We are committed to facilitating genuine debate within Glen Eira. Your views on planning, environment, open space, CEO and councillor performance matter.
Where is the park that Pilling, Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Southwick promised in return for approving the C60 development? We don’t want Politicians in power who deceive the electorate. At the end of the day, it is up to the voters to make Politicians accountable.
There’s no way that all of these fences are what the original application showed. What the hell is council doing in letting this go on. You’d reckon that they would inspect regularly and demand that this jigsaw be pulled down.
If it were you or I (or Frank Penhalluriack) had put up a five foot fence illegally, Council would have told us to pull it down and sent us a nice little fine. Won’t happen to the MRC though. Won’t happen to mates of Council. There are two rules out there at the moment and it needs to change.
This is definitely not a park or a recreation ground. It’s a maze created exclusively by the mrc for the mrc and to hell with the community and all previous promises. A year on and residents still have to walk through a dark stinking tunnel and dodge the horse shit only to be faced with a maze of unsightly fences. Newton and the rest of them have got plenty to answer for. Vote them all out and then take the mrc to the supreme court. If they can waste stacks of money in trying to get Penhalluriack then they can spend some of my money on fighting this atrocity.
A comment on the previous post by one of our readers has prompted us to go back and check the last 5 issues of the Caulfield/Glen Eira Leader. Our hunt was for any public notice regarding the sale of the 100 square metres to the MRC. No advertisement appeared in the Leader. Once again the nasty, dirty tricks campaign is being waged by this administration. Legal perhaps in that the legislation does not state that the sale of land must be advertised in a local paper – it has probably been on page 250 of the Age where no-one could find it or even bother looking for it.
This is not the first time that such practices have gone on with this council. The Newton reappointment was also in the Age and not the local paper. The self-evident conclusion that readers should draw is that this administration will do all in its power to ensure that as few people as possible know what is going on. Legal, but downright unethical in our view!
Anon 2 – you are absolutley right, all that fencing was not in the original application. The original application only had one fence across the middle. No doubt the argument used to justify that fencing will again be trotted out to justify this mish mash. That is the need to separate the public from a half ton, tempermental thoroughbred that is out of control. Mind you I have always had a problem with this argument because
. the horses aren’t out there when the public is allowed in
. for over a 150 years, keeping the public out when the horses are out has worked as this fencing has only just become “necessary”
. according to the schedule for the removal of training from the racecourse, the horses should be moving out in about 2 years (unless of course the MRC gives Council a new start date for the rolling ten year agreement).
Cut through the crap and you discover it’s all just another ploy for the MRC to grab more of the public land for their exclusive use and be damned with the uses of public park and public recreation area.
I just hope when the centre is used as a carpark during the coming spring racing carnival that those that park there manage to back or smash into it.
September 4, 2012 at 5:44 PM
Where is the park that Pilling, Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Southwick promised in return for approving the C60 development? We don’t want Politicians in power who deceive the electorate. At the end of the day, it is up to the voters to make Politicians accountable.
September 4, 2012 at 6:19 PM
There’s no way that all of these fences are what the original application showed. What the hell is council doing in letting this go on. You’d reckon that they would inspect regularly and demand that this jigsaw be pulled down.
September 5, 2012 at 6:05 AM
If it were you or I (or Frank Penhalluriack) had put up a five foot fence illegally, Council would have told us to pull it down and sent us a nice little fine. Won’t happen to the MRC though. Won’t happen to mates of Council. There are two rules out there at the moment and it needs to change.
September 5, 2012 at 11:53 AM
they are also building something in the Normandy Road car park. Can anyone check if they got planning permission?
September 4, 2012 at 6:39 PM
This is definitely not a park or a recreation ground. It’s a maze created exclusively by the mrc for the mrc and to hell with the community and all previous promises. A year on and residents still have to walk through a dark stinking tunnel and dodge the horse shit only to be faced with a maze of unsightly fences. Newton and the rest of them have got plenty to answer for. Vote them all out and then take the mrc to the supreme court. If they can waste stacks of money in trying to get Penhalluriack then they can spend some of my money on fighting this atrocity.
September 4, 2012 at 6:55 PM
A comment on the previous post by one of our readers has prompted us to go back and check the last 5 issues of the Caulfield/Glen Eira Leader. Our hunt was for any public notice regarding the sale of the 100 square metres to the MRC. No advertisement appeared in the Leader. Once again the nasty, dirty tricks campaign is being waged by this administration. Legal perhaps in that the legislation does not state that the sale of land must be advertised in a local paper – it has probably been on page 250 of the Age where no-one could find it or even bother looking for it.
This is not the first time that such practices have gone on with this council. The Newton reappointment was also in the Age and not the local paper. The self-evident conclusion that readers should draw is that this administration will do all in its power to ensure that as few people as possible know what is going on. Legal, but downright unethical in our view!
September 4, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Anon 2 – you are absolutley right, all that fencing was not in the original application. The original application only had one fence across the middle. No doubt the argument used to justify that fencing will again be trotted out to justify this mish mash. That is the need to separate the public from a half ton, tempermental thoroughbred that is out of control. Mind you I have always had a problem with this argument because
. the horses aren’t out there when the public is allowed in
. for over a 150 years, keeping the public out when the horses are out has worked as this fencing has only just become “necessary”
. according to the schedule for the removal of training from the racecourse, the horses should be moving out in about 2 years (unless of course the MRC gives Council a new start date for the rolling ten year agreement).
Cut through the crap and you discover it’s all just another ploy for the MRC to grab more of the public land for their exclusive use and be damned with the uses of public park and public recreation area.
I just hope when the centre is used as a carpark during the coming spring racing carnival that those that park there manage to back or smash into it.