Below are edited lowlights of the Planning Department’s recommendations for the MRC Centre of the Racecourse application.
” The amended application proposes the following changes to the plans:
- Adding an additional 12 parking spaces including one disabled parking space, taking the total to 35 car parking spaces.
- Adjusted the layout of running and walking tracks to increase the area inside the inner concrete.
- Included an informal playing field in the southern area. (Precincts Plan)
The changes to the plans do not require planning permission.
Council’s assessment of the proposal is limited to the appearance, location and scale of the works. It is considered that the proposed works are reasonable, site responsive, and an in an appropriate location central to the Reserve.
Parking will be provided near the new facilities. The provision of on-site car parking is not a relevant consideration, as this is a use component. However Council’s Traffic Engineering Department recommends some conditions to improve the proposed car parking area. These form conditions in the Appendix.
The Crown Grant affecting the land permanently reserves the land for “Race Course Public Recreation Ground and Public Park”. This is a restriction on the use of the land, and does not affect the assessment of the current application for buildings and works since its use will be available to the public for park and recreation purposes.
The objectors’ concerns are summarised as follows:
- The proposed works do not contribute to the area as they will restrict access to the site due to the new fencing and paved areas;
- The works contribute to the visual clutter of the land;
- The proposed carparking area will be for users of other events on the land;
- The application is not for genuine recreational purposes;
- There is no need to provide a “fun and fitness” area because it will be seldom used and Caulfield Park already has one;
- The land is Crown land and is meant to be used also as a public park not just for horse racing.
The Conference, chaired by Cr Hyams, provided a forum where all interested parties could elaborate on their respective views. The objectors mainly emphasised their original reasons for objection. It is considered that the main issues arising from the discussions were:
- There should have been public consultation
- That this has been agreed to already
- Access to the site and not enough detail on the plans about this.
- Glen Eira has a lack of open space
- Horse manure will cause health problems
- All the concrete pathways will be used to park cars;
- The playground isn’t suitable for children
This Permit will expire if:
* The buildings/works do not start within two (2) years from the date of this Permit; or
* The buildings/works are not completed within four (4) years of the date of this Permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing before this Permit expires or within three (3) months after the expiry date.
Glen Eira Debates 
August 26, 2011 at 3:11 PM
The Council/State Government/MRC process did not include sharing the plan with the community as it is a community asset.
How can a racing club choose playground and fitness equipment?
How can a racing club maintain the equipment
Will there be performance standards and who will administer them?
Please Councillors and MP’s (where are you Michael Danby and David Southwick?????) you must consult with residents on such an important piece of public property
August 26, 2011 at 4:23 PM
I’ve gone to the horse’s mouth so to speak and read the Tangalakis report. There is nothing in this hodge podge of words that provides any justification, evaluation, or even details about any of the following: (1) why the expansion of the car park is acceptable. Another 12 car spaces makes it about two thirds of what the original planning was for gesac. We don’t know why or on what basis this change was made (2) not a single word about the fence – it’s appearance nor height. How many people have to complain about it before it even rates a mention in an official report that councillors are going to vote on? It seems that Ms Tangalakis and her department see nothing wrong with creating Stalag 17. (3) Neither is there any mention of the potential health hazards. Where’s the Health Department’s (both council and state’s) advice on this. I’m starting to doubt that they even bothered to consider the issue.
There’s really nothing surprising in any of this. It’s just full steam ahead regardless of what the residents say, want, or the validity of their comments.
August 26, 2011 at 4:41 PM
4 years to put in a few fences and exercise/playground equipment and then the option of ‘requesting” afurther delay. Wonder what is finished first – the removal of perimeter fencing or the centre.
August 26, 2011 at 6:20 PM
There’s a need to separate the politics from the town planning issues, although we know in practice that’s difficult. The politics are really really ugly and unlikely to change.
From the limited information Council is prepared to make public, it appears that Council regards the Racecourse as MRC land. This can be found in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme: “Encourage the MRC to prepare and implement a masterplan for the development of all MRC land, including the Caulfield Racecourse”. So they did. That led to a massive expansion in plans for the land to the north of the Racecourse. What has been approved now bears little relationship to the original concept of Phoenix Precinct.
C60 *is* related to the Racecourse. MRC CEO Alasdair Robertson made this clear in a letter to Andrew Newton dated 9 September 2010: “Council Officers are of the view that unless accomodation [concerning the centre of the racecourse] can be reached between Council and the MRC, the Planning Office may not recommend or the Council may not approve the C60 Amendment”. As we know, Andrew used his extraordinary powers to negotiate confidentially, leading to the so-called Agreement, and Council’s ratification of C60.
The Agreement now needs to be implemented, which requires the Planning Permit that the MRC has applied for. The Agreement doesn’t cover the chain-wire mesh fence, which appears to be something gratuitously tacked on by the MRC. It may have privately been agreed to by Andrew–hence the enthusiastic support of council officers for it–but we don’t know.
I’m against the the chain-wire mesh fence, and would like to see that element removed from the Permit. Restricting people’s freedom of movement, enclosing people unnecessarily, spoiling views from eye-level: I don’t support any of these. The officer’s report doesn’t provide reasons for why the fence is necessary and does a lousy job of explaining why it is “considered acceptable”. It does leave me wondering how many other parks have 2m chain-wire mesh fences running through the middle of them.
In the middle of a public park fences should be able to be passed through and be below eye level. There would need to be a very compelling case for a 2m chain-wire mesh fence and one hasn’t been provided. Its not part of the Agreement. It represents a loss of amenity. There are strong policy grounds in GEPS for rejecting it. I’d turf it.
August 26, 2011 at 6:58 PM
The blog reported that at the planning conference this was said:”SPEAKER #16: asked about planning law and what can be considered such as the fence. Wanted to know ‘on what basis, or what kind of criteria…..will you recommend that the fence be either 2.5 metres high or 1.5 metres high….on what criteria will you recommend that it be black mesh, or white mesh….on what criteria will you accept ….a dog exercise park smack in the middle of a jogging track….what criteria will you be using and…will that be explained to the community?’ Tangalakis said that she hasn’t assessed anything yet, so ‘you’ll find you’re answers in the council report’”.
I agree with others that there’s nothing here about “answers” on fences, on size, and on car parks. Absolutely nothing on “criteria”. The only possible conclusion that residents can draw is that either Tangalakis suffers from memory loss and forgot what she promised, or if there was never the intention to include such information then the audience were witness to a whole series of porkies. I don’t see any other possibility.