Highlights from both the Legislative Assembly & Legislative Council
Planning: Caulfield Racecourse
Mr
SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)
— This morning I had the pleasure of joining the Minister for Planning, the Honourable Matthew Guy, in my electorate to announce the approval of a planning scheme amendment that will allow for a $1 billion development near the Caulfield Racecourse. As part of this development Caulfield residents will see an improvement in the quality of open space facilities for the community. I am pleased this agreement that I helped facilitate between the Glen Eira City Council and the Melbourne Racing Club has led to such a wonderful result. Facilities for the community to enjoy will include a picnic area by the lake, a large off-leash dog area, walking and jogging paths and a junior soccer pitch. I look forward to continuing to engage with the community on ways to utilise this fantastic facility.
Planning: Caulfield Village
Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) — My question is to the Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy. Can the minister inform the house what action he has taken to assist the planned development around Caulfield Racecourse and around community involvement in this planned development?
Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning) — I thank Mrs Coote for her outstanding question and for her outstanding work in facilitating what is a terrific outcome for the community in Caulfield. The work done by Mrs Coote, Ms Crozier and the member for Caulfield in the Assembly, David Southwick, has been outstanding. The work they have put in as local MPs is unique.
Mr Lenders — What about Mr Davis?
Hon. M. J. GUY — Mr Lenders, I could also talk about Mr Davis and the work he has done. In the health portfolio he has been cleaning up 11 years of mess left by you. Mr Davis, as the Leader of the Government in this chamber, is trying to clean up $2 million a day worth of financial mismanagement from the desal contracts, which you signed with your mate Tim Holding.
That aside, it was terrific to be part of the Glen Eira planning scheme amendment C60, which will facilitate Melbourne is to have urban renewal, this is the place to have it — around a railway, an activities area and existing facilities where new child care and sporting facilities and open space can be built into this outstanding development.It should also be remembered that in the previous Parliament the public land committee, which was chaired by Mr Davis, also met to hear issues in relation to Caulfield and public space, and I can report to this chamber with pleasure that the C60 amendment will, for the first time, pick up the recommendations of the committee’s report. The C60 amendment will pick up those recommendations thanks to the work done by Ms Crozier, Mrs Coote and Mr Southwick to ensure that the central part of the racecourse will be used as public open space, which is a far cry from what we saw under the previous dark decade of former planning minister Justin Madden and former Premier John Brumby.
Mr Finn interjected.
Hon. M. J. GUY — Mr Finn, as he knows about open space issues, would also be interested in the fact that the C60 amendment — and the figure 60 is just two digits away from the Prime Minister’s disapproval rating of 62 — which former Labor member Evan Thornley was in favour of, puts in place, as Mr Davis said, the results of a lot of work by the racing club and by the council, which should be congratulated for the work it has done. The council presented a planning scheme amendment to the state government, and there has been a truly collaborative approach between the government and the council. A ‘collaborative approach’; don’t you love that word? Labor Party members love it. It gets their little left-wing juices running. There has been a cooperative approach between the state government; the local government; our local members of Parliament, who have worked so hard on this; the public land inquiry, which reported on the necessity for open space; and the racing club, which has put forward a proposal and had it accepted and presented to the state government with the support of Glen Eira City Council. Congratulations to all involved.
AND TODAY’S ‘AGE’
Caulfield development off and racing
Miki Perkins
June 29, 2011
A residential development at Caufield racetrack has been approved. THE Baillieu government has approved one of Melbourne’s largest inner-city residential developments at the historic Caulfield racetrack, leaving some residents ”bitterly disappointed” and warning of an infrastructure meltdown.
Plans reveal the $1 billion development at the racecourse will include 1200 apartments as well as office and commercial space, with buildings ranging from two to 20 storeys. Flemington and Moonee Valley racecourses are also working on major residential plans.
The Melbourne Racing Club said yesterday the centre of the existing track would be turned into a publicly accessible park with a lake ringed by a boardwalk and fishing spots. The club says the new development – dubbed ”Caulfield Village” – will offer a range of housing to young families just seven kilometres from the city centre. But Planning Minister Matthew Guy said yesterday the amount of social housing was yet to be ”factored in”.
”We don’t mandate social housing policies in Victoria; we are currently working on some strategies but it will not involve mandation,” Mr Guy said.
The development has been dogged by controversy, with local councillors Frank Penhalluriack and Sheryl Forge opposed to elements of the plan. Glen Eira City Council mayor Margaret Esakoff said yesterday she had a ”humungous” council meeting to prepare for and did not have time to respond to news of the minister’s approval.
Mr Guy said the decision to proceed with the development had been made solely by the council before it was handed to the government. ”There was no heavy-handedness, there was no need for any of that when the council themselves have been a terrific, proactive part of this solution.”
