We’ve gone back and had a look at the Council resolution that was passed about negotiations with the MRC and compared this with the proposed ‘agreement’. It was decided that council’s position would be:
1.That the opaque fences be replaced by palisade fencing as soon as possible;
2. That the centre of the circumferential training tracks be fenced off and the general public be given exclusive and unrestricted access via the tunnel from Glen Eira Road to this entire area;
3. That the Melbourne Racing Club landscape this area to plans and specifications to be agreed with Council, but which will include sporting ovals, areas for passive use, change areas and toilets;
4. That a firm timetable be set for the expeditious removal of horse training from the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve so the Crown Land used for training can be made progressively available for unrestricted public use.
5. That aside from the tunnel there be further public access to the centre of the Racecourse.
6. That car parking not be permitted in the centre of the Racecourse except in association with the use by the public of the public park.
7. That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve be administered by Independent Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust not dominated by any one group.
What Newton and co have come up with doesn’t cover half of what was in the resolution. There’s nothing here about unrestricted access, a firm timetable for getting rid of training and greater access to the centre. It’s also odd that this item hasn’t got a single name attached to it. All we get are disclaimers such as “Council has no more control over this land than it does over the average residential property.”
Also of note is that decisions on fencing remain with the MRC and not council. Further, Glen Eira residents will be forking out further monies to share in the construction of various entrances and fences. So much for the MRC footing the entire bill! Oh, and there’s a time limit of up to 5 years for some of this fencing to go.
Of greatest concern is the total failure of this so called ‘negotiation’ to insist on the expeditious removal of training from the racecourse and the establishment of an independent trust ‘not dominated by any one group’. As it stands, this ‘agreement’ does not in any shape or form adhere to the council resolution. If this ‘agreement’ is passed then Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff, Hyams, Pilling and Magee will have to parry charges of hypocrisy since they all voted in favour of Penhalluriack’s motion on what council’s position should be. The motion still stands. They are therefore obligated to support the motion or be viewed as the lackeys of the MRC.
Glen Eira Debates 
April 26, 2011 at 7:14 AM
Not only all the above, in In July 2009 Council and the MRC issued a joint communiqué, which stated that at some time in the future training facilities would be removed from Caulfield to a more suitable locality away from the metropolitan area. It further stated that the area that houses the stables and the training facilities would be returned to the Council for public use. The timing was unspecified and the MRC was to provide Council with an annual update on progress.
Has anyone seen the annual update due in July 2010? Should be easy to write as it only needs to state “no progress”
Incidentally, the MRC provided this communique as evidence of intent to the C60 Planning Panel hearings (May, 2010) and the VEAC Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation (December, 2010)
April 26, 2011 at 10:27 AM
Face it – the MRC and the gang of five are not to be trusted. The MRC has powerful allies in Napthine and others plus our own little gang of five. How they get away with non existing leases and reneging on statement after statement is unbelievable. And our gang just sits there and aids and abets this pillage of the public realm.
April 26, 2011 at 9:35 AM
It’s incredible that with all the hype going on about the C60 and the racecourse, that the Glen Eira Leader focuses all its attention on past news for the second time – the mulch business on the front page. There’s one full page ad by the supporters of the Caulfield Reserve, but from the paper itself, not one single utterance about this issue. It only makes me more and more suspicious as to the relationship between the Leader and the Council and how much editorial control emanates from Newton’s office. Other Leader papers such as the Bayside and Stonnington feature stories on development on their front pages, but this rag when faced with the biggest development proposal in the entire metropolitan area keeps mum. The advertising dollar obviously wins over professional journalism for this literal rag!
April 26, 2011 at 12:01 PM
Why would you remove Training from Caulfield. This facility daily employs hundreds of mainly locals and is a major employer in our municipality.Caulfield Park and Glenhuntly Park are next door to the Racecourse and they are underutilised.I want to know why Frank, who resides well outside our city wants to cause unemployment
April 26, 2011 at 3:23 PM
It’s a sad state of affairs but the only Councillor I trust at the moment is Penhalluriack. He is the voice of the people and I only hope he elects to stay on as in talking to fellow residents, his landslide majority will only increase.
