Caulfield woman’s concrete objection
10 Apr 12 @ 05:00am by Andrea Kellett
Glen Eira Mayor Jamie Hyams said the appeal could delay the project up to a year.
Mary Healy is opposed to a planned concrete path in Glen Eira’s “precious open space”, and will put her case to the tribunal on May 31. She said she would propose an “alternate” gravel path. “There’s too much concrete,” Ms Healy said.
The appeal is a massive blow to the Melbourne Racing Club, which has hoped to create a public park in the racecourse infield before the Spring Carnival.
It is also a blow to Glen Eira Council, which has for years wanted to increase recreational use at the reserve. The council voted unanimously to grant Melbourne Racing Club a permit in August last year.
The plan includes a lakeside picnic and barbecue area, a large off-leash dog area, walking and jogging paths, a junior soccer pitch, a playground and fitness equipment. The racing club will pay for the design, construction and maintenance of the facilities.
Cr Hyams said the VCAT appeal had “stymied” a much-needed community facility. “It’s disappointing because this was going to be a really good park for the whole of Glen Eira,” Cr Hyams said.
Melbourne Racing Club development and strategic planning manager Brian Discombe said the appeal had delayed the project. “Any delay is not a good outcome for the club or the community,” Mr Discombe said.
PS: The most expensive piece real estate used as a car park. Photo 20th March!
Glen Eira Debates 
April 10, 2012 at 10:38 AM
The day the Leader gets anything right is the day that miracles happen. The permit application was not passed unanimously by Council. It was passed at a special committee meeting by the gang – Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling. Another example of biased, poor journalism that serves the purposes of Newton and the mrc.
April 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Everyone knows the real pupose of an all weather path is for race patrons to get from their cars. Would you really expect them to walk on gravel? There seems to be a misunderstanding on the use of the area as it was always intended to be a car park by the MRC to compensate themselves for the loss of car parking in parkland at Caulfield Station. Caulfield Park is not too far as well, Would anyone have objections to it be opened up to car parking on big race days?
April 10, 2012 at 9:18 PM
In fact the MRC are required to seal the footpath to meet the all access standards. Ever tried pushing a wheelchair on a gravel path. Maybe Mary Healy does not have the capacity to understand things that are complicated. I am hope you do.
April 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Anon – get ur facts right! I suggest you take an outing to ” the tan” , it is the path near the royal botanical gardens and you will see this gravel path allows for plenty of disabled people in wheelchairs, I hate to prove u r completly wrong with your facts!.
Ps..did the council provide you some incentives for your input???
April 13, 2012 at 8:32 AM
ok I am 100% happy with a footpath for wheelchair users. How about the it is a footpath but not wide enough for cars? This is the real reason for it. The MRC want to redevelop their current carpark into apartments and are demanding we provide a public park for there parking. I wonder if those stables on the corner of Queens and Neerim Road could be developed into apartments and they might give us some other piece of valueless land.
April 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM
Ya gotta be kidding. 150 years of doing bugger all and now there’s this big big rush to get a park done full of concrete. Onya Mary. You’ve got every right to object. They’ve ignored the community for 150 years now they have to listen.
April 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM
“a massive blow”; “good for all the community”. What short memories Hyams and the MRC have got. The meeting at the town hall to consider the application was met with howls of protest about fence heights, playground placements and many other pointers. The “massive blow” is a blessing in disguise for the MRC. It gives them another year to abuse the area and do nothing. Have a look at the photo accompanying the story in the online version. Weeds are growing to 3 foot high. That’s how well the MRC have maintained the area but they claim that they spend millions on maintenance.
April 10, 2012 at 12:15 PM
What does this have to do with replacing the old corrugated iron fence with pallisade? It was agreed by the Council and the MRC that sections around the racecourse would be completed by this month. Looks like Council and the MRC are conveniently trying to blame Mary for their own inaction.
