Tonight’s Planning Conference revealed once again the total disregard that this Council has for its residents and their views. It began very much like the previous one: directions to objectors stated to enter via the clocktower entrance. Of course this door was locked! No signs to direct people were put up at the other entrance from the carpark. Only 10 MRC plans were copied and available. Effie Tangalakis (as the Planning Officer) and Jamie Hyams as member of the Special committee chaired the meeting. From the committee Esakoff and Lipshutz were present (sitting in the back), and representing other councillors were Forge and Penhalluriack. There were approximately 30 residents present.
Hyams got the ball rolling by stating that the evening was not designed to ‘bag’ the MRC – it was strictly a planning conference. Tangalakis informed the audience that there wasn’t too much change in the planning scheme from the last meeting – just a few minor adjustments such as grassed areas. No additional objections. Advertised the same way as last time – 432 notifications sent to owners and occupiers, one ad in the Leader. She summarised original objections. Stated that the application had been referred to traffic and other departments. Her job was to assess whether the plans complied with the ‘Public Recreation zones’ of the planning scheme and whether ‘building and works will pose any adverse amenity impact’.
Questions and comments were then taken:
Penhalluriack stated that since planning conferences are meant to bring parties together and try and resolve issues, ‘where are they’(ie the MRC didn’t show up as per last time). Hyams replied that this ‘does happen from time to time in planning conferences’ where the applicant choses not to show up.
Speaker #1 – Excited that a public park is on the horizon – but that plan lacks real detail. Council has power over residential development it should also have power over this application. It’s basically ‘all about toilets’. HYAMS interrupted at this point to say that it’s not for council to tell the MRC how good their plan is. Speaker continued with: ‘There is no detail in the plan…and who is going to be maintaining this equipment in a Glen Eira public park?’ Access isn’t addressed and ‘can’t be used for horses if people with prams, bikes…..soccer players are to use it for access.Explain access paths (for soccer players)…(No map signage mentioned)…’Is there lighting for walkers, joggers….signage, communication….all of these things are part of this plan…(Suggested performance benchmarks and penalties to be set) and to make it happen’. Quoted the Select Committee again from 2008 where the MRC was criticised. Asked where the trustees were since this is in their jurisdiction. Horses should also have room to graze and not be cooped up in sheds. Spoke about removal of training and lack of open space in Glen Eira.’Can they resubmit to make it accessible and to invite the community to see what this public park can be?’ (APPLAUSE)
Hyams again talked about the MRC application and the job is to ‘see whether it fits in with planning law’…’we will decide on planning grounds and planning grounds only’ – so the question of horse training ‘is not something that we’re going to take into account…it’s not what we’re here to discuss’.
Penahalluriack: Said that the MRC has already modified their plans and that what is needed is a ‘park that is going to work’.
SPEAKER #2: we always hear these sorts of things when we come to these meetings ….everything that the community is saying is irrelevant….because (it’s all about planning) and frankly, I’m getting a little bit tired ….I know it’s a planning conference but I would be interested to hear what are these planning realms….what does (the MRC) know about designing a playground….we need a good playground a well designed one….(with) good access…..and importance of access in north west corner….so if you’re not interested in hearing from us (about these things which concern us) what can we talk about?….
TANGALAKIS: ‘it’s about the construction of the toilet block,….construction of the parking area – not the number of spaces – ….just the construction of it….that’s it!
SPEAKER #3: Supported previous speakers and ‘just appalled’ about the whole thing. Asked what grounds for refusal and Hyams said it’s ‘not grounds that you have it’s grounds that we have because we have to make the decision’….we can only do it on planning grounds….
SPEAKER #4: Asked if council has already agreed upon this. Hyams said that council, ‘wearing the hat’ of recreation agreed on the deal and ‘now it’s coming’ to council for decision. Explained about the council ‘agreement’. Penahlluriack spoke about how little opportunity there was for public input and ‘that that was not very democratic’. (APPLAUSE) Speaker then said that it was voted on by council, there hasn’t been an opportunity for consultation and now going to planning committee and again no consultation. it
was a ‘sham planning process’.