A spokesman for the resident lobby group the Malvern East Group, Mathew Knight, said infrastructure would struggle to cope. Drainage problems at two underpasses would get worse. ”The traffic is going to be horrifying and getting on a peak-hour train at Caulfield is going to be a problem – it’s already a nightmare,” he said. ”We’re bitterly disappointed.”
Local member Liberal MP David Southwick said concerns about public access to the racetrack had been resolved with the inclusion of new features like a jogging track and soccer pitch. The racing club has not sold the land but will become either a landlord or partner in developing the land.
Glen Eira Debates 
June 29, 2011 at 11:28 AM
Esakoff has to ‘prepare’ for a meeting? Pull the other leg why don’t ya. All the decisions have been made days ago in secret assembly meetings. Yeah, ducking and hiding won’t save this gang of five.
June 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM
Thanks for nothing Mr Southwick.
What a joke….such crowding in 5.5 hectares some of which is Crown Land,never to be sold, and the return of only 15% of the whole racecourse area with some acres being sealed down in a 1.5km concrete path for car parking on the “said event Days” , many kilometres of black chainwire fence dividing the rest so we can fit in a corner between the horse training and oh, like all agreements with the VATC trading as MRC the scales tilt later and the promises for them are taken but so far have never been returned to the community benefit.
THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER ONE HUUNDRED YEARS AND WHERE DO WE STAND WHEN UP AGAINST AN ORGANISATION WHICH COULD NOW HAVE AN INCOME OF OVER A BILLION DOLLARS TO ENFORCE THEIR WISHES.
LOOKOUT SANDOWN RACECOURSE IT HAS BEEN NOTED ACCORDING TO A RACING PROGRAM THAT MR ROBERTSON’S DEVELOPMENTS IN PERTH WHERE HE PREVIOUSLY ORCHESTRATED A LARGE DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE CROWN LAND RACECOURSE ASCOT,racing is in a bad way and the other racecourse Belmont in Perth may have to be sold.
June 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM
You need to understand that most of this deal was done under the Brumby Gov. A young bloke called Nic Staikos was on the Glen Eira Council and working at the time for a member of Parliament from the ALP. He was very well connected. All of a sudden there was this “land swap” where some useful Crown land was swapped for some land around the corner of little use to the Council. There was some cash involved as well. That went to the Government. Shortly after, Staikos was appointed to the Caulfield Racecourse Trust as a trustee. Some people saw his appointment as a reward and others say it was because he brings to the Trust his worldly experience and expertise. I think he is 23 y.o. He gets into the races without paying and enjoys the hospitality of the MRC. When he was a council appointed trustee he once voted in favour of the MRC and against the other Councillor reps. That didn’t make sense at the time but it sure does now. Southwick only came onto the ground in the dying minutes of the game. The result was well and truley decided by then. Credit should really go to Stakios. The land that will contain the 20 storey building was aquired through the land swap.
June 29, 2011 at 6:45 PM
You’re sure digging the bottom of the barrel. Staikos is an easy target cos he’s no longer there. That was years ago. All the “real” shenanigans started after he left. That’s where Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling and Tang as a trustee got to stick their beak in and do Newton’s bidding. They’re the ones that sold out but for what? Regardless, none of them will be around come next election to profit from their treachery.
June 29, 2011 at 12:20 PM
Lipshits finally showed up on Faine. Thought only mayor or deputy could put council’s position. She obviously didn’t have the guts. Weasel words and nothing but weasel words.
June 29, 2011 at 4:07 PM
Ain’t it terrific, it’s been less than 12 months since David Southwick and Mathew Guy held a pre-election meeting based on the “C60 inappropriate development” and made a variety of comments (e.g. “I will stop the crownland swap”). Now they are to be congratulated on the hard work they have put in to changing absolutely nothing that didn’t exist 12 months ago.
As for their involvement in the successful centre of the racecourse – again they have achieved nothing. As to the promises they purported to extract, we will not have to wait very long to prove they will not be fulfilled. As per the past the MRC has got everything it wanted and has nothing to gain by fulfilling promises that do not have hard coded performance standards and penalties.
Yes, these two have a lot to crow about.
June 29, 2011 at 4:07 PM
Today’s news about the report from the Auditor General prompted me to have a look at his findings. I’ve taken the trouble to cut and paste some of the summary. What isn’t stated anywhere that I could find is how much additional profit the MRC gained from all these deals. Does anyone know?