April 10, 2012 at 1:14 PM
I think they are completely separate, and that the external fence doesn’t require a Planning Permit. There’s 17 days to go, but only *if* Council and MRC have reached agreement on the replacement fence design for horse safety. If the MRC doesn’t get what it wants it doesn’t have to do anything. Ironic that one of the candidate segments has now been barricaded off from pedestrians.
April 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM
I think you’ll find the agreement was to remove the fence within 5 years (from last year). Not sure where the reference to 17 days came from??
April 10, 2012 at 3:01 PM
Just had a read of the agreement – still on the Council website but probably not for long. It states “Existing fencing will be replaced by “palisade” or similar permeable fencing within ONE year
a) the corner of Queens Ave and Neerim Rd.
b) the northern section of Queens Ave.
c) the section on Station Street opposite Smith St and adjacent to the main entrance
d) the perimeter of the “new park” adjacent the Glen Eira roundabout”.
Reprobate is right, 17 days to go. Looks like the MRC have held the gang and Pilling out to dry. With friends like that…
April 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM
Methinks that it was not the MRC who have let Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff, Pilling and Southwick hang out to dry. This has Newton’s mark all over it. What better to keep ones own position in power than to have all new Councillors in the next election. Obviously Frank will get back in but you can always exclude him from the CEO appointment panel.
April 12, 2012 at 10:28 PM
I think we’re talking apples and oranges. Yes, parts of the fence must be replaced in the next couple of weeks in isolate areas. But for the bulk of the Queens Ave fence, it’s within a 5 year period.
“Within 5 years the remainder of Queen’s Avenue to be improved including the fencing and the nature strip. The parties recognise that the appropriate design solution for this area may or may not involve changes to “palisade” fencing and will take into account a design solution that includes fencing, low level vegetation, high level vegetation for horse safety reasons and the nature strip”
April 13, 2012 at 8:17 AM
Yes but if they don’t do the first stage, what hope is there for the other stages? NONE
April 10, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Worth pointing out in the context of C60 and the racecourse that Item 9.1 of tonight’s council agenda involves a 0.9 square metre of land that is now going to have reserve status removed and presumably handed over to the MRC as part of C60 development. This would appear to indicate another stuff up by the planning department – ie. not knowing exactly what and which land is under their control – or it will be brushed off as another “anomaly” or “clerical error”! The still to be figured out issue is: will council really “sell” this piece of land or just hand it over gratis? If they do happen to sell it – how much will residents get?
April 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM
The MRC freely admits that the purpose of the 3m wide concrete paths are to provide for car parking for all racedays and major events. They also imply its needed, to be compliant with AS1428.1 Design For Access And Mobility. It *is* appropriate to design with the needs of people with disabilities in mind, and I hope appropriate representative bodies have given their input to the design. I simply don’t know whether that means paths have to be concrete (but doubt it).
While walking around the centre of the racecourse yesterday what kept infuriating me was just how many barriers (literally) had been erected, which the MRC is keen to retain. The design of the proposed facilities have been compromised so as not to displace anything the MRC places value on. I personally wanted to see a section get planted as an urban forest with trails through it, especially now that C60 will be looming. Its unrelentingly bleak out there when the wind is howling, as it was yesterday.
I was surprised I was allowed in actually. It didn’t occur to me that there might be horseracing on a Monday. Keeping the gates closed so they appeared locked may have worked as I didn’t see anybody else. The MRC may have realised they had made a mistake in allowing me in, as the gate I entered was locked when I tried to leave. No casual visitor from the street could even be aware of the reserve since there is no signage to encourage people.
Delays due to a Request for Review at VCAT affect everybody BTW. If developers were forced to comply with relevant standards some of the backlog would disappear, leaving room for more timely consideration of matters requiring discretionary judgement.
April 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Relevant AusRoads standards state that 1800mm width is required for 2 wheelchairs to pass each other.