SPEAKER #5: Wanted to ask MRC questions but not present. Asked about 2.1 metre mesh fence. Wanted details about the fence and whether it is a ‘permanent structure’
TANGALAKIS: ‘I presume the fence would be a permanent structure’. Speaker then asked that if training goes will the ‘fence remain in position’? Tangalakis said that she ‘wouldn’t know’ because it’s not under town planning consideration. Question from audience – ‘so you’re voting on something that you don’t know?’. Tangalakis said that it wasn’t ‘appropriate’ for her to comment nor something that she could assess.’The only thing that I can assess it it’s height and what it looks like’. Speaker queried how you can have a permanent fence across a recreation ground. Spoke about original crown grant. Said he saw this as an ‘application to divide the area’ into racecourse and public area….’so open area (with access for the public) will be gone forever’…
SPEAKER#5: Speaker lives distant from racecourse. Objection is about open space and what happened in Stonnington. Open space is promised but it doesn’t eventuate.
SPEAKER#6: Lack of community consultation especially around public land. Said that no one can explain to him the ‘legal entitlements given to the MRC’. Wanted someone to explain what is involved in public and private land at caulfield and not have ‘dual owenership concept used as a tool to betray the public interest’. ‘the land is public land and therefore the public have every right to decide what that use should be’. Major issue is that there hasn’t been a public consultation. Hyams explained that some of the land is freehold and other parts are crown land administered by crown. Asked to show these areas on map, but stated that he wasn’t sure and that the decision isn’t based on his ability ‘to delineate the areas’. Penhalluriack then explained with laser pointer which areas were freehold and crown land. Also went on to explain access points – plan however doesn’t show all access points.
SPEAKER #7: Was concerned about racecourse’ disappearing behind fences’ and that this proposed fence shouldn’t further restrict access. Last ten years have witnessed diminishing access. Also raised issue about ‘all purpose playing field’, now all of a sudden it’s designated as a soccer pitch. Wanted to know how that happened. By designating it as a soccer field this gives preference to a certain group of residents/clubs. What’s needed is a multi purpose field that will allow more and different groups to use it. It will become the ‘thin end of the wedge of exclusion here’
Someone asked for clarification on this and Hyams responded that ‘it’s not really a planning issue’. Interjections came ‘but it’s in the plan’; ‘do we have any say?’ ‘who decided on soccer?’ Hyams answered that ‘that was agreed between MRC and Council’. Another comment ‘it wasn’t council – it was 5 people’. Speaker then said that calling it a junior soccer field has somehow ‘surreptitiously snuck in’.
WE WILL REPORT ON THE REST OF THIS MEETING IN THE DAYS TO COME. WATCH THIS SPACE!!
Glen Eira Debates 
August 22, 2011 at 11:07 PM
I attended this meeting and what this post doesn’t relay is the anger that was palpable from every speaker and every question and comment. The actual plan was indecipherable. Numerous issues were raised such as safety and the dangers of tetanus from horse dung and people having to trudge through this sewer in order to gain access. Tangalakis was appalling as was Hyams. Smug, superior, and incapable of answering specific questions. She was actually told off by one person about the behaviour and body language that was obvious to everyone. The MRC also couldn’t have found a better apologist than Hyams. Like Magee before him, the first people to be protected were the MRC – not residents.
