SPEAKER 7: was concerned about the impact of the development on open space and the pressure put on Caulfield Park which is already ‘over used’. Said that no consideration had been given to the impacts and the necessary facilites required to cater for all this increase in population and parking needs. Playgrounds are already overcrowded and is ‘on the doorstep of the depot’. Council should remove the depot or making it a lot smaller so open space is increased for the playground. Another problem is safe access since the park is on ‘major roads’ with much traffic and accidents have already happened and the issue of safety and increased use has to be taken into account.
SPEAKER 8: Quoted from the Phoenix precinct policy which talked about the provision of large street trees in ‘Bond, Heywood and Station Street’. Said that the development plans make it hard to see how any large trees can be grown. Camera said that the Phoenix policy is still in place but that the Priority Development Zone would ‘take precedent’ over the Phoenix Policy. Speaker then asked whether this means that the Glen Eira ‘Planning scheme is completely irrelevant?’ Answer was ‘yes – the objective is there’. At this point Ron Torres spoke up saying that the planning scheme is ‘a consideration’ but that there is a detailed ‘landscape plan’ that shows all suggested plantings and that council would have to ‘determine’ and consider if this is ‘satisfactory’ and for people to make their comments as to whether they ‘agree’. Speaker then said that the issue isn’t about ‘agreement’ but ‘what the policy states’ and the policy talks about how there will be ‘canopy trees’ and how this is possible given the plans. The speaker’s next point was about car parking and that the development plan talks about parking in the centre of the racecourse and that instead of just the 5 racing days that the centre can be used ‘for the other 360 days as well’. Wanted to know is this ‘was possible’. Pilling said that this was a ‘separate matter’ between the MRC and council. ‘we’re here to discuss this application’. Speaker insisted that ‘we are discussing the application’ because the policy states there will be parking and that this ‘violates’ the agreement and the policy. Pilling again said that the question had been answered. The speaker’s third point was about ‘adverse affect’ on neighbouring areas and ‘what steps council’ has taken to ‘minimise this’.
The speaker then wanted to raise another point and Pilling attempted to move on. Speaker insisted that he and other people had spent a lot of time studying and preparing their questions and he was going to complete his questions. Pilling then repeated that he was ‘chair’ and that 3 questions are enough and others want to ask questions so ‘have to move on’. The speaker asked audience if others object to him asking questions – a loud chorus of ‘no’.
SPEAKER 9 – began by saying that Pilling was a ‘very poor chairman’ and that a new ‘facilitator’ was needed. Speaker asked about the Student Housing Policy and that the Phoenix area was the ‘number one priority for student housing’ but the Incorporated plan says that the residential precinct won’t be student housing and neither will the other precincts and this Incorporated Plan is supposed to be the ‘blueprint’. ‘Are these houses student housing by another name?’ and is this the reason why the plans have ‘so many one bedroom places’? Wanted to know the link between ‘policy and the incorporated plan’. Pilling said that the question has been answered about the Phoenix policy. Speaker said that it hasn’t been answered because the question related to the Student Housing Policy. Torres then said that the ‘student housing policy is alive and well’ and that the Incorporated Plan ‘doesn’t ban student housing’ but ensures that it ‘will require’ a planning permit application which means third party objection rights. Speaker then said ‘so that is NOT student housing’ and when ‘we see students going in there’ it still isn’t student housing? Torres then stated that ‘I have students living in my house but it is not student housing’. (Laughter from audience) Speaker then said that in 10 to 15 years none of the councillors would still be there so wanted to know ‘what kind of certainty’ residents have that things will be ‘as it stands’ in the plan. Even now numbers of residences have gone up and commercial areas have ‘gone down’ so for the next development plan will the MRC just decide that ‘what we need is major retail’. Suggested that because of the ‘deviation’ council should be ‘shelving (the plan) completely’.
