A public question was asked at Monday night’s council meeting regarding the MRC and Council ‘agreement’. We report here on what occurred.
“This question pertains to the ‘agreement’ between Council and the MRC.
1. Why are the fences in the centre of the Racecourse not in accordance with the original application in that they far exceed what was presented in the plan?
2. Why have the terms of the agreement in regard to removal of sections of fencing within one year not been adhered to?
3. What has council done to seek compliance with the ‘agreement’?
4. Why has this council not uttered a single word to the community on these issues for the past year?”
Hyams read out Council’s/Burke’s (?) response where Hyams began by stating that the ‘land is not owned by Council’. Much of what followed then focused on the ‘single objector’ and her withdrawal of the objection on May 28th. Hyams also stated that officers had ‘carried out a number of inspections’ to ‘verify compliance’ with the permit – the ‘latest’ being in July 2012. ‘This inspection confirmed that the works were in accordance with the permit’…’there is no requirement to remove sections of fencing beyond’ what has been ‘provisioned’. Went on to state that the State Government’s planning laws are ‘complex’ and lead to ‘confusion’ and that not everything ‘requires council permission’. Hyams then said that if there is ‘deviation’ from the permit that council and the community can ‘initiate’ proceedings if they so wish.
‘The MRC views the agreement as a whole project ….(and sees the project as starting only from when the permits have been issued) ‘the MRC has the view that the starting point …is the date that VCAT issued the permit’ (which had been held up by the objector). The objector ‘denied the MRC the opportunity to commence the works….deny the community an early use of the new park’. Repeated that this is an MRC project on their land and not council’s. Hyams then went on to state how council had for years been advocating for greater public use of the land and that they now ‘looked forward to completion of the works at the earliest possible time’.
Penhalluriack then said: ‘I would like to submit an alternative response’. Penhalluriack then read out the following:
“I refer to and dissent from the Mayor’s reply to your letter. I express my concern that he does not respond to the removal of the perimeter fencing, which has nothing to do with the planning permit, and I urge council to write to the MRC asking them to honour their commitment in this regard.
Regarding the new “park”, Council Officers have on several occasions tried to explain what is, and what is not, included in a “buildings and works” permit. My understanding is that when the objector knew the concrete paths were not part of the planning permit, and therefore her objection was not able to succeed, she immediately withdrew her objection. However those who did know remained silent for six months.
Under those circumstances we can safely assume that the MRC knew at all times that the objection was without any legal foundation, and had they wished to they could have proceeded with the work.
This is a “Claytons” park, with its restricted access times and ingress passage. It has the potential to be beautiful, but it seems to lack motivation by all of the involved parties to work towards that common goal.
The original suggestion was that the new park would be ready and opened for the Spring Carnival. I visited last week to find a buzz of construction activity, but the entry tunnel is smelly and dusty, and the fence dividing the vehicles from the mothers with their prams is claustrophobic. As you point out, there are white plastic fences everywhere – far more than originally on the planning permit drawings. However I understand the fences are also not part of the “building and works” permit, so the MRC can put them up literally anywhere they chose.
During the carnival it will look wonderful from the vantage point of the grandstands. There are many rolls of fresh, green new turf ready to be rolled out. But from ground level the folly is only too obvious.
It is a disappointing park, but it is all we have been offered by the MRC, and as the Mayor correctly points out, it is on “land that is not owned or controlled by council”. We need to rectify that last point as soon as possible, and I congratulate Cr Jim Magee for the fine work he and Crs Cheryl Forge and Steven Tang are doing as Council’s Trustee representatives. May they succeed where Council’s negotiators failed miserably.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 26, 2012 at 10:34 AM
ok Frank has (MODERATORS: 2 words deleted). Really sums up the communities feeling on this. Hyams speech really proves who’s side he is on
September 26, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Hyam’s answer is telling for what it doesn’t say as much as what it does say. The question isn’t answered as to why nothing has been communicated to the public for starters. All we’re told is the MRC’s view of the project and not council’s. I would have thought that an “agreement” is between 2 parties and not just one. Clearly the gang have washed their hands of everything and allowed the MRC to get away with whatever they like.
If the fences aren’t part of the permit and neither are the paths, then why the inspections by officers? Something smells really fishy here and the stink is coming not just from the MRC headquarters.
September 26, 2012 at 11:38 AM
I remember the planning conference held at the town hall on this. There was a huge outcry against the proposed black mesh fence so this got changed to the white fences. Now if this can be “negotiated” then why can’t the rest also be negotiated? I’d say that they didn’t even try but gave the MRC a free hand to do whatever caught their fancy.
