An application is in at Council seeking a permit for an ‘illumated screen’ at the Racecourse. The size of this screen is gigantic as the following illustrates – the equivalent of at least a 3 storey building and approaching the height of a 4 storey. Of course, this size screen will have no impact on the surrounding areas as stated by the applicant. By way of contrast, we also include a screen dump from the Moonee Valley Racecourse and the dimensions of their electronic screens. Nothing it would seem is too big or too expensive for Caulfield Racecourse!
PS: we urge readers to also contemplate the following ‘sign-off’ by the ‘protectors’ of crown land.
Glen Eira Debates 
April 7, 2014 at 7:03 PM
The MRC can ask for whatever it likes. Section 65 still applies: “Because a permit can be granted does not imply that a permit should or will be granted”. Unless it goes to VCAT of course. And as Jeff Akehurst reminded me, Council doesn’t assess the accuracy of the information supplied in support of an application for Planning Permit. Applicants are free, maybe even encouraged, to submit rubbish. In this case apparently giant screens are a “comment element” [sic] of major racecourses. [BTW the snippet above doesn’t make clear whether the Land Manager has consented conditionally or unconditionally.]
Council never truly, honestly, assesses an application against their Planning Scheme, although I know some councillors dispute this. You might wonder why a giant screeen should go in land zoned PPRZ [whose purpose is public recreation and open space] rather than SUZ1 [racecourses and showgrounds] but that is the nature of our whimsical planning scheme.
Ignoring the purpose(s) of land, there are other criteria that the application should be assessed against eg SPPF and LPPF. Doesn’t matter how big, how large, how bright, how irritating something is, the applicant always claims it won’t result in material detriment. Fair enough too—material detriment isn’t defined. A key issue is where is this screen located and in what direction it is facing. Park users should quite rightly expect to be shielded from it, but that’s not really what the application says.
If something almost 4 storeys is appropriate, if views across the racecourse can be sacrificed, then that opens up a world of possibilities for improving amenity. A row of trees can be planted behind the screen to hide it from view in the infield. Large crown trees can be planted in the infield generally to provide shade, windbreaks, even habitat for birdlife. Do that and we might even eventually end up with a public park worthy of the name—until they’re cut down to make room for sports fields, assuming the Trustees ever give written permission for ball sports.
April 7, 2014 at 8:06 PM
The Postscript from DEPI spells out their unconditional approval for a further diminishment of the amenity and use of land for public park and public reserve purposes. This is consistent with their previous advice that the land should be managed exclusively for the purposes of a racecourse and anything else that makes the MRC money. It’s the classic hypothetical syllogism: the MRC provides gambling facilities on public land; this is public land; therefore it should have gambling facilities. It’s time to relocate DEPI to rural Victoria, and I propose Morkalla.
April 7, 2014 at 10:38 PM
When will all the residents be making a nuisance of themselves and lodge their objections?
April 8, 2014 at 8:18 AM
do you think the MRC might be admitting the middle looks ugly especially when filled with cars and the screen will screen it!
Also can you direct us to the councils concept plans. I don’t think it would affect where the council said the ovals should be. Come on the real argument is over car parking not training. How about all the infield on the kambrook road side of the lake becomes paved car parking (including all training tracks). All the land on the other side becomes sports grounds. The car park could be used by race goers on there days and the rest of the time be use by park users. The tunnel would need to only go under one track so would not be as daunting