Featured below is the centre of the racecourse manifesto published by the MRC. That this features prominently in Council’s Resident’s Handbook is literally astounding given that:
- Most of the ‘agreement’ terms are not being met – ie times of access
- The number of days open to public
- The area now declared as off-limits to residents due to the synthetic track
- The countless fences that were not in the original submission
That council sees fit to publish this version is to endorse the MRC completely and to abandon, we suspect, all attempts to ensure that the Melbourne Racing Club adheres to the terms of the original ‘communique’. Surely council could have refused to publish this document at the very least?
PS: Here are some photos that we’ve received from a resident that shows just what a waste of space this so-called ‘development’ has turned out to be. The photos we’re told were taken Sunday last in the mid afternoon.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 30, 2013 at 2:21 PM
more people that see this dump the better I say. Just imagine this area could contain sporting fields that would rival Casey fields if there was political will. It could be used by thousands of people a day for recreation instead of racing industry using public land
July 30, 2013 at 4:25 PM
No surprise that the place is dead. Why would anyone in their right mind come to a place that’s designed for horses and not people. You risk life and limb on the wet slippery entrance from Glen Eira Road – if they are open – and then eventually look out onto fences and fences. Not appealing and not fit for human consumption on any level.
July 30, 2013 at 6:09 PM
I can be cynical, but I would like to know just how aware our councillors are that the diagram does not represent reality. There’s a carpark shown in the centre, but cars aren’t allowed to use it. There is no path from Neerim Rd entrance to the reserve. Pedestrians have to run the gauntlet of traffic on Queens Ave to use its entrance, and pedestrian accidents have been reported in which Andrew Newton’s $13000 barriers have been a key factor. Pedestrian access via Glen Eira Rd is treacherously slippery when wet and there’s a barrier to discourage them. The signage on Normanby Rd is abysmal—absolutely pathetic—its almost as if people are not to be encouraged to use their Reserve. The ground is still surrounded by WWII fencing in various states of decay. Pallisade fencing hasn’t been installed as per the Agreement, and as far as the public can tell the consultation that was promised has not taken place. Vegetation continues to spill out onto Queens Ave. Councillor appointees to the Trustees have been intimidated into remaining silent about all Trustee business—or they have no genuine desire to share information. Access hours bear little resemblance to the 9:30—sunset hours claimed to have been negotiated. Oh…and C60 is now being land-banked, and the Glen Eira Rd “park” has a Woodards sign indicating it’s for sale.
July 30, 2013 at 10:14 PM
The promised community events have never materialised except for the Southwick political extravaganza. What are our fabulous trustees doing about all this crap? Sipping martinis and feeding their gobs I’d bet.
July 30, 2013 at 10:42 PM
I have used the middle of the racecourse to walk my dog both before and after the recent improvements. Frankly I think what has been created is an asset for the community, and that the negative opinions I have read on this blog have more to do with ill will towards the MRC because of C60, the dominant use of the reserve for horse racing activities and the like. However what lets the whole thing down is the fact that you cannot drive into the centre to park because (at least whenever I have gone passed) the Glen Eira Road gates are closed – so the ‘P’ in the middle should be deleted from the map, let alone the disabled access symbol. The car park for the Guineas tunnel is only open on weekdays and even then you need to pay to park, so maybe that should be shown on the map as well. When I am there on a sunny afternoon and look round and I am the only in the entire centre of the course, in a municipality crying out for open space, it says to me that something is wrong. Without proper car parking facilities people won’t make use of it – people drive to other parks if they are too far away to walk, but given the racecourse centre is so far away from surrounding roads, if it is going to be used by more than just a few people the car park in the centre needs to accessible. I just fear that the MRC/trustees will some day decide that, given the lack of use of the improvements, they can turn their back on their obligation to allow use of the reserve for general recreation, as historically would seem to be the case. I would encourage anyone who hasn’t visited the racecourse centre to do so – despite the difficulties with car access (I’d suggest parking on Normanby Road on a quiet Saturday or Sunday – the problem is the parking is often all taken if there is an event at the racecourse buildings or with people parking for the railway station – and use the Guineas tunnel to access the centre – although it is often closed, I have never found the pedestrian gate on Normanby Road to be locked). Unlike some I don’t want to see horse racing leave the reserve – but while the improvements certainly go some way towards striking what I think is an appropriate balance between horse racing and general public recreation, without allowing proper access to the centre it starts looking like that wasn’t the reason for them – but rather an exercise in currying favour with the council for C60 etc.
July 31, 2013 at 8:54 AM
I agree, William, that the centre is now an asset (as it always should have been and despite it bearing no resemblance to the presented plans – which incidentally would have made it more of an asset) but aside from the MRC spending an estimated $1.8m on landscaping the centre not much has changed. They are still adopting the pre-landscaping ploy of restricting public access by locking the gates (always claimed to be an oversight). They are still failing to live up to their end of deal (eg. removal of training, removal of fencing, open times and dates), failing to provide agreed pedestrian and vehicular access (again the oversight argument) and already claiming that the centre is rarely used.
While C60 remains unbuilt, the underutilised argument (without mentioning restricting public access and the expected C60 high rise residential population of 3000) is being raised and will always have some validity. Yes the $1.8 million was a used to gain approval of C60 (it provided the easily accessible open space that is not available within the development itself) but it was also an MRC investment in gaining complete control of centre. Undertaking the works prior to C60 being built will enable them to gather the underutlilised evidence that will allow the MRC to remove the centre from the public realm long before C60 is realised. The argument that the centre was integral to the C60 proposal will be either long forgotten or ignored.