Penhalluriack’s point about the MRC knowing that there was no legal footing to lodge an objection is important because this isn’t the first time that they and council have worked out things between themselves. At the first vcat hearing the objectors weren’t told that there had been an amended application. This was thrown at them at the actual hearing and was the first time they’d heard about it. Underhanded to say the least and with the knowledge I reckon of council all along. None of what’s gone is kosher and above board. To add insult to further injury there’s supposed to be a trustee meeting today. I’m not holding out much hope that things will improve.
September 26, 2012 at 12:50 PM
This issue has damaged Cr Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling’s credibility. There is no reason why this project should not be completed before the election. The MRC owe it to them to at least try as Council did pass C60.
September 26, 2012 at 1:54 PM
Once Council built the barriers on Queens Avenue and Neerim Road, a message was sent to the MRC not to remove the green tin fencing. Its time Council and David Southwick get on the front foot and tell the MRC to adhere to the agreement. Two minute phone call, that all.
September 26, 2012 at 3:58 PM
Won’t happen because Newton doesn’t want it to happen. (MODERATORS: names deleted) are the followers of Newton. We need leaders in Council.
September 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Drove down Queens Ave earlier today and low and behold Council has finaly gotten off their A. Trimmed trees, mown the grass and weeds sprayed spraying the weeds along the fence and gutter line. Still have a section to go but the difference is amazing, not exactly manicured but none the less a substantial improvement.
Don’t know why Council suddenly decided to do this – it could be
. MRC paying Council to do it for the spring carnival (unlikely)
. Council doing it to help out MRC with spring carnival (likely – another MRC handout)
. Council shame (should be but not likely)
. Council elections coming (likely)
Congratulations Moderators for continually drawing this disgraceful neglect to the attention of Council (Admin and Councillors) and the residents.
September 26, 2012 at 3:16 PM
what about summer coming and snakes! Would be a great habitat
September 26, 2012 at 3:37 PM
Wow Council do own a mower! Only problem is the grass tree hill opposite Moodie Street is still there. Maybe it is a rare species (I have certainly not seen the like of it before). Should Council now prune the trees? If it was you or I, we would have received a nasty letter from Council by now (or a fine if your surname is Penhalluriack).
September 26, 2012 at 4:20 PM
Havealook at page 5 of the Glen Eira News. Heading is Reminder trim back overhanging branches. We’re threatened with fines for not complying with cutting back overhanging branches and it ends up with council will engage a contractor to undertake the work and all charges associate with the work will be charged to the property owners in accordance with the local government act. Hmmmmmmmmm.
September 26, 2012 at 3:21 PM
Reckon you can only fail miserably if you try. This lot didn’t even try. They (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted).
September 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM
I found this on the MRC website. No dates so it’s ancient history but interesting nevertheless.
Queens Avenue Risk Assessment Report
If you wish to view the report please email masterplanqueries@melbourneracingclub.net.au or phone 03 9257 7100 to make suitable arrangements. This is also available to be viewed on site at Melbourne Functions Reception.
Signs Point Way to Better Caulfield Reserve Access
New signs promoting access to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve have been installed, welcoming residents to one of the area’s most idyllic recreation spaces.
Unveiling the signs, Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees Chairman Mr Peter Le Grand, Melbourne Racing Club General Manager Commercial Operations, Mr Simon Gardner, and Mayor of the City of Glen Eira, Cr Steven Tang, encouraged local residents to better use the Centre of the Reserve.
“The new signage is a display of the Club’s commitment to promoting the use of the Centre of the Reserve as public open space, which presently provides a variety of recreational opportunities,” Mr Gardner said. “We will continue to work with council and consult with the community to enhance the Centre of the Reserve in a manner that provides for the community’s needs, in harmony with the Club’s racing and event operations,” he added.
Cr Tang said Council encouraged residents to be more active and is keen to promote the diverse mix of recreation facilities available across the municipality.
“The Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is one of almost 70 parks, gardens and reserves available across Glen Eira offering a range of recreational pursuits and facilities for people of all ages and abilities,” he said.
Signs promoting access to the Reserve have been placed at the entry points at Glen Eira Road, Neerim Road, Station Street and Queens Avenue with further signs around the Reserve informing visitors how to access the centre.
Mr Gardner said Caulfield Racecourse is an iconic local landmark with a long and illustrious history. “Generations of families in Glen Eira have used and enjoyed the Racecourse Reserve and this is a facet of local life our Club welcomes for the ongoing benefit of all,” he added.
