Having been handed everything they want on a silver platter by Council, the MRC and its agents, still want more. They have lodged an objection to council’s approval of the outdoor cinema (see below). We find this quite extraordinary for a variety of reasons –
- The then Department (which has now morphed into something entirely different) in its ‘approval’ was unequivocal in that permission was conditional on three things – the existence of a lease; the nominated site for the screen lie within the leased area and, that the Trustees sign off on the application.
- As far as we know, no new lease has yet been signed; it is questionable who or what department is the ‘land manager’ and if the Trustees even know what the hell is going on. Their website has disappeared and our glorious council reps have been noticeably silent on everything to do with the trustees – except declare conflicts of interest only when they feel like it!
- The government has done nothing since the Auditor General’s report – except pour in more and more money to racing – ie their donation of $1m for the four storey screen in front of the grandstand.
According to the objection, the MRC now seeks to do what it wants, when it wants and for as long as it wants. If they feel like it, they can hold as many functions as possible ‘simultaneously’ with the cinema, combined with drinking, and commercialising crown land until 1am all year round. The question now becomes – will Council fight this at VCAT, or will they cave in as they have repeatedly done in the past?
We invite readers to revisit the post we put up when approval for the cinema was decided by Council (https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2015/02/24/the-mrc-cinema/). The hypocrisy and inconsistency of councillors is astounding. When literally hours can be spent on ‘debating’ whether or not the McKinnon Bowls Club should be allowed to ‘commercialise’ one of their greens (ie public land) and hence save a club from going under, and to then simply turn around and allow the MRC to ‘commercialise’ crown land, beggars belief. Of course, the real issue with McKinnon in our view is ‘internal’ – ie mates versus officers’ control. The common factor in both issues, is that neither has anything to do with public benefit!
There are other strange goings on too. According to council’s planning register, there are 4 applications for subdivision for the Caulfield Village site. Please note that the ‘address’ is now North Caulfield and no longer the arguably less ‘prestigious’ Caulfield East. What’s concerning about these applications is that the TOTAL subdivision number is 468. Council only approved 463 dwellings. Thus, why the additional 5 dwellings? Either the planning register is a total stuff up (not unusual) or there is much happening behind the scenes once again.
Outdoor Cinema VCAT Appeal0001 
Glen Eira Debates 
May 24, 2015 at 12:51 PM
If VCAT does review Council’s decision [although it is more likely that Council will “mediate” and agree to everything the MRC asks for] then VCAT is likely to take much more care than the cursory treatment our councillors give any matter involving MRC. Clearly the public land manager is DELWP, and MRC hasn’t provided evidence that DELWP consents generally or conditionally. DELWP, which replaces the former DEPI who was so heavily critised for its poor management of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, has also so far failed to respond publicly or meaningfully to the Auditor-General’s report and all its criticisms.
I do hope VCAT explores whether the proposal is for a Cinema or for a Cinema Based Entertainment Facility. The description of the proposed land use is that of a Cinema Based Entertainment Facility, which is prohibited in Public Park and Recreation Zone. I have my doubts about VCAT being the appropriate body to make political decisions concerning the crown land, but just maybe for once they’ll read the planning scheme.
Another issue that our Council failed to consider in its decision is the loss of access via the pedestrian tunnel to the centre of the racecourse under the proposal. While for the moment the MRC insists the public should be denied access to its “public park”, this intransigience surely can’t last. The public are already demanding better access and if flood-lit sporting facilities are constructed there will be even greater demand. I do however acknowledge Council’s preference for hotel and conference facilities instead.
May 24, 2015 at 3:02 PM
London to a brick the Planning Dept has stuffed things up. They should be working out of a tent like any other circus.
May 24, 2015 at 7:37 PM
Everything to do with the mrc should be investigated. Every condition that councillors put on meant nothing – public show. Council didn’t even defend its decision last time around with the amended plan. They gave in and the mrc got even more than they asked for first time around. I’m still spewing that they got away with only 4 and 5 percent levies on 2500 dog boxes. Pathetic, useless, and colluding all the way. That’s council.
May 24, 2015 at 8:15 PM
What will Magee do now? Nada
May 24, 2015 at 9:52 PM
I don’t think your question is fair. It shouldn’t be what will Magee do, but what will all the rest of the councillors do plus Magee? They have been part and parcel of granting every application and every amendment. To really set the cat among the pidgeons and possibly force the government’s hand is to rescind the resolution which granted the permit in the first place. That would be a first and definitely cause a major stir. Action could then follow and a full and open inquiry.
May 25, 2015 at 7:46 AM
Yet another display of incompetence by Councillors and Council’s planning and legal departments
Condition 1 – Councillor’s approved the Outdoor Cinema Planning Permit (for 365 days a year until 1 a.m.) even though they were advised by Torres that the area was not leased (February, 2015 Council Meeting) and that this was a requirement for approval by the land manager. After much discussion, most of which was flawed by lack of knowledge of permitted Public Park Zone usages, the permit got the nod of approved. It’s hard to follow the logic that approves a permit which lacks a basic fundamental then tacks that fundamental on as an afterthought,
Condition 5 – Quite an achievement to impose a event limitation on a permit without clearly defining what that limitation is.
Yep, residents can rest easy knowing that Glen Eira is in capable hands – NOT!!!
May 25, 2015 at 8:52 AM
Several comments speak of ‘incompetence’ by the planning department. To clarify –
1. The land in question is zoned PPRZ – public park and recreation zone
2. Amendment VC37 (state gov/ministerial amendment) categorically states that a “Cinema based entertainment facility” is ‘prohibited’. (Clause 36.02-1)
3. The dubious legal nature of the application is evident in the very terminology used by the MRC, when they attempted to cover all bases – ie by referring to the proposal as an ‘assembly’ and ‘outdoor cinema’ whilst simultaneously calling it an ‘entertainment facility’.
Hence:
How and why could planning officers recommend a permit?
Did any councillor question why given the ministerial amendment?
Did any councillor even bother to peruse the planning scheme?
Or, did they simply do as they were told as per normal?
Will Newton now raid petty cash and fund a full scale defense at VCAT or higher? Readers should remember that lawyers have always been the flavour of the month in Glen Eira – especially when it comes to ‘difficult’ councillors!
May 25, 2015 at 12:48 PM
Chances are that after a few private little get togethers between officers and the Mrc the suggestion was that the application go in under assembly to side step the offending clause. A very helpful council no doubt.
May 25, 2015 at 4:10 PM
Sudividing now is so they can flog the apartments off the plan to 90% overseas buyers. I also want to know why they got 5 more than people were told.