We’ve repeatedly highlighted the fact that when it comes to ‘advertising’ of planning applications that are likely to cause a stir, there appears to be a direct inverse correlation between the number of objections and the number of residences notified. Now, we have another example of either deliberate ‘non-advertising’ or just plain old incompetence.
The Special Committee Meeting to decide on the C60 appeared on Council’s website last Friday afternoon (15th April). The decision to hold the meeting was therefore made at the latest, either the day before, or possibly that morning. So why is there not one single word about this meeting in the Caulfield Leader? All it would have taken is a quick filling out of the standard template, a quick email to the Leader, and the public would have been informed of this major announcement. Now all the public has announcing this meeting is a single one liner link on council’s homepage. Not good enough!! And especially not good enough when one considers that the Local Government Act specifies that ‘advertising’ has to be included in local newspapers with at least 7 days notice!! It may well appear in the Moorabbin Leader tomorrow, but it is the Caulfield Leader which reaches the people most directly impacted by the probable decision.
If next week’s Caulfield Leader is to run the ad, then that would make it the 26th (a public holiday!) – far less than the legal requirement of 1 week. So our questions are:
- Why wasn’t an ad placed in the Caulfield Leader? Deadlines are Monday morning. And given the ‘hard working’ Mr. Burke, even an email over the weekend would surely have sufficed?
- What does this say about Council’s commitment to a proper ‘engagement’ policy?
- Or is this again a typical example of keeping people unaware and ignorant?
Glen Eira Debates 
April 19, 2011 at 3:21 PM
Nothing Newton or Burke do isn’t planned down to a T. If the ad isn’t there, then it wasn’t meant to be there.
April 19, 2011 at 8:49 PM
I have been noticing quite a few articles quoting Paul Burke in the Age, the Glen Eira Leader and the Melbourne Times over the past weeks. Living in Glen Eira may have made me a bit paranoid but I am beginning to suspect a handover from Newton to Burke and I probably don’t need to tell anyone that that would not be a good thing.
April 20, 2011 at 10:39 AM
Today’s Moorabbin Leader DID NOT HAVE ANY ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING ON 28TH APRIL!! so, with one week to go, all that Council can produce is a one liner on their home page that is so easily missed. For the April 4th meeting this was in the newspapers, and also placed under the category of ‘public notices’ on the website (http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/26434_Special_Meeting_2MH_C_v1.pdf). Again, there is nothing up under this category as of 10.30am, Wednesday morning.
Deliberate, or incompetent? Your choice!
April 20, 2011 at 11:24 AM
Funny how contributers attack Senior Officers and not Councillors, who ultimatly make decisions. Could it be because Councillors can bite back?
April 20, 2011 at 11:30 AM
You’re such a silly old bugger Anon. Councillors don’t decide what goes into newspapers or is put up on the website. That’s the job of Burke full stop. Also, he can use his ‘right of reply’ whenever he wants. So how about not playing stupid anymore and admitting that your wonderful senior officers are not god’s gift to Glen Eira?
April 20, 2011 at 2:13 PM
We also need to be aware of how surreptitously the 7 lot subdivision crept into this agenda. There’s been a planning conference as GlenEira reported, but again the lack of real advertising. It’s the same old story. People can only object when they know what the hell is going on. There’s been no satisfactory explanation of what, when, how, or why it’s necessary for this subdivision, nor what it will mean for entrance to the centre of the racecourse. All important stuff. If this doesn’t stink of absolute collusion between the MRC and officers, then I don’t know what does.
April 20, 2011 at 4:28 PM
we’ve just learnt that resident objectors (and we don’t know if this means ALL objectors) have finally received a proforma letter from Council as to the Special Committee Meeting set for the 28th April. That makes it one week after the announcement went up on the website and just over a week until the meeting.
The letter again highlights the fact that residents will not be allowed to open their mouths!
It is obvious that communication needs a major overhaul at this council. What will councillors do about this because the onus is on them to set policy and to oversee its implementation.
April 20, 2011 at 8:53 PM
I reiterate GEC is either actively avoiding communicating with GE residents or incompetent. The GEC must use all media to inform the community when a planning application of strategic public interest is applied for
April 20, 2011 at 7:47 PM
MRC Planning Application GE/PP-23323/2010 Proposed 7 lot subdivision of The Racecourse Reserve
Intent of the Proposal being the subdivision required to enable the transfer of Melbourne Racing Club freehold land to the Crown as part of a land exchange agreement between the MRC and the Crown as Bernard Collins, Senior Planner at Beveridge Williams states in a letter to Ms Michelle Yu planner in Glen Eira Council, on 4th Feb 2011 (tendered as part of the MRC application) “ The subdivision is required to enable the completion of a land Exchange agreement between the Club and the Crown”
Note: This permit application seeks to enact legislation which allows the land swap of Crown land and from the GEC and community point of view is a pivotal GEC decision and should be taken with due care.