Fence A Sure Bet For Safety
Retaining the existing fence and vegetation along Queens Avenue provides the most effective safety control, a risk assessment report has found. To complete the risk assessment, two sections of palisade fencing were installed along Queens Avenue between Kambrook Road and Station Street and visual, aural, traffic, maintenance, pedestrian and access issues and impacts evaluated.
Consultants, Worley Parsons Pty Ltd, sought the views of jockeys, trainers and stewards, while the Club wrote to local residents providing an opportunity for community input.
The consultant’s recently completed report found:
1.“These controls (fence and vegetation) are essential for safe management of racing and training activities along the Queens Avenue boundary of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve”
2.“Removal of the fence and vegetation along the Queens Avenue boundary would present an unacceptable increase in risk to horse racing activities.”
3.“Replacement of the current fence with a more open type of fence, such as the palisade type tested, would seriously compromise MRC’s current controls and any replacement should maintain or improve on those controls.”
4.“The presence of the embankment and the need for boundary vegetation means there is little “upside” benefit (from the open fencing) to non racing stakeholders wishing for an improvement on the vista.”
“The report’s findings reinforced the vital role appropriate fencing plays in ensuring safety and security for racecourse users, workers, visitors and local residents,” Mr Warran Brown, Chief Executive, Melbourne Racing Club said. “Having considered the findings, the Club will develop new short and medium-term plans to look after the fence. With responsibility for the vegetation resting with the City of Glen Eira we will also seek to meet with Council to discuss possible vegetation improvements along the fence line.”
September 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM
Yes Peter, ancient history but all that has been provided to residents. Even the latest news on the Caulfield Village website is almost 18 months old. This is not an appropriate level of communication. Instead of working for residents, Hyams appears to have taken the role of MRC spokesperson. Hopefully this question asked by a resident gets him thinking.
September 26, 2012 at 7:07 PM
After all the huff and puff by Cr Magee, perhaps he could let the community know what happened at today’s trustee meeting?
September 26, 2012 at 10:20 PM
PETER, There a few events which have occured since the website which you read was detailed a I thought you may be interested to hear of:them:–
1. Mr Gardiner now works for the gaming company Pegasus Leisure or something like that so he can conduct the business of the 12 hotels and the near 800 gaming machines. This separation occurred so as the businesses would not be “too confusing” or some similar phrase.
2 Mr Warren Brown has been put off and replaced by the current CEO. Two events which may have brought about Mr Brown’s removal were a personally signed letter which guaranteed all that the then planned raceday and entertainment venue was not to be used for gamboling and there was a reported active scuttle in a members’ reception area when a member, an MRC trophy supplier, invited guests therein and the request for their removal was unpleasant. The person who had the trophy business won a court case against the MRC and then last year when he stood for the committee of the MRC they mispelled his name and sent irregular voting papers so who knows… I think he was not elected.
3 Large signs have been erected on roads around the area telling motorists that the Caulfield Racecourse parking is to be found through the tunnel and there is no mention of the park on them as our hopeless council instructed them to include.
September 26, 2012 at 10:25 PM
According to records the Objector also included an objection about the fences.. she was the only one so no wonder she chickened out!
It’s great for the council to have two no one enemies now. It seems easier to talk about her when she’s not there, but perhapos they are gaining satisfaction rather then poiuncing like cats on other councillors who may have a differing view.
September 26, 2012 at 10:50 PM
Technical point. VCAT can never issue a planning permit. They can hand down a decision that asks the Council to issue a permit. This is normally done with the Councils co-operation as the detail contained within the permit are beyond VCAT’s capability.
September 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM
VCAT has the power to order Council to grant a permit, and to dictate what the conditions on the permit will be. Council’s cooperation is not required. A reasonable [and naive] expectation is that VCAT’s decision will be based on the Planning Scheme, but that is not a requirement of the Planning and Environment Act. For some decisions, a Planning Scheme may provide very little guidance, and even where there is strong guidance, VCAT if it so chooses can ignore it. Remember also that VCAT cannot be held accountable for its decisions, as the Brookland Greens fiasco revealed.
September 27, 2012 at 12:50 PM
There are 6 parts to the Agreement, only one of which [1. Community Facilities] specifically stated that its implementation was subject to a planning permit being issued. MRC’s view contradicts the Agreement, which makes it reasonable to ask Council what steps it has taken to require the MRC to honour the Agreement. The answer apparently is nothing. The MRC’s failure to take action on the other items, excluding removal of horse-training which is a long-term “aspiration”, should be an embarrassment for our Council.
