About 50 to 60 people showed up for the Caulfield Racecourse Trustee Community Consultation evening. In short, it was a total farce and far from being the open and ‘progressive’ change that many residents hoped for. Here’s why –
- The Melbourne Racing Club has already completed their own Master Plan for the racecourse and it is now sitting on the Minister’s desk, waiting for his rubber stamp. Hence, as Greg Sword later admitted, the Trustee’s version of a Land Management Plan may be a waste of time and money if the MRC trustees happen not to endorse it – or presumably, if the Minister decides to accept the MRC version.
- After originally deciding not to split the audience into groups for the butcher paper exercise so common to trendy ‘consultations’, and to allow questions, it was decided on a straw vote, and after some ‘uncomfortable’ queries, to split into groups – with a fair amount of public disagreement. There was however a compromise of a ten minute Q and A with far from satisfactory answers. For example: Mr Patrick in his opening slides had stated that it ‘was a given’ that the fences and training would remain but later stated he would ‘consult’ with the MRC on these matters!
- Most disappointing was that all questions of governance, risk management were deemed as ‘irrelevant’ to the evening. Hardly, we say since the Auditor General’s report specified these issues as central to determining the future of public use of the racecourse land.
- Readers will also be interested to know that the Trustee decision to award the contract to Patricks was not done via a formal meeting, but via email – hence no need for minutes, and transparency! We must also assume that Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff were also privy to these emails but not a peep out of any of them!
Greg Sword’s final comments are of great concern. He several times stated that the Trustees basically have no control over the MRC. It would seem that the Auditor General has different ideas about the role and function of the Trustees, who are charged with the management of the reserve. The department has oversight of the trustees. Here are some extracts from the Auditor General’s report that clearly show the role of the trustees –
sections 17B and 17D (of the Crown Land Reserves Act) provide the trustees, with the approval of the minister, with the power to grant licences/leases, enter into tenancy arrangements, and to reach agreement to operate services and facilities
The Crown grant, clause 21, states ‘that no improvements shall be effected on the site by the said Club without first obtaining the approval of the trustees’. However, there is no documentary evidence that certain works undertaken in recent years were approved by the trustees
Section 13 of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 provides the trustees with the power to make regulations for the care, protection and management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve with the approval of the Governor in Council. The Crown grant also allows trustees to create regulations over the reserve.
Finally, we reiterate, that if the Trustees were really that keen to receive input from the COMMUNITY, then why was it only sports clubs (via council), schools, and aged care facilities who were ‘invited’ to attend? Surely a decent advertisement in the Leader would not have gone astray? And since council is spruiking for the Trustees via their letters to sporting groups, it also would not have been amiss for council to place an announcement on their website – especially when council can write to sporting groups and state-
Caulfield Racecourse is Crown Land reserved for recreation and is the only significant opportunity to provide more sports grounds in Glen Eira. It is assumed that any Club which intends to seek any increase in ground allocations at any time in the future will take part. A few years ago Council produced a concept plan of how sports grounds could be established on the Crown Land in the centre of the racecourse. The concept plan appears on page 10 of Council’s ‘Community Sport – Management of Grounds Policy’. The page is attached for your convenience.
Sadly both Council and the Trustees would appear to have a very limited definition of ‘community’.
September 10, 2015 at 7:31 AM
most interesting thing I heard was the suggestion by someone that the best entry point for the public would be the Neerim Road stables. This is a fantastic idea as the Booran Road option is ridiculous. Unless they are made to pay full commercial rental for this land then this will never happen. If training was to remain any chance they could just have a couple of tracks? I think the real thing the MRC wants is parking which may not be conducive with the sports fields involved. My prediction is the governrment and the MRC will weasel themselves out of this by saying they don’t have the money to pay for this even though the govt as an election promise said they were going to spend $100 million on sporting facilities. I know everyone gives Magee and Sword a hard time but surely they have done everything they can to fight for change. Im sure the MRC do not invite them to luncheons!
September 10, 2015 at 2:10 PM
I have no doubt that Sword and Magee have tried their best to create change in the way the trustees work. Nothing has changed despite their efforts. The best option would be for all trustees opposed to the Mrc oligarchy to resign with as much publicity as possible. This would force the government’s hand to a large degree. After 150 years of unimpeded control and a year since the Auditor general released his report not much has happened. Mass resignation is the only viable option and the creation of a committee of management that has nothing to do with the Melbourne racing club.
September 10, 2015 at 10:46 AM
If the consultant has a plan being drafted, wouldn’t it have been better to table it for the community to provide feedback? Or is it really the case it will be put thru regardless? That’s whats happened up until now. And the Minister is ignoring this as hard as they can. Something smells around the Caulfield Racecourse, and it isn’t just the horse manure.
September 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM
Many things stink around the racecourse and what’s been happening. The AG report criticises council as well as the trustees and the DEPI. A stupid little map full of soccer pitches baseball diamonds became “policy” without any consultation. Now Patrick is saying that the 2006 recreation study will be pivotal. The 2006 recreation study was designed toget gesac off the ground. Any way it is out of date. Nobody in this game “consults”. They go through the motions and pretend this is democracy at work.
September 10, 2015 at 6:13 PM
They will get what they want as they always have. There has to be a royal commission into everything to do with them and their politician mates
September 10, 2015 at 7:21 PM
A Royal Commission??!! The Royal Commission finds that the CEO of Cbus is guilty of contempt and yet the chairman Steve Bracks hasn’t got the guts to sack him. The Pollies especially ex Labor Premiers are weak as water. The MRC will get whatever it wants and Daniel Andrews could not give a stuff about residents.