August 23, 2011 at 12:46 AM
We are supposed to be grateful for our councillors and our staff member for attending this planning conference. For one thing Cr. J Hyams was present, along with the mayor and Cambden Ward Councillors Forge and Penhaliarick staying for the duration of the conference but alas Cr Lipshutz had to leave the meeting at 7.01pm. The other councilors who did not bother themselves to attend were Crs Magee, Tang, Lobo, and Pilling who were not present at all. My word this is a serious matter indeed when especially we were reminded by the chairperson that we should thank the planner for coming out and once again she came without a roving microphone or a pointer either electronic or actual. I noticed when one of the audience used a proper pointer, to actually illistrate where the freehold and Crown Lands began and ended Cr. Hyams hardly bothered to move to look although he had stated previously that he was unaware of where these properties began and ended.
August 23, 2011 at 8:29 AM
People do have other lives and engagements. I’m sure that’s what Lipshutz will say. I don’t buy this for a second. There was no reason for the rush to get this done – not when you’ve gifted the MRC 5 years to tear down a fence. Surely, but surely, a date could have been set when all councillors were available. Or is it merely a case that most of them don’t give a damn and that they aren’t prepared to face voters head on? Last night was a total farce with those running the show both ignorant and evasive. They were there to go through the legal processes and that’s it. The decision was made months and months ago by Newton, Lipshutz and the MRC as we were told.
August 23, 2011 at 1:15 AM
Jamie, Jamie, Jamie, when are you going to show some backbone and become a James? You keep defending the indefensible whether it be the MRC or the other members of your gang ie Esakoffs dodgy planning change or Lipshutz and Tangs unauthorized use of Caulfield Park. If you can’t be bothered in understanding the issues more and cannot even show what is the crown land, then it’s time to stand aside and let someone who does a bit of research Chair these meetings. Mind you, the opportunity to negotiate something beneficial for the entire community was lost the moment C60 was passed by 4 out of 9 Councillors. Even if the MRC do build this enclosure, what’s to stop them once again pulling it down just like they did to the childrens playground when they built the Guineas tunnel?
August 24, 2011 at 12:07 AM
“John”, I’ve seen some hypocrisy on this blog before but your effort here plumbs new lows. Do you really have so little self-awareness that you can’t see how pathetic it is to accuse me of having no backbone while hiding behind a pseudonym, because you’re too scared to let anyone know who you are, to cast false slurs at my colleagues and me. Why don’t YOU show some back bone and use your real name?
You also have a very strange idea of how to show a backbone. Accepting false allegations against my colleagues to make myself look good in the eyes of a few members of the public, as you are demanding, would show a complete lack of backbone.
August 24, 2011 at 2:27 PM
The Herald Sun, the Age, the Leader etc etc all allow comments to be posted anonymously – maybe you should be pursuing your fight there first before worrying about an informative local blog such as this. However the question remains which you have not answered Cr Hyams, what assurance is there that the MRC do not simply remove the “park” after all C60 has been developed? My view as I have previously raised to the deaf ears of Council is that the Kambrook Road carpark (or the Guineas carpark) are better placed for a park than the centre of the racecourse where under the proposal no-one will be able to access and which will have a 2.1m fence around it.
August 23, 2011 at 9:23 AM
Last night was a farce. The above posts accurately outline what deplorably occurred.
The anger and critisms that residents expressed at this meeting is understandable and should send a loud and clear message about the level of dissatisfaction in Glen Eira.
My only hope (very faint) is that Councillors and the Administration will listen.
August 23, 2011 at 9:45 AM
One tiny little advertisement in the Leader is this Council’s version of informing the public. Funny, how a few weeks back there was an enormous half page advertisement calling for naming of a pocket park. That’s really getting one’s priorities right. Of course, this could all be part of the overall master plan. When people don’t know what’s going on then they won’t object nor will they turn up and council can still claim that it has “consulted”.
Even minor things are part of the plan as well. No real thought goes into signage telling people where to enter the building, locked doors, and overheads without pointers, mad rush to get microphones. It all adds up. The first meeting was exactly the same. Obviously council hasn’t learnt or they just don’t give a hoot. Residents are nothing more than tiny gnats that have to be swatted away because they’re just a minor irritation. None of this though excuses the sheer incompetence of the chair and planner. Not knowing where crown land begins or ends, and not knowing about safety issues is unbelievable.