April 10, 2012 at 2:44 PM
“The MRC freely admits that the purpose of the 3m wide concrete paths are to provide for car parking for all racedays and major events”…where’s your evidence Don??
April 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM
Why else would you need 3 metres when standards say less than 2? Then if they’re going to put in running and jogging tracks concrete’s the worst surface for that as well. They want miles of this stuff so cars can get over them and it’ll probably be more yellow brick roads cos that fits in with council’s lousy taste and design skills.
April 10, 2012 at 5:02 PM
hmmm….. 3 metres wide and 3 kilometres long … seems to me that’s quite a big slice out of the little we have left of the centre of the racecourse … must be the equivalent of about 10 old style house blocks (500 units in developer and council logic). If Council didn’t put a stop to it then thank heavens for the objector.
April 10, 2012 at 4:46 PM
One of the Anonymii asks about evidence. I’m going by the statements made by the MRC in the documents they provided as part of the Agreement that led to the subsequent Planning application.
April 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM
Typical of this Council, the MRC wants to do something (which they have failed to do in over a 150 years) which will benefit them first and foremost (public park and passive recreation users don’t get a thought) and this Council not only jumps but joins the bandwagon. Joining the bandwagon means attempting to blame one of it’s residents as the cause of a delay (what’s another year after 150) when this resident is exercising their right to question and offer up alternative paving that will suite everyone (joggers, walkers, disabled, vehicles) when all the MRC wants to focus on is cars, cars and more cars.
Gotta be an election year … good on the resident concerned. Absolute shame to the Council
Oh and by the way, not only the Queens Avenue fence removal, but what is the MRC doing with the landscaping of the “Gifted” park at the Booran/Kambrook/Gleneira Roads intersection? Answer is not a lot – demolished a two buildings (one derelict), fenced off any view of centre of the racecourse from the “gifted” park and walked away.
April 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM
The Caulfield Leader is an interesting beast. It’s been claimed numerous times that the stories which feature are far from unbiased. I tend to agree. Here’s another example of questionable reporting or editing. The MRC and Council’s viewpoint, via their mouthpiece Hyams, achieves plenty of coverage. Ms Healy’s comments (and presumably thoughts) are reduced to mere “gravel” and “previous park land”. Surely she had more to say for herself if a reporter and a photographer were dispatched to interview her?
I’m not saying that I want in depth analysis – that’s clearly beyond the scope or perhaps ability – of this newspaper. What I do want is even handed reporting where all sides of an issue are presented. This article doesn’t fulfill those necessary requirements. Nor has the Caulfield Leader in the past either.
Whether or not there is a “special relationship” between the Caulfield Leader and administrators of Council is becoming hard to doubt when feature after feature neatly skirts around criticism when it’s due and is forever highlighting council’s viewpoint rather than residents. A comparison with other Leader newspapers shows that this doesn’t happen anywhere near to the extent that it does on the Caulfield Leader.
April 10, 2012 at 5:55 PM
Since we’re not talking Pulitzer prize investigative journalism here I keep asking myself whether Ms Healy contacted the Leader or whether she was dobbed in by Officers as the only objector. The idea being, put as much pressure on as you can and at the same time provide excuses for why you haven’t done a single thing such as insisting on removing fences, maintaining the place such as Queen’s Avenue vegetation, getting proper traffic management plans so residents aren’t inconvenienced every second week, and so forth.
April 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM
Apparently Mary is the reason why GESAC is not yet completed and the Audit Committee report was over 6 months late. bloody Mary!
April 12, 2012 at 3:08 PM
Leader Online comments –
Debbie writes:
Posted on 12 Apr 12 at 12:37pm
Rick is right. VCAT is shocking. It should be removed and councils left to decide. If decisions were based on infrastructure, nothing would get approved for a decade or so until it catches up with population growth.