I wish to object to 7 lot subdivision on the planning grounds as follows:
Safety is a major issue for use as a park there is no where to park cars for access to this passive
parkland Please visit the site to note the busy Roundabout at the intersection of Booran and Glen Eira Roads Its busy with heavy traffic at all times, car fumes, cars speeding thru the roundabout into the tunnel. One could not easily park a car across the road and easily walk over to this inaccessible area
The Booran park has no purpose as a park. It is not for kids as it would be a stress for families to use it due to poor position choice of public park Who made this choice MRC, DSE or GEC?
It is a park with security gates, (as noted on the draft plans) what does this mean for access to the park?
Access to the proposed Booran park is via the tunnel road off the roundabout which is not owned by the GEC or the public. GE Council must insist that the land leading up to and including the tunnel becomes Crown Land controlled by the Trustees to protect public rights of access.
Unfair Value to the community
5584 m2 of 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 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.
My understanding is that of the 7 lots in the proposed subdivision, only Lot 1 (the Booran park proposal) is being surrendered to the Crown immediately for the proposed land swap . The other 6 Lots of the proposed subdivison are slices and slivers of land to be handed to the community only when training may be moved from the Racecourse Reserve at some future date. I quote from MRC and GE Council “Milestone agreement” “….. in the medium term … with full consultation with the racing industry .. a decision is expected to be made to relocate training to a more suitable locality away from the metropolitan area”
I also quote from Minister Gavin Jennings in Hansard from 9th Nov 2009 “I hope a timetable will be established for the relocation of the training facilities…..There will probably be some argument about the logistics involved in that, and the speed which that occurs, but I think it is a coalescing of an agreement and that establishing a timetable and enabling that to occur is something worth supporting.”
If that’s not obfuscation ! all one can glean from former Minister Jennings speech in Hansard is that the removal of horse training facilities is not on anyone’s timetable , the key message received is “medium term” and “hope” but no action on the horizon
The MRC proposal for the 7 lot subdivision as stated in the Beveridge Williams & Co document in the proposed subdivision “ The proposal will allow the Club to rationalize and effectively arrange its land holdings and it is for these reasons that we recommend that a permit issue” The above statement from Beveridge Williams on behalf of the MRC is that pieces of MRC freehold land which are of no use to the community are being offered as a land swap which give the appearance only of a reasonable size “land swap” with the Crown Triangle land.
However from a community point of view the MRC is offering
Freehold Total land size = 7229m2
Crown Triangle Total land size = 5,867 m2 .
This appears on the surface a fair deal for the community. But when one studies below the headline and reads the fine print the actual proposal for a land swap is with Lot 1 which is 5584 m2 .
To reiterate that this is a pivotal decision for the Councillors to make as it ties the 7 lot Subdivision application request together with :
Amendment C60 rezoning to a Priority Development Zone
Booran Road proposed passive park
Centre of the Racecourse Reserve active park
All these items must be decided as one Strategic Planning Issue and not be broken up into separate components as the MRC is suggesting.
Reading the MRC letters accompanying the plans for the proposed subdivision The MRC is presenting this subdivision request as a a minor housekeeping matter but Council must recognize this proposal as a pivotal decision for the Racecourse Reserve and its surrounding Phoenix Precinct Plan including Monash University
I reiterate GEC is actively avoiding communicating with the residents or incompetent. The GEC must use all media to inform the community when a planning application of strategic public interest is applied for.
Racecourse Precinct Friend
April 20, 2011 at 8:19 PM
Didn’t Council state that they didn’t want the land swap for the reasons such as safety outlined, I even recall a video on You Tube by the Mayor. So why are the Council silent again? F&£wit Newton and d@!head Burke at their best once again. Hope their six month notice has been given.
April 20, 2011 at 8:51 PM
Yes I have Sunday Age press clipping of Aug 15 2010 where Paul Burke was reported as saying if any swap went ahead, a more appropriate area of land should be made available for public use. He said a report was being prepared for the council. Im happy to upload the clipping if anyone is interested
April 21, 2011 at 7:25 AM
With the exception of the little slither of land that is to be returned to the Crown, the entire subdivision enables the MRC to continue their high rise high density development on the land once (if ever training is removed)
April 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM
To Crown Land Friend
Yes please put this article up so we can include in our objection to the Subdivision” to be “discussed by the “four Gangsters” on 28 April 2011.