Since Council once again has attempted to blame the failure to establish a Public Park for 150 years on one person, I’ll point out that the Permit application was lodged 1 Oct 2010. It took Council over 10 months to decide to grant a Permit, which is substantially more than the 7 months between their decision and the issuing of a Permit. Why 10 months? Well, Chairperson of the Racecourse Committee Cr Lipshutz revealed that the MRC asked for the application to be “put on hold” without a legal basis to do so. We don’t know why, but the strong suspicion is that it was linked to the MRC getting its way with C60.
I doubt Councillors [at least those on the Racecourse Committee anyway] even know where fences were proposed to be installed. You can’t tell from the diagram showing the precinct since its covered by black solid lines. The only thing that can be established for sure is whether the fences that have been installed are in locations marked by solid lines, and it sure appears that some haven’t been.
The boundary fence issue is going to fester. I’m sure the Army didn’t need a Permit when they erected their temporary Wartime fence, which the MRC clings to tenatiously. Parts are in poor condition and are slowly collapsing. What is particularly galling is that the MRC *expects* Council to keep the overgrown vegetation along Queens Ave for “safety” reasons. As one officer explained at the time, the MRC have an opportunity to plant their own screening inside the fence line in anticipation of new fencing being installed. If the MRC is so concerned about safety, it could also lower that portion of the racetrack, just as it has artificially raised it.
In part 6 of the Agreement the MRC outlines it is reluctant to remove horsetraining from the precinct [despite owning Betfair Park and Mornington racecourse]. It expects Government to pay for the relocation, and thats not likely to happen soon. Odd how Council considers the land to be the MRC’s [its not—its Crown Land], and nowhere in the Crown Grant are horses mentioned. The public aren’t even entitled to know what areas are leased or the terms of those leases.
September 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM
i like your point ‘If the MRC is so concerned about safety, it could also lower that portion of the racetrack, just as it has artificially raised it.’ What people dont realise that unless they are about 10 foot tall they will not be able to see over to the raised track to the middle of the racecourse anyway. the same as at the moment with the fence. MRC have planted a load of trees probably making a hedge in Queens Ave/ Normandy car park along the track. I think MRC probably do have to do witht the clean up in Queens avenue as they have cleaned up outside there car park. that will go back to weeds in December
September 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM
The minutes have gone up, so this is the full text of the response to this public question –
The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“The project to create a new park in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse is a
project of the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and is on land that is not owned or
controlled by Council.
Following the withdrawal of the appeal by the single objector on 28 May 2012, the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) directed a permit issue for works in
the centre of the reserve.
Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer has carried out a number of inspections to
verify compliance with the permit for the centre of the reserve. The latest was on 30
July 2012. This inspection confirmed that the works were in accordance with the
permit. The permit allows two years to complete the works. There is no requirement
to remove sections of fencing beyond what has been permitted.
The State Government’s town planning controls which apply to the centre of the
reserve are complex and can be confusing. Not all works occurring on the site
require town planning permission. Notwithstanding this, should any permit required
works deviate from the issued planning permit, both Council and members of the
community have the ability to initiate enforcement proceedings.
The MRC views the agreement as a whole project that was not able to commence
until such time as any required permits had been issued. As such, the MRC has the
view that the start point for the implementation of the agreement is the date that
VCAT issued the permit that had been held up for an extended period of time
because of the appeal by the objector. The objector appeal to VCAT denied the MRC
the opportunity to commence the works at an earlier point in time and will deny the
community an earlier use of the new park.
As mentioned earlier, the project to create a new park in the centre of the Caulfield
Racecourse is a project of the MRC and is on land that is not owned or controlled by
Council.
Council has advocated for greater public use of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve
Crown Land for many years and we look forward to the completion of the works in the
agreement at the earliest possible time.”
September 27, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Took a stroll there this afternoon and the entry via the Glen Eira Road Tunnel is filthy and most inhospitable for walkers with mud and moisture throughout. Funnily enough I think only a wheel chair champion would be able to conquer the feat of gaining entry along this manure/gravel/slushy path and oh I forgot if you had a double pusher and a toddler that little person would need to walk in front of or behind the parent or guardian. So would not be supervised at all well! Seems rather dangerous especially when the fence would not stop a toddler from running onto the section specially devoted to cars and trucks which can roar through as onedid today as I walked through this cesspool likehorse tunnel.!
September 28, 2012 at 1:26 PM
I took stoll through the car access tunnel the other day. Yep the pedestrian access lane is narrow – almost single file only. The other thing that struck me is that all the dirt/sand on the vehicle access side just spills over into the pedestrian lane – didn’t anyone think of skirting board or some sort of edging stop this happening