The latest announcement on the Caulfield Racecourse raises a myriad of questions:
- If the MRC is so very committed to comprehensive ‘public consultation’ then why is there no widespread advertising of this? A tiny paragraph was all that was in today’s Caulfield Leader and there is nothing up on Council’s website. In the past, Council has notified readers of Trustee Meetings. This time – nothing!
- The announcement states that the Trustees have appointed Patrick Pty Ltd. Thus, has there been a Trustee meeting to ratify this appointment? If so, where are the minutes?
- Was this appointment tendered?
- What are Patrick’s terms of reference? Who determined these?
- Who is paying John Patrick – the MRC, or the Trustees? How much are they paying?
- Is it sheer coincidence that the consultant just happens to be the same consultant who has worked extensively for Glen Eira City Council? (ie Caulfield Park pavilion, Centenary Park pavilion, Booran Road Reservoir, etc)
- What role, if any, will council have in the final decision making? Does a Land Management Plan require formal council approval as any development application might?
- Exactly what does “inner landscape portion” mean? And what is the SIZE of this ‘inner’ section? Does it assume the current size, where fences have persisted in their relentless encroachment onto public land?
- Will the mushrooming fences in the centre now be removed?
- Is the removal of training now a forgotten item?
- Is the creation of sporting fields in the centre dead and buried? Was it ever feasible and likely? Will we see one token soccer pitch and that’s it?
- What does ‘Strategic Land Management Plan’, really mean? Are we talking buildings? Does this cover freehold as well as crown land?
- Is it the MRC’s intent to finally ‘solve’ the ‘park issue’ at the top of Glen Eira Road by turning it into a multi level car park? Will this ‘plan’ indicate this?
- Is Monash Uni and Stonnington involved in this plan? If not, why not, given the intensity of proposed residential development in the area?
A year has now passed since the Auditor General delivered his report. The creation of the Land Management Plan was one of his recommendations. What of the others? What is happening regarding:
- Lease negotiations
- Governance
- Resolving conflicts of interest
- Regular Trustee meetings that adhere to governance practices
- Why has no parliamentarian (apart from Sue Pennicuik) raised these issues in parliament?
- Why have our council representatives also been silent?
- Given the failure to implement the vast majority of the Auditor General’s recommendations, why has the Minister not dissolved the trustees and appointed a Committee of Management?
- Why has the Department continually rubber stamped the MRC applications in agreeing to a 4 storey screen on crown land, a cinema and now 31 antennaes that will be over 15 metres high but deemed as not ‘visually obtrusive’?
- And why oh why have our councillor reps (Lipshutz, Hyams & Esakoff) been utterly silent on what is going on when it is council, on behalf of the MRC and John Patrick, who emailed sporting groups about the ‘consultation’. If Council knows and is acting as the ‘middle man’, then why haven’t our illustrious reps spoken out and informed their constituents of what they know. A fair question might also be – have they even bothered to inform their fellow councillors? Do all councillors know what is going on with the ‘consultation’ and council’s role?
- All of which leads to the even broader question of what proportion of resident and sporting group ‘suggestions’ will be taken up by the MRC? And what recourse do residents have if the hired help (Patrick) comes up with a ‘design’ that continues to exclude and ignore the ‘public park’ aspect of the racecourse but continues to allow the MRC to reap millions from Crown land?
Glen Eira Debates 
September 1, 2015 at 11:55 AM
Something as important as this should be advertised as widely as possible. If the mrc can spend millions on their money making ventures then they can spend some money in paying for a good sized ad in the paper. That’s if they really want to know what people would like the place to look like. It doesn’t seem that they do.
September 1, 2015 at 12:37 PM
This is not the MRC, it is the Trustees,
September 1, 2015 at 1:11 PM
Does not matter. If the mrc don’t like the solution they and their other supporters on the trustees will veto the plan and we’re back in the stale mate of nothing happening.
September 1, 2015 at 5:56 PM
I’m not expecting that this will end up being a major shift in the mrc’s position. It is a start though – whether forced upon them or not.
September 2, 2015 at 8:24 AM
But one can always hope D. Evans, after all there’s the original crown land grant purposes (racecourse, public park and public recreation ground), the 2008 Legislative Council Select Committees Report and most significantly the 2014 Auditor General’s report to be considered.
What I do know is that
. it took 140 years to get a public toilet in the park and
. of the 54 ha (valued at $2 bn), that is supposed to be a racecourse, public park and public recreation ground, only 6 ha is sometimes available for public use if they can negotiate the centre’s fences and scale some 12 track barriers and some 6 tracks of varying surface types and heights
. non racing related commercial events are regularly held on the public parkland, to the exclusion of public usage, with all revenue derived being retained by racing.
. for this exclusive use racing pays (to the Trustees) a flat annual rental that is less than personal trainers pay Glen Eira Council for their limited park usage.
. the Trustees then ask racing how they would like the Trustees to spend that money.
If real substantial change isn’t made now, it’ll take longer that 140 years before the next opportunity arises.
September 2, 2015 at 7:41 AM
it is a bit disappointing about the worthless land on Glen Eira Road. Although it could never be a public park unless people had helicopters, the trees on it must be some of the best in the area. It will be sad to see more trees removed