Asked what the plans are for the Eskdale/Station street intersection and if the traffic signals will ‘include’ Eskdale road. The plan talks about ‘signalising’ but no detail ‘on how’. Also wanted to know how 1400 displaced car parking places will be accommodated. Also quoted from the plan that if the ‘smaller events’ at the racecourse get bigger then they can also park in the centre of the course. ‘Has everyone forgotten that the centre of the racecourse is meant to be for recreation’? The ‘obvious thing is to open up the racecourse for recreation’ and not car parking. Thought that there were lots of issues that the council needed to get its head around especially trees and how to protect them. Invited officers and councillors to go and see Station Street and the fact that 10 years ago it was promised to be a boulevard of elms and that they should go down and look at this street now and see how well the promise has eventuated. Speaker said that 55 trees are to be removed from ‘within the site’ and more along streets. The plan has got ‘whimsical dots’ for the supposed new trees but speaker ‘will be dead and buried’ before these new trees reach any height. (applause).
SPEAKER 10 – Quoted the MRC CEO from 2012 saying that ‘one of the precincts’ would include a ‘new entrance to the racecourse’. Speaker said that right through the C60 the MRC ‘promoted’ the racecourse as open space and whether there’s going to be a new entrance. Pilling said ‘the racecourse and access is a separate issue’. Speaker claimed that ‘the MRC don’t think it is a separate issue’. Pilling again said it’s a separate issue. Speaker reiterated that for years access has been part of the MRC promotions.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 5, 2014 at 12:44 PM
Trying to shut up residents is not a good look. Sounding like a broken record is definitely a no-no when everyone knows that the racetrack is there for horses and cars. Pretending that the development is separate from the racetrack is like trying to convince people that the earth is flat. If Pilling can’t see this then he’s too dumb to be a councillor let alone a mayor.
March 5, 2014 at 4:02 PM
No.8 makes a lot of sense. There’s no such thing as a consistent council planning scheme and standards are never standards. Or if they are, they are never enforced by the planning department.
March 5, 2014 at 10:00 PM
How the centre of the racecourse and even the racecourse itself can be a “separate issue” is totally beyond me. The planning panel report mentioned it; the development plan’s traffic management relies on it entirely. Take away parking in the racecourse and the C60 is impossible and would never have happened. Pilling’s refusal to face facts because they are “inconvenient” does not mean that he is right. It means that come hell or high water he will be part of a system that guarantees the approval of this awful development.
March 6, 2014 at 12:17 AM
Maybe the “Greens Mayor” who advocated parking in the railway commuter car-park in Carnegie at a recent council meeting and is standing by protecting the decisions of the earlier C60 decision by the so called Special Committee, which only required three councillors, to support the whole of C60 has had a little of some other colour added to his political thinking. Maybe the Green party will expell him for his car-parking and race-course views along with the promotion of the development of “units” probably without fresh air and daylight into some of the bedrooms and then no open space. Wow what a village it will be!
One or two of the three thousand residents will be excused if they commit crimes or go mad for lack of humane conditions which we in the twenty second Century in Australia had come to believe are necessary for a healthy life. We learned all the bad results of such living in Europe centuries ago and in the Australian gold rush times when, rickets, TB and other respiratory diseases, were rife across all rungs of the society.
When the developers show pictures of the lake bridge in Caulfield Park as an attraction to these unventilated concrete dwellings to the new Chinese millionaires in Shanghai unfortunately they will purchhase these units in the hope of a true Australian Lifestyle.
March 6, 2014 at 10:01 AM
Nobody should be surprised that once again the MRC have stuffed up on the residential street closures during major events. Council handed them ÿou can do what every like to manage traffic during major race days and major events in 2012. Not once has the MRC got it right – they either fail to give residents the 10 day notice or their advise to residents is incorrect.
Residential streets have now be blocked (6/3/2014) and the letter says they will be closed from 8-10 March, 2014.
So when is Council going to give the MRC the big A.
March 6, 2014 at 10:58 AM
Pilling has adopted the “Suck it up Princess” approach. If you don’t like it, then move. It is hardly surprising given that he, Hyams, Esakoff and Lipshutz voted in C60. What is surprising, given this conflict, is that the Councillors voted for Pilling to Chair this planning meeting. Aaah governance Newton style!
March 7, 2014 at 1:32 PM
Lipshutz apparently passed the buck to Pilling to face the music. This is how the gang operates.