April 26, 2011 at 12:35 PM
Caulfield Glen Eira Leader has however published in the last year or so a front-page article in which trainers of horses in the Caulfield Public Reserve described their critics as “pests”. Although the MRC has acknowledged that horse training is incompatible with the intended use of the centre of the Reserve for public recreation purposes, the powerful vested interests see the way to resolve the matter is to tell the public to f___ off.
The proposed agreement reinforces this view: if public access interferes with horse training then the MRC retains the right to remove public access, and the MRC is to decide under what circumstances such removal is warranted. This goes beyond the powers granted in the Crown Land Reserves Act 1978 Regulations For The Care, Protection And Management Of The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.
Now how did the MRC get a Planning Permit for the training track that it has conconstructed in modern times? That seems to lie outside of the purposes listed in the Crown Grant [Race Course, Public Recreation Ground, Public Park at Caulfield]. If Council has made a serious error in granting the Permit, then the onus is on Council to rectify it.
While it might seem to be heading off on a tangent, Victoria has in the past been blessed with a number of racecourses with rail service. Most have been closed and the rails ripped up. The reasons are clear, which Martin Pakula inadvertently revealed in his Question in Parliament to the Minister for Planning: racecourses aren’t viable unless most people can drive their car to them.
The proposed “transport-orientated” [sic] precinct that’s being imposed upon us, like all the other Activity Centres, critically relies on cars. If the Government and Council truly believed in their policies, cars would be banned from within the precinct. In England many Councils place limits on the amount of carparking a multiunit development can provided. Victoria has no intention of investing the money required to have a truly public transport-oriented society. [DoT was embarrassed when some of its officers flew to Mildura as part of the investigationinto feasibility of reestablishing rail passenger service, which was removed in 1993. The standard DoT techniques for killing investment in anything other than roads were used in the subsequent report.]
One could point to other policies that overseas Councils have adopted to support higher density living, such as communal gardens, the use of rooftops as open space, primacy of pedestrians and pushbike riders over mechanised transport.
With the Caufield Public Reserve, and C60, we have an opportunity to do much better than what is being proposed. Its unlikely we could reach rapid agreement about the directions that should be pursued, but its pretty clear we’ve taken a wrong turn, and now we have to find ways to minimize the damage.
April 26, 2011 at 12:42 PM
I have just received my Leader and on reading the Mulch story I too am very unimpressed. Most unimpressive is the comment “A shed costing $160,000 was built in at the current site in 2009” … no cost for the land yet the shed, which is hardly an architectural masterpiece and is not fully enclosed, cost $160,000. Come on, Council how did it cost that much!!!!
April 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM
If you read the Leader online, there is a comment from “Peter Delaney”. How did he get his anti -Penhalluriack comment in so quick, especially on a public holiday? I smell a rat and think Jenny Ling did not write the article but our old mate Andrew Newton. Newton can get the Leader to write a piece like that but cannot advertise the C60 meeting. Time to replace Newton and his mates, the gang of four.
April 26, 2011 at 3:32 PM
Newton’s tactics are evident in all of this. First you bring up such nonsense as conflict of interest whenever you are trying to discredit someone because they represent a challenge to your power; next you sideline them from everything by not passing on the relevant information; then you get your yes men (councillors and the Leader) to do your dirty work for you. It’s no coincidence that in the past couple of weeks there have been some more comments on this blog which bag Penhalluriack and Forge. They’ve all suddenly come out of the woodwork. Then there are the Dorothy Dixer letters in the Leader. Wonder how many they may have got that supported Penhalluriack but were never published. Or how many slammed council over the c60 and racecourse, but these are never published either – or merely the odd one here and there. The entire campaign is loathsome and unethical. But that’s Glen Eira for you and the way it’s been run for a decade.