Tommy writes:
Posted on 12 Apr 12 at 11:12am
The MRC needs the concrete so as race patrons can park there cars on the ‘public park’. They are losing there current car park to land they developing into 20 story buildings next to Caulfield Station. All the facillities are really being designed around car parking for the MRC. An weather soccer pitch . I wonder what that will be used for on Race days? A model aeroplane flying area. What kind of demand will there be for that? Or will the noise just annoy residents on the non event days for the MRC eg Racing, Circuses, Gardening Australia, Caravan show, etc
Rick writes:
Posted on 11 Apr 12 at 04:56pm
The VCAT Merit Review mechanism is necessary because they at least (mostly) document how they reach their decisions. Council doesn’t make decisions transparently or account for how they reach their decisions, especially when its done via a Delegated Planning Committee. One problem with VCAT is that they aren’t at all accountable: you can’t vote them out; can’t get them to explain why they reject Council policy; can’t challenge them when they decide loss of amenity is acceptable. This article targets Ms Healy unfairly: she is not responsible for the mess that is Victoria’s planning system. There are much bigger problems around abuse of the Planning system by Council and developers. VCAT contributes to the problem by encouraging developers not to comply with standards. Residents naturally object to loss of amenity when its to help developers make more money. VCAT is underfunded relative to all the development activity in Melbourne, and long queues are the obvious consequence. By the way, the MRC considers Caulfield Racecourse and all the land inside to be theirs to do as they wish, but its not: its Crown Land.
Zach writes:
Posted on 11 Apr 12 at 12:52pm
When on earth is the Ombudsman going to investigate this? After the findings on the StKilda Triangle, which had Port Phillip Councilliors & CEO ducking for cover, a probe into the Caulfield Racecourse development plan is a no brainer. There was never any real consultation on the upgrades to the centre of the racecourse, nor the development on Crown land on Station St. There were only presentations. Democracy should be upheld here.
Micheal writes:
Posted on 10 Apr 12 at 12:37pm
Isn’t it good that someone is standing up to the bully tactics of the MRC. Access to the centre of the racecourse reserve has been restricted by the MRC for years, when the Queens Caveat states it is for a public reserve as well as a racecourse. This is Crown land and as such, should be managed by the DSE, not the MRC. Given what happened to the crown land on Station St., local resident Mary Healy is right to challenge what is proposed.
Michael writes:
Posted on 10 Apr 12 at 08:15am
What about the replacement of current fencing with palisade on the corner of Neerim rd and Queens Avenue and in parts of Queens Avenue whioch was agreed to be undertaken by April 2012? This would allow ideal vantage to the racecourse and really open things up rather than hide the racecourse behind the current gulag style tin fence. This has nothing to do with the VCAT hearing. Seems to me that Hyams and Discombe are looking to blame Ms Healy for their own inaction.
April 13, 2012 at 2:14 AM
thhe million dollar question regarding wheel chairs etc is how do the wheelchairs reach the park, WHICH TUNNEL IS WELCOMING AND IS THERE ANYONE IN A WHEELCHAIR WHO WOLD CHOOSE THE NORHERN TUNNEL OR THE GLEN EIRA TUNNEL AND ACTUALLY REACH THE BARBECUE AREA OF THIS TOY PARK..
April 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Why has the paper connived at a hatchet job on Ms Healy? Why has it not given both sides of this story? The MRC and the council do not present a picture of beautiful innocence. They have had years to make the inner racecourse available, and there is still so much they can do without waiting for this particular beef to make its way through the consultation process.
April 23, 2012 at 3:43 PM
they published one letter the next week and it was anti Penhaulrick. I am no fan of his conduct but you can see the paper is obviously biased towards the council and MRC
April 25, 2012 at 2:17 AM
In reply to Brian you may think that there is some serious influence by the MRC, the Glen Eira Council and the LEADER WHEN IT OCMES TO “INDEPENDENCE OF THE PRESS’ or even an evenly balanced presentation of an argument.