MRC lodges plan for outdoor cinema at Caulfield Racecourse
- January 15, 2015
The Melbourne Racing Club has asked Glen Eira Council for permission to run the summer cinema at Caulfield Racecourse.
It would be located between the racecourse administration building and the racetrack and cater for up to 500 people a session.
Consultants have lodged a planning permit application and details include:
— A mobile 7m high by 11m movie screen on the back of a flat deck truck which would be parked in position each screening night;
— Guests to view movies from the lawns between dusk and 1am;
— Parking to be provided in the Guineas carpark;
— Food and beverages to be available to buy and users to bring or buy picnic meals.
The consultants’ report describes the outdoor cinema as a “unique entertainment experience”.
Melbourne has a number of outdoor cinemas, among them the Moonlight cinema at the Royal Botanic Gardens, December — March; and Ben & Jerry’s open air Cinemas at St Kilda’s South Beach Reserve, November-December.
The MRC wants a permit to run its outdoor cinema between November and March, with an option to use the land for an outdoor cinema throughout the year.
MRC spokesman Jake Norton said ticket prices had not yet been decided.
“No. The concept, if the application is successful, would not be rolled out until next summer. Given that timing, as well as the fact that the application has yet to be approved, practical plans around ticketing, event logistics, dates and times, the product itself, content, associated food and beverage offering etc are still some way off,’’ Mr Norton said.
Glen Eira Council granted the MRC a permit for a permanent $3 million super screen at Caulfield Racecourse last year.
That screen displays race day activities including live video feeds, race replays, race day information and sponsor information.
++++++
COMMENT
The following sentences are taken directly from the formal application. We urge readers to carefully note the hyperbole, the spin, and what this could mean for residents. Most importantly, we have to again question what has happened to the so called ‘agreement’ between Council and the MRC and the role of the Minister and the Department in this entire episode. The standout issues as far as we can see are –
- Public Transport does not operate till and after 1am weekdays
- Does extending the area for a liquor license fly in the face of the alcohol ban and how would the local constabulary view this attempt?
- Is Crown Land again being used for private commercial gain – especially when the MRC claims to be a ‘non-profit’ organisation?
- Have the Trustees signed off on this latest effort? Did they give permission for the application to the Department?
- Will the centre potentially be used for car parking?
- And will council once again cave in – either on the night, or at VCAT?
Here are the quotes:
Access to and parking at the racecourse is available with minimal impact to the community
The proposed outdoor cinema makes use of an entertainment facility that would otherwise lie idle during the proposed hours of operation.
Melbourne Racing Club is the custodian of a range of land holdings associated with and including the Caulfield Racecourse. The land holdings are a combination of freehold and Crown Land. The site which is the subject of this application is known as 31 Station Street and is contained within Crown Land referred to as Allotment A as Caulfield, Parish of Prahran.
The (Glen Eira) MESS notes at clause 21.01-2 that Caulfield Racecourse and Monash University are facilities of metropolitan significance and both are of major importance to the local economy. Further, Clause 21.02-1 Key influences – Advantages and Opportunities, recognises Caulfield Racecourse as a landmark and regional facility that contributes to the attraction and ‘liveability’ of the municipality.
Clause 21.06-2 identifies the objectives and strategies in relation to Business within the municipality, including:
- To encourage more local employment and attract more local spending in partnership with business
- Encourage new and innovative retail and commercial activities to establish in the municipality having regard to the hierarchy of centres as well as opportunities to developer appropriate freestanding sites for suitable retail or commercial use.
It is submitted that the proposal will achieve the following key imperatives of the SPPF by:
- Encouraging a sue that meets the communiy’s needs for entertainment and providing a net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.
With the event proposed at the northern end of the subject site, patrons are within walking sitance of the Caulfield Railway Station interchange (with train, tram and bus services available). The Guineas car park which adjoins the proposed event location will also be available to patrons who choose to drive.
…..any overflow parking requirements can be provided by Melbourne Racing Club’s numerous other car parks.
January 15, 2015 at 11:21 AM
The MRC notes in its permit application that it has has received the approval of the public land manager of the Reserve however this is not relevant to the application . I wish to note that the conditions below are the ones that are required for this application
Conditions that Apply:
– The supporting documentation attached to the application (DEPI letter dated 1/9/2014) rather than approving, gives only conditional consent.