April 26, 2011 at 6:25 PM
Could someone show me where the Consultants suggested conditions call for the closure of the Mulch Pit. As for Franks Pecuniary Interest there needs to be an immediate investigation.
April 26, 2011 at 6:35 PM
Read the recommendations of the consultant from Pilling’s blog Anonymous. These are all the things that Newton and the audit committee didn’t implement immediately. That’s what should be investigated! I’d also like an investigation, but this time into Newton when he lands his cushy job with the MRC after he’s booted out of Glen Eira. How do u like that scenario?
April 26, 2011 at 6:48 PM
Could we please give the issue of the Mulch Facility a rest at this stage? There are far more important things that need discussing as Reprobate points out.
I’d like to make two points – (1) the sudden rush to get the C60 through is unconscionable and is basically affirming that what the community thinks does not matter in the least. Discussion and information provision has been deplorable and the correct advertising of the meeting itself is woeful. I agree fully with an early comment by Reprobate that the vast majority of residents have no idea that this is even happening, much less have a fair grasp of what the implications will be. This has been I’d suggest a deliberate ploy by this council to work through the C60 as quietly as possible in order to achieve the MRC ends. No other council that I know of would succumb so easily to the demands of a rapacious and highly suspect group such as the MRC and their backers.
(2) The other point I want to make concerns the centre of the racecourse and the agreement. As Glen Eira has stated a resolution is on the books and no one gave Newton, Lipshutz, Hyams and Pilling any permission to negotiate away the basic terms of those conditions. The fact that they have, in my mind, raises at least legal issues as to the validity of any agreement if it is voted in tomorrow night. I would also like to remind east and north Caulfield residents that Lipshutz, the architect of this meeting (since he is about to trot off) is supposed to speak for the people of this area. His actions thus far, as well as his words, are a betrayel of their trust. He represents no one else apart from himself and a specific select group.
April 27, 2011 at 12:22 AM
The mulch facility and the Caulfield Racecourse development are interrelated. Discredit Penhalluriack and the Councillors who support him. Use the Leader on the eve of the C60 announcement. We on this wesite know the truth but as successful as it has been since it’s launch, it is still miniscule compared to the numbers who receive the Leader. Even of you have a no junk mail notice on your letterbox, you still get it, yet the “journalism” in it is the greatest junk around.
April 26, 2011 at 7:27 PM
I actually made the effort and had a walk around the racecourse today to give my thoughts to this critical issue for all Glen Eira residents. The centre proposed will definately be an improvement on what is there now (nothing). The fences proposed will be an improvement, however can I just say maintenance is non-existent. The corner of Station Street and Queens Avenue(North East Corner) was covered in weeds. I struggled to find any entrances, even following the infamous signs. The stench along Booran Road and Neerim Road was disgusting. 20 storeys on the North side of the racecourse is ridiculous. I have to question where everyone would park their card to go to the races and judging by Cr Penhalluriacks slides, the MRC are proposing two multiple storey carparks on the racecourse reserve. This should not be allowed, the reserve should no longer be abused in this way by the MRC. Anyway sorry for the ramble but I can see some good things negotiated but there is definately more work required before I could call it a “win” for Glen Eira. As to the comments on Councillors, I would also show my support for Crs Pilling, Forge, Magee and Lobo as well as Penhalluriack and cannot understand why Lobo is not on Racecourse Committee.
April 26, 2011 at 10:47 PM
One council resolution exists. Tomorrow night the gang of five will attempt to ratify another resolution which hands over to the MRC everything that they want. There is not one single word in this joke of an ‘agreement’ which states what will happen if the MRC do not come up with the goods. History has shown that the MRC doesn’t give a hoot about ‘agreements’. They’ve reneged on horse training removal and park land to the community. This bit of paper isn’t worth a cracker.
Anon, get yourself another argument. Your consistent and lousy claim that the racecourse provides plenty of employment is nonsense. There are only a handful of local trainers who use the course. All the others come from outside Glen Eira.