except that he will keep his cards very close to the chest. The important wheelings and dealings occur outside parliament and beyond public scrutiny. They can all grandstand as much as they like. It’s meaningless. Far more telling is who is meeting with whom and what deals have already been made.
March 5, 2011 at 2:06 PM
ALP lost government at the last election. We can only speculate about the reasons so many people turned against them, but I know mine. Planning in Victoria has been left in ruins, corrupted by rich and powerful interests who have abused the substantial weaknesses in the system for their personal profit. I’m mad as hell.
Now we have Pakula speaking on behalf of his friends, who regard the racecourse and public park precinct as their personal fiefdom. Well it has been for the last 150 years, but that nexus definitely needs to be broken.
I don’t support Pakula in calling for Ministerial intervention. It was infuriating to see Justin Madden abuse his powers, and I don’t believe any Minister of the Crown should be above the law, weak as it is. Proper planning processes should be followed, and theoretically must be followed, except when the Planning Minister intervenes. After intervention the Minister cannot be compelled to consider amenity, rescode, public needs, GEPS, anything.
Pakula’s arguments for intervention are unconvincing. MRC itself identified declining revenues from racing as the primary reason they were looking to make a lot of money from C60. This isn’t about horse racing, but a new revenue stream for the MRC and its coterie. They have exploited their trusteeship to maximise the benefit they could derive from Crown Land and understandably wish to maintain and extend their absolute control.
Pakula has indicated that he believes racing’s viability at Caulfield is threatened if parking isn’t permitted for racing and major events purposes. It was and is clearly the intention of C60 that the centre of the public reserve be used for parking for racing and major events, a use that is incompatible with that part of the land being used for a Public Park. MRC has land that it can use for parking, but it wishes to make more money from it through redevelopment. That’s their choice. We’re not obliged to make yet more Crown Land available to help them. They’ve already had the benefit of a highly dubious land swap, in which we have been saddled with land of marginal utility. I don’t hear Pakula calling for that scandal to be investigated.
Its almost amusing to think that lack of carparking makes an activity unviable when its adjacent to 3 modes of public transport. Not that I ever thought our State Governments really believe in public transport. In 1987 the then State Labor Government had Platform 1 shortened at Caulfield station to just 160m. The extra length lost was used to hold additional trains to service race patrons.
Pakula refers to Planning Panels Victoria and Council Officer support for C60 as reasons why the public interest should be ignored. I wonder if he really knows the contempt informed members of the public have for both. The Planning Panel report identified unresolved issues, and admitted they had no clue as to how to resolve them. They called for C60 to be adopted with resolving these issues. That is not surprising when the Panel was created and carefully selected to serve the needs of their then political masters. Council Officers have shown they support development above protecting residential amenity. They have done so by refusing to apply any of the protections contained in GEPS. It should be intolerable as an affront to democracy that they fail to disclose to Council or in DPC decisions each breach of policy and/or standards being sought by a developer, and the reasons that officers consider such breaches should be tolerated.
MRC has revealed subsequent to the advertising of C60 that they are seeking an expansion of the number of race days and/or major events in the precinct. Currently each results in the loss of public access to the reserve in the centre. Monash University, a key partner with MRC, flagged they’re looking to use the centre for parking to compensate for the loss of carparking if C60 proceeds.
Permanent access to the public reserve requires the land be removed from the control of MRC and Trustees. As the very detailed legalese spells out on the so-called entrance to the reserve, they have enormous power to remove the right of public access with no notice.
Finally, Pakula makes the claim Glen Eira Council is Liberal-controlled. Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not aware of the political affiliations of 8 of the 9 Councillors. (It could hardly be a secret that Cr Pilling is a member of the Greens, having stood both at State and Federal level.) I’m not in favour of party politics at Municipal level, and it would strongly influence my vote if I knew a candidate was a member of a political party. The former State Government introduced 4-year terms for Council so its even harder now to get rid of people who choose not to represent us effectively.
March 6, 2011 at 7:06 PM
Sensa when someone resorts to cheap offensive language on a subject of importance then it reflects on the person making silly offensive remarks.Your the idiot not Mr Pekula.
March 6, 2011 at 11:01 PM
If the name fits Anonymous … the fact is the Shadow Minister stated in parliament, where he was publicly recorded, what he knew to be either half truths or outright distortions. That an elected representative (with presumbably above average skills) and a Shadow Minister (with associated research staff) would do so is, at best, untenable. To have chosen to do so means idiot, I dont take back that comment.
By the way, what is the link between the C60 overdevelopment and the centre of the racecourse. They are two distinctive issues that are only linked by the MRC’s deluded initial C60 overdeveopment proposal to turn the centre of the racecourse into a permanent carpark and the resultant outcry from the public re the loss of publicly declared park and recreational land. Two distinctive issues:
* the centre of the racecourse is public park and recreantional land. It has been so since day one – yet the Trustees and the VATC/MRC have continually ignored this. This is well documented.
* the C60 overdevelopment is the result of the MRC/VATC using low rental crown land and concessional local Council rates to generate revenue to acquire freehold land at fireside prices (Bond Street used to extend to Glen Eira Road).
The suggestion that the refusal to allow carparking into the centre of the racecourse during racecourse events (racing or other uses) will depardise the viability of Caulfield Racecourse is ludricrious – particulary as the MRC C60 overdevelopment application has publicly stated that demand for parking is minimal given the proximity of public transport.
March 7, 2011 at 5:09 AM
A permanent carpark in the centre of the racecourse? You must be privy to some new information? Please disclose your source ‘cos I’d love to see where you read that one.
March 7, 2011 at 9:04 AM
Refer to the opening statement by Stuart Morris who represented the MRC at the C60 Planning Panel hearing in May, 2010. Copies were posted on the GE website – I am not sure if they are still there.
MODERATORS’ COMMENTS: The C60 summary is available. Click on our header under that title.
March 8, 2011 at 6:23 AM
Yes but that is referring to the carpark in the centre for those that wish to access the centre for recreation. The only alternative is to make people walk through the tunnel(s). What is it you want – access or a blanket ban?? Council fought long and hard for a handful or carparks so was that all in vain?
March 8, 2011 at 11:09 PM
I think you have read the C60 Planning Panels Report rather than the opening statement of the MRC appointed representative, Stuart Morris, QC. The Planning Panel originally refused to discuss the centre of the racecourse until residents outcries occurred as a result of this opening statement. The statement included (among other things) that the centre of the racecourse would become a carpark (for displaced Tabaret and Monash Uni parking predominantly, and latterly for members on race days or paid parking for the public on non -racing events). That the MRC produced, a very short time before the publishing of the C60 Panel Report, plans for finally undertaking their historically neglected legal obligation re the centre of the racecourse is a testament to the outrage of C60 objectors. It is also a testament to the conniving’s of the State Government, CE Council and the MRC.
March 7, 2011 at 12:17 AM
From the Saturday Herald Sun – Page 79. This interesting paragraph -“The RVL board also announced it is looking at three venues for the next synthetic track – Pakenham, Caulfield and Flemington.
The board determined a formal business case is to be prepared which examines the impact on race dates, prize money funding and other factors for each of these venues before a decision is reached.”