– These conditions being:
o A lease agreement being in place
o That the outdoor cinema is within the lease area
o That the approval of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust (CRRT) has been obtained.
January 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM
In reality there is nothing “conditional” about this. With two government vacancies on the trustees, the numbers fall nicely in favour of the mrc when they eventually vote. Naturally they can’t see any conflict of interest as happened at the last meeting. I’m also thinking that full probity would have been served a hell of a lot better if they first got “approval” from the trustees and then went to the department or minister. Getting approval from on high first is tactical and I would think designed to put more pressure on any of the trustees who might be considering denying them. The lease is a complete stuff up so irrelevant. All of this is in line with past practise. Give the mrc an inch and they will take a mile with the help of council.
January 15, 2015 at 11:50 PM
Sorry, Macca you are incorrect. The approval of the actual land manager is conditional and the evidence provided does not support the claim of approval. Has absolutely nothing to do with Trustee vacancies.
I also disagree with you on probity issues, the appropriate process would have been for the MRC to gain Trustee approval and then the Trustees to obtain DEPI approval. But, as per the Auditor General’s report, the Trustees have set the bypass up, it’s not surprising that the MRC happily uses it
But I do agree with your overall assessment – the current situation of the MRC running the show is not on. The MRC and VRC are focused self preservation, ie propping up an ailing industry that is plagued with allegations of corruption and abuse and is reliant on huge subsidies in the form of free/cheap public land, tax concessions (not for profit), liquor sales and pokie revenue. It’s no wonder they don’t give neither the MRC or VRC give a shit about the maintaing public parkland vs. racecourse, the wonder is all related to why the State Govt and the public put up with this shit.
January 16, 2015 at 11:29 AM
Sorry can’t agree with you. DEPI letter says approval by trustees needed. Getting their nod with vacancies from gov appointees side makes it a certainty. Unlikely that the vacancies will be filled before any formal votes taken. The MRC got their way last time even with a full board. This makes it that much easier.
January 16, 2015 at 2:43 PM
The DEPI letter and MRC planning application were written/submitted prior to the tabling on 17 Sep 2014 of the Auditor-General’s scathing report into the management and oversight of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. It would be unconscionable for the MRC Trustee members to participate in the decision-making until such time as they have satisfactorily responded to the report, including having effective mechanisms in place for handling conflict of interest. BTW DEPI no longer exists, having been replaced by yet another shuffling of the deckchairs, to be known as DELWP [Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning].
January 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM
does residential noise matter? I wonder what other cinemas think of this idea. They are struggling and you get someone who is getting subsidised land to compete with them. Will they be sellin Cobalt as well as alcohol?
January 15, 2015 at 1:10 PM
they also have another request in
planning Permit Application
Application Details
Application Number
GE/PP-27498/2014
Date Received
2/12/2014
Site Location 31 Station Street CAULFIELD EAST VIC 3145
Proposal Construction of buildings and works (installation of horseracing timing system)
Status Further Information Requested
Planning Officer
Michelle Yu
Decision
January 15, 2015 at 1:19 PM
Surely this Use is prohibited under the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. The land is in a Public Park and Recreation Zone [PPRZ], although predominantly used for horseracing due to MRC hedgemony, and “Cinema based entertainment facility” is listed as a Section 3 Use in 36.02-1, which means it is prohibited.
I’d argue that no further development of the land within the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve should take place until such time as satisfactory progress is made on ALL the recommendations of the Auditor-General contained in “Management and Oversight of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve”. As a reminder, the AG was very critical of the management regime, which includes CRRT and DEPI. I disagree with the AG that a body that has so failed the public for 150 years should be allowed an indefinite time to improve, and also disagree with the public being excluded from all information documenting progress.
Further, PAEA states unambiguously in 61(1)(c) that “The responsible authority may decide to refuse to grant a permit on any ground it thinks fit”. Being prohibited is a pretty strong ground.
I don’t see how CRTT could support the application either, as CRTT has cited “stringent set of criteria for public occupational health and safety regulations” as being the reasons why the public is generally to be excluded from its own [Crown] land.
January 15, 2015 at 2:08 PM
The MRC application documents also included copies of titles and the Section 173 agreement from years ago – that is, the original Section 173 agreement BEFORE the Development Plan was given the green light in April (correction – this should read May) 2014 by Council.