The final insult is clearly from the MRC. They didn’t show up for the second time. I thought that planning conferences according to the council propaganda is to get all parties together so that not only questions and answers can be given and sorted out, but that there is some common ground in the end. The failure to turn up just shows how much this deal has already been sewn up by a complicit gang of 5 (that includes Newton) and his subjects in the planning department. There’s also real doubt as to whether the chairman will actually present his report to other councillors at a council meeting so that they will know what went on. I would guess that nothing will be said except for the whitewash of the Tangalakis report that will then be simply rubberstamped. I just can’t wait for the orchestrated little speeches that will mirror each other next Monday night. No guesses for who will write them either.
August 23, 2011 at 9:54 AM
The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is on crownland with three legally defined, equal purposes – that of racecourse, public park and public recreation area.
Could someone please explain to me why, when plans are drawn up for the centre of the racecourse, horse trainers get to write up a wish list and the public gets to comment on a toilet block?
August 23, 2011 at 10:35 AM
All the above shows that Glen Eira is desperate for public open because we have very little of it. Most of our sitting councils as recently as this month disposed of parkland in Glen Eira.
At some point we have to knowledge that our population has grown and is out stripping our capacity to provide the amenity needs of that population. If the grass wears out we can replace it with concrete, but is that a sustainable solution.
Cr. Fodge made a strong statement that as a Race Course Trustee she will let them know just how the public feel about the issue. This would be a welcome first.
Although a month ago she voted in favour to dispose of public open space in Bailey Reserve for car-parking. This is hard to reconcile. She seems to understand the value of public opens space at the racecourse, but not at Bailey reserve. Councillor have to be consistent in protection our open space from the types of impacts that destroy it.
The VEAC report into Melbourne’s Open Space identify these negative issues.
What Glen Eira needs is more public open space, not car-parks not wind swept soccer fields or football grounds, or the yellow concrete that seems to get poured into our open space en masse.
Glen Eira needs quality public open space that does its intended job, relieving stress, making people feel that they have visited an area in their neighborhood that was worth visiting, trees, birds landscaping that pleases the mind and elevates the spirit. These areas can have natural history elements that provide important habit and conservation values as well. They can be living treasures, bastions of what make Australia, Australia, were this is achieved, people love it. And the good news its not that hard to do, and cost far less than some of the bizarre attempts at landscaping we have seen happening in Glen Eira.
The Glen Huntly reservoir site will come up soon as a a planning issue. The first push by council and some councillors saw them attempt to lock this area away behind a fence and gate for the exclusive use of a few soccer players. I am not sure that this has changed, we will have to wait and see.
The same old games happened only a few local streets got notice of the meeting and many said they lived within the drop areas didn’t receive the notice. The chair-persons efforts were far from neutral.
The letter delivered to the residents said they had two choices to choose from,
I/ high density flats
2/ a synthetic soccer field
And this was public consultation, no councillor stood-up and denounced this abuse, some defended it.
Just what fate lays in store for this area, will it be public open space 24/7 for the residents, or a private play ground for a few hundred. This planning issue will sort out the wheat from the chaff in our councillors.
August 23, 2011 at 11:12 AM
Letters to objectors advising of the Planning Conference stated clearly that entry was “via the main entrance from the carpark on Glen Eira Road”
August 23, 2011 at 3:59 PM
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
August 23, 2011 at 5:14 PM
I haven’t been to a Planning Conference that has achieved anything rational. Council doesn’t go out of its way to ensure residents and objectors are well-informed, and then it compounds the problem with disinformation. The Victoria Planning Provisions are labrynthine, and can be used and abused by those who master them at the expense of the general public.