The revenue obtained from the sale of the entitlements was around $3 billion less than the assessed fair market value of these assets. As a result of this very significant difference, the allocation largely failed to meet its intended financial outcome of capturing a greater share of the industry’s supernormal profits. This was due to the lack of demand at auction, combined with a low reserve, inadequate information and
training for venue operators, and poor decisions made during the auction. Large venue operators, rather than the community, are the beneficiaries of this windfall gain.
The decision to largely retain the approvals process was made before the reserve was set. Therefore, it was known that the number of potential bidders in certain markets was likely to be low because these barriers to entry remained. As a consequence, prices at auction could not be expected to—and indeed did not—rise significantly above the reserve. The setting of an appropriate reserve price was, therefore, particularly critical in determining the price paid for entitlements.
The reserve was low: $5 500 for clubs and $11 000 for hotels. The hotel reserve was set at double the club reserve because hotels earn twice as much from EGMs as clubs. These prices equated to $550 per year for clubs and $1 100 per year for hotels over the ten-year period of the entitlements. This is less than 1 per cent of the average
revenue generated per club EGM and per hotel EGM in 2008–09.
That bidders were willing to pay more is further confirmed by comparing the prices paid at PACO with the prices achieved at auction. For example, metropolitan clubs paid an average of $41 796 per entitlement at PACO, but only $9 544 at auction. Our survey of bidders also indicated that 61 per cent of respondents expected to pay
more at auction.
There is insufficient documentary evidence and third-party assurance for VAGO to definitively conclude that there were no major breaches of probity in the allocation process.
DOJ did not keep sufficient documentation to allow an independent verification to be performed on the auction results. As such, we are unable to confirm that each venue operator received their correct entitlements for the correct price.
There has still been no public assurance that the probity requirements were met. To date, the IRP has not tabled its report on the probity of the allocation of EGM entitlements. Given the elapsed time and proximity to August 2012, when the venue operator structure takes effect, it may be difficult for DOJ to respond to any adverse findings of the IRP
June 30, 2011 at 8:12 PM
online leader comments –
Frank writes:
Posted on 30 Jun 11 at 12:25pm
This will really rock the Caulfield Community. An 8 to 10 year construction period will see noise, dust and trucks consume the area. And what they build will be truly ugly and excessive in size and scope. Parking will become a farce like the decision itself.
Jason writes:
Posted on 30 Jun 11 at 08:45am
The Caulfield Community has been swept aside like garbage. The have been pushed aside for this neuve development. How does it feel to be a 2nd class citizen in our own suburb? Pretty dam awfull actually. How the Councilliors can claim to be community representatives simply defies logic.
Millicent writes:
Posted on 29 Jun 11 at 05:33pm
Where will future generation find decent and affordable housing? Our population is being maximised in these times, so where will future growth go? Large and rapidly growing cities have the worst environmental problems. We can’t keep holding on our our family-friendly normal housing with gardens and backyards. We are being forced to live closer together, and pay more! This means a decline in living standards and little vegetation or space. Faster growing cities and overpopulation means high rise apartment, and settlements such as shanty towns and caravan parks. What is happening now is not “planning” but growth in the property market because Victoria has little economic activities. It’s short-term grab, that’s all.
Matthew writes:
Posted on 29 Jun 11 at 03:47pm
How will the local roads cope with this. What about the Queens caveat for the triangle prohibiting development? What about flooding? What about the plain trees on Smith St? Greed conquers all!
Max writes:
Posted on 29 Jun 11 at 01:25pm
High rise hysteria is sweeping Caulfield, as they hammer home high rise horrors on helpless home owners. Who will hold back this high tide of high rise buildings that are hacking at our liveability?
Brian writes:
Posted on 29 Jun 11 at 01:03pm
This is outrageous.
Democracy is dead. R.I.P. community input on excessive developments.
There is now a grand opening for a new political Party to represent local communities.
VivKay writes:
Posted on 29 Jun 11 at 11:20am
A “village” 20 storeys high and 1200 apartments? This is a mini city! The Liberals are no better than Labor, and their total reliance on property and population growth. There are few economic activities than those based on growth, plentiful energy and a denial of climate change. This won’t alleviate the housing “shortage” because our population growth isn’t about to be capped – thanks to MP Tony Burke! It’s forcing people to accept a decline in living standards, due to a politically manipulated situation. “Planning” has become a euphemism for “business as usual” – a caving in to market forces, and perpetual growth.
Margret writes:
Posted on 29 Jun 11 at 08:48am
I voted Liberal becuase they said they would end Labour’s planning policy Melbourne 2030. Now they are in, they have kept it. I am very angry at this decision as residents are.
Stuart writes:
Posted on 28 Jun 11 at 03:57pm
I voted for David Southwick as he had posters around the Caulfield Race Course which were anti development and Labor were pro development. Why the change David? Why? Say no to over developing Caulfield is what I say.