April 21, 2011 at 9:17 PM
see Sunday Age Clip last paragraph Paul Burke quote
April 21, 2011 at 9:15 PM
Anger as racing club plan gets nod Mark Russell
August 15, 2010
A CONTROVERSIAL $750 million residential, retail and business village proposed for land next to Caulfield Racecourse is a step closer after a government-appointed panel of independent planning experts ruled in its favour, despite fears it would create traffic chaos.
The three-member panel backed Melbourne Racing Club’s plans to redevelop land north of the racecourse, sparking claims they ignored residents’ concerns about congestion, loss of parking space on race days and the height of buildings, three of which would be up to 15 storeys.
The proposal includes up to 1200 units to house 2000 people, 20,000 square metres of office space and 15,000 square metres of retail space. Under the plans, about 1400 off-street car spaces used by racegoers would be lost.
Advertisement: Story continues below But the club says the high-density residential development between Station Street and Normanby Road near the railway station fits neatly with the state government’s planning blueprint, Melbourne 2030. It claims the village will generate 3500 jobs during the seven-to-eight year construction period.
But residents fear it will create traffic chaos and further squeeze public transport services, given the government’s decision to fast-track the $350 million Monash University campus expansion on the other side of the rail line.
Malvern East Group’s Mathew Knight said residents were worried racegoers would park in nearby streets if the Caulfield development went ahead. But the panel was satisfied the racing club would be able to accommodate demand for parking.
The centre of the racecourse will continue to be used for parking on race days and for events.
Mr Knight said most residents felt the panel, which held six days of public hearings, had ignored their concerns, including their opposition to the MRC plan to use Crown land. The club has offered to swap three lots of freehold land totalling 7229 square metres for 5865 square metres of Crown land (the Tabaret car park). Part of the swap includes the creation of a park on Booran Road.
Glen Eira Council spokesman Paul Burke said if any swap went ahead, a more appropriate area of land should be made available for public use. He said a report was being prepared for the council, whose decision would then go to Planning Minister Justin Madden.
April 22, 2011 at 12:16 AM
Well you all know what happened in 1854 when “we” all became desperate. You may all care to learn that while we slaved to earn and pay our council rates of about $870.00 PER NORMAL HOUSE SITE THE MRC ONLY PAID $150.000.00 FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 for the use of approximately 150 acres. This land was mostly locked up or one could gain entry for a high price. In the same year there was a Herald Sun article which stated the income from this so called park was about $5,000.000.00. I think ratepayers may be subsiding a multi-million dollar business which is apparently not being run very well as it now has to sell its soul (original purpose) thoroughbred racing and squander the profits of years gone by by entering a new field of business property development? Was the MRC one of the clubs also mentioned by innuendo which were in now in trouble because of borrowing to finance the seven hotels for the neat sum of $50 million recently? Maybe, me thinks that the large slab of land which is being sub-divided for “housekeeping purposes” could be being done to satisfy the behest of the NAB which was called upon to finance the deal so as the MRC, which may I remind you is a’not for profit organisation’,could buy many hundreds more poker machines to add to the hundreds already held at Bettfair Park (Sandown),Caulfield Racecourse (on our Crown Land) and at Mornington Racecourse (a recent merger has occurred. The seven lots could be sold as soon as the Glen Eira Council enables the MRC to proceed. You may all be pleased to learn that most of this land has come into the hands of the MRC very cheaply. Guess who the Vendor was ……the answer is Glen Eira Council itself which allowed the MRC to buy up our roads … the eastern end of Glen Eira Road and southern end of Bond Street (from the Glen Eira Road end all the way to Station STREET) for almost a peppercorn price I guess. Strangely enough the majority of one of the subdivision is the former Bond street and it disects the Birdcage area and preliminary thoroughbred exercise rings. Is Mr Robinson closing down racing here (as has mysteriously happened under his rule in Perth) already and is he very kindly intending to extend his new BOULEVARD WITH A FLYOVER OVER STATION STREET to take qll the traffic directly to Glen Eira Road or is he carrying out this subdivision so as the council can compulsarily purchase the land for the same purpose? The horses could pass under the ‘FLYOVER” on their way to the Caulield Cup because the road is always closed to cars anyway on those and many other days.