The area of the racecourse precinct that is covered by the planning application is zoned PPRZ, meaning Public Park And Recreation Zone. The relevant section of GEPS is 36.02. Some of what is being proposed *might* be a Section 1 use, meaning a permit is not required. If its not a Section 3 use (meaning prohibited), then it’ll be a Section 2 use (permit required). However 36.02-2 specifies a bunch of exceptions to when a permit is required for building or carrying out works.
These include some of the infrastructure you expect in a public park, and it also explicitly lists “fencing that is 1 metre or less in height above ground level”.
36.02-5 lists decision guidelines in addition to the general, and lengthy, list contained in section 65. Regardless of what Cr Hyams or the planning officer may have told the meeting, Council must consider whether the development is appropriately located and designed, and they must consider the effect on the amenity of the area. I don’t know what the latest plans show, but there was a huge fence proposed at one stage to keep the inmates appropriately confined and ensure access was difficult from the east. There was also clearly an intention to entrench the MRC’s power and privileged position over the entire land. This is despite horseracing, let alone thoroughbred horseracing, not being a purpose listed in the various Crown Grants.
I query Council’s view that safety is not a town planning matter. A reduction of safety is a loss of amenity, and amenity is a town planning matter. The Planning Scheme explicitly mentions health and safety as something that planning needs to recognize and contribute towards.
Its odd that Council wrote a stinging criticism of the MRC in a letter dated February 2008 (Crown Land submission), yet in its own planning scheme it sees the land as being the MRC’s: “Encourage the MRC to prepare and implement a masterplan for the development of all MRC land, including the Caulfield Racecourse”. The MRC’s first attempt involved usurping 95% of the land, but they have generously backed off to just 90%.
At the meeting Cr Hyams did at least acknowledge that the current mess is because the Trustees (stacked with MRC and State Government horseracing hacks) abrogated their responsibilities to the MRC. Neither the Government nor the Labor Opposition is keen to change the current and very unsatisfactory management regime.
August 24, 2011 at 12:24 AM
It seems to have escaped your attention that when I was asked what was freehold and what was crown land, I said that some of the land where the stables are is freehold and the rest is crown land.
Given that I clearly knew that the land that is the subject of this application is Crown land, can one of you outraged anonymities try to explain how the exact borders are in any way relevant to this planning matter? And try giving your real name so that it actually matters if you get it wrong. Surely Nick Varvodic, Neil and I can’t be the only people who aren’t too embarassed by our own behaviour or too unsure that what we’re writing is true or fair to give our names. (Not that I’m saying that I agree with what Nick Varvodic writes, but at least he has the fortitude to stand behind it)
August 24, 2011 at 6:13 PM
I’M ANONYMOUS AND PROUD OF IT. I ALSO VOTE AND SO DO ALL OF MY FAMILY.
August 24, 2011 at 10:41 AM
Cr. Hyams, as one who attended the planning conference, you clearly stated that you were unsure of the extent of freehold vs crownland. I do however agree with you that since the centre of the racecourse is crownland this question was in the nice to know category rather than being essential to the discussion.
As for your current burst of outrage – the demeaning attitude you displayed to the residents who stood up to be counted at the planning conference indicates that it really doesn’t matter if a real name vs a pseudonym is used.
August 24, 2011 at 11:31 AM
For those interested in more information about zones, property, and parcel boundaries in the area:
Moderate resolution pdf maps of zones in Glen Eira are available from http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/gleneira/map.html
Detailed property and parcel boundaries can be obtained from http://services.land.vic.gov.au/maps/interactive.jsp
Navigate to Caulfield North, change scale as appropriate, use the panning tool etc to display the area of interest; then use the Build Map option to select the layers to display e.g. Property, Parcel, Crown Allotment, Lot Numbers, Plan Numbers.
Details about the complicated finagling required to create parcels of land for the “land swap” and subsequent establishment of a small park on Booran Road can be found in the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee Meeting Agenda for 28 April 2011 pp120-133. It includes diagrams showing parcel boundaries and their rearrangement, which Council has accepted.