This now raises a number of very interesting questions –
1. Part of the permit conditions for the April decision was that a new Section 173 agreement be created.
2. Was this done? If it was done, then why is the cinema application forwarding an obsolete and defunct agreement? If it was not done, then why not? If not done, then the terms of the permit, in our view, have not been met or acted upon.
January 15, 2015 at 3:27 PM
if this is prohibited how can it be happening.
one of the items that is also prohibited is a brothel. Could they run this from the grandstand?
http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/vpps/36_02.pdf
January 15, 2015 at 4:39 PM
Anon above asks [perhaps rhetorically] how it can be happening, and whether they could also run a brothel despite prohibition. Under PAEA, yes they probably could. Ultimately people can do anything unless somebody with power and authority chooses to stop them. Just don’t call it a brothel.
The prohibition referred to is against particular land uses, meaning GECC or VCAT can’t legally issue a Permit for a brothel on the land. An applicant could choose to apply for a Permit for a different use, and argue their use isn’t a brothel despite very strong similarities. Perhaps its a Fornix instead. Or a “Place of Assembly”. Council condones this sort of behaviour—it has in the past infamously granted a permit for 3 “caretaker dwellings” to work around a prohibition against dwellings in BZ2.
The MRC application is for a “Place of Assembly (outdoor cinema)” rather than for “Cinema based entertainment facility”. Curiously “outdoor cinema” isn’t a listed land use term, although “cinema” is. Comparing the helpful definitions provided in Clause 74 with the content of the application, it is very clear that what is being sought is a “cinema based entertainment facility”. The discussion about sale of food and beverages puts it beyond all doubt.
The onus is now on Council [or council staff under delegation] to decide what the land use actually is. I expect Council will ignore the definitions, grant the permit, and add some conditions along with the usual blather like it is a reasonable compromise.
It puzzles me that MRC included a copy of an [out-dated] S173 Agreement for land covered by C60, when according to Cr Lipshutz C60 is unrelated to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. The application also provided no evidence that the MRC has a current lease for the relevant land, a precondition in the DEPI letter. Perhaps the application has been lodged in defiance of DEPI.
January 15, 2015 at 5:26 PM
I don’t know all the legalities so I won’t offer any opinion on that aspect. What I will comment on is past history and how the Melbourne Racing Club believes it can do whatever it wants and Council tends to agree with this position.
The need for an outdoor cinema has never been established. Has the Melbourne Racing Club done it’s market research or is merely this another cash grab? I envisage that entry will be by payment and that any vendor who wants to sell alcohol or food will also be charged for putting their vans on crown land. Where the money will ultimately go is another important issue. Will it go into Mrc revenue or be handed over to the trustees?
Comparing what is proposed with what exists in the botanical gardens is inappropriate. The shows in the gardens occur on acres and acres of open space and houses are literally kilometres away. That’s not so for the racecourse.
The club will attempt anything it can to bolster up the ailing racing industry. For a non-profit organisation they have morphed into a major housing developer, gambling operator and now “entertainment” entrepreneur. All this is achieved with government subsidies, council appeasement and collusion, and not giving one thought to the locals in the area and the “liveability of the municipality”. The sooner this new government acts to dissolve the trustees and to tighten the conflicts of interest laws the better off everyone will be.
January 17, 2015 at 8:47 AM
Whatever makes you think the new Government will do away with the trust and change any laws. Governments come and go the Trust goes on just the same. Nothing will change. The Government will appoint a couple of new trust members. Mates of course.
January 15, 2015 at 6:25 PM
Can’t wait to see what Southwick has got to say about this joke. He will claim it’s a boon to the local community for sure. May the bluebird of happiness crap all over their screens.
January 17, 2015 at 9:21 AM
More from the MRC –
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-racing-club-dumps-ground-staff-20150116-12rqf6.html
January 17, 2015 at 10:32 AM
In this article the MRC describes the Union as being rigid and inflexible during negotiations. Very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
January 17, 2015 at 12:43 PM
more info
(MODERATORS: phrase deleted) . Deal already done with outsourcer
http://www.racenet.com.au/news/107915/New-track-staff-at-Caulfield-and-Sandown-Park#CommentsView