September 10, 2015 at 1:44 PM
http://mrc.racing.com/our-club/property-development/strategic-planning
September 10, 2015 at 1:46 PM
Cr Jim Magee @CrJimMagee 1h1 hour ago
Is this where Caulfield Racecourse is headed?
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/racing-precincts-15b-redevelopment-set-to-create-iconic-new-brisbane-neighbourhood/story-fndbalka-1226953463796 …
View summary
1 retweet 0 favorites
September 10, 2015 at 10:00 PM
I get the feeling that the public are being used as pawns in a power play between the Trustees and the MRC, and the MRC own the Minister.
Guess who going to be the winner?
Your ideas are like pearls before swine
September 11, 2015 at 7:42 AM
I have heard that Sandown is being sold to fund night racing at Caulfield. I spose we can forget about a park or sleep for that matter.
http://forum.thoroughbredvillage.com.au/sandown-race-course-to-be-closed_topic55029.html
olphus twirk View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 818 Post Options Post Options
Thanks (1) Thanks(1)
Topic: Sandown Race course to be closed?
Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 8:17pm
There have been top level discussions between the Chairman, Mike Symons, and CEO, (Brodie Arnhold who was a former Committeman of the Club, appointed by Symons to the position of CEO) of the Melbourne Racing Club which owns Sandown race course, and the senior officers of a recently established State Government authority. It is believed the future is Sandown was discussed as part of a top level visit to the site. Sandown was suggested as being an alternative future training site if or when training at Caulfield is closed down by Glen Eira Council in collaboration with the State Government. Sandown was mooted as a venue to which training could be relocated, but it is believed that the new Pakenham facility would be promoted to which Caulfield trainers would relocate. Sandown is not it is believed, seen as an alternative training venue and it is believed future residential subdivision was a significant discussion point for Sandown. The former manager of Sandown, Wade Calderwood was made redundant by Symons and Arnhold, and management of Sandown is carried out by one person offsite who it is believed, also manages the Mornington race course which the MRC took over. The current members car park at Caulfield is also the subject of speculation that part of it is to be sold to developers for town houses additional to the sale and development currently taking place at Caulfield. I am not sure that even some members of the Melbourne Racing Club Committee are aware of the discussion that were held last week about the future of Sandown.
September 11, 2015 at 11:05 AM
Glen Eira Complaints did not disappoint with its excellent write-up marred by personal prejudices. The CRRT consultation was a good meeting interrupted by a small vociferous group of people that wanted to subvert the purpose of the meeting. In particular, there was a couple of people that come to such meetings to pursue their own personal agendas, that have nothing to do with such meetings. They have done it before and their inputs are usually useless and unworkable. It seems that GE Complaints moderators have taken up their cause by constantly harping on the usual victims of GE Complaints; Councillors, Trustees, GE administration, and politicians of every persuasion. What bothers me greatly is that although the info and some good suggestions presented on this blog are useful they will be totally ignored in practice, because of the constant prejudicial presentation of them by Glen Eira Complaints moderators.
Now, let me get to the crux of the issues of the meeting. The primary purpose of the community consultation was to provide input for an alternative to MRC a Master Plan design for the middle of the racecourse. The reason being that Matthew Guy, when Minister for Planning in the previous Liberal gov’t , but now the shadow premier, has NOT acquiesced to the MRC request for their proposed Master Plan as part of the renewal of lease. I say, ‘good on yea’ Matthew Guy. He did not approve this, because Greg Sword, the CRRT chairman has written to Matthew Guy to outline his opposition to the plan and the way CRRT has passed the motion to proceed with the plan, which included members with a clear conflict of interest eg Mike Symons (http://www.aquanita.com.au/index.asp?page=managementteam ). I say ”good on yea’ Greg Sword. The Glen Eira Council has also made efforts to stymie the MRC push for license renewal and Master Plan by producing their own proposal, and organised the meeting. I say ‘good on yea’ GE Council. All that was explained at the meeting by Greg Sword and supported by the Mayor Jim Magee. I say ‘good on yea’ Jim Magee. It is a pity that other Councillors have ignored that meeting, shame on them. The issues outlined in the post are mostly political in nature and can only be dealt with in the political arena of the State Parliament. Since the issues cannot be resolved quickly they require good will and support from all parties. Clearly, if residents, ratepayers, and communities of Glen Eira want to improve or change the problems outlined by Glen Eira Complaints then they should tackle directly their representatives in the Parliament in numbers. I count at least a dozen of MPs to be contacted on those issues of concern.
As for the current caulfield racecourse community consultation, although the Wednesday meeting was good, it can be better next Wednesday meeting. Clearly, more people should come, with more ideas in particular in regards to park, open space and access issues. As for sport and recreation facilities in Glen Eira, it is high time to revisit that issue again with a more focused approach, particularly to sporting facilities. The 2006 Recreation Needs Study is old and largely irrelevant by now, since the population growth and demographics of Glen Eira has changed dramatically. Some of the consideration must involve sports grounds available at schools, both public and private. A good example of a recent report is frankston_city_sports_development_plan_-_2013_-_2019 . The key to success of such a planning process is Consultation, Co-operation and Consolidation.
September 11, 2015 at 7:06 PM
interesting that the land in the swap belongs to the MRC again. I spose it will be valuable to them if they are developing the rest of the stables!
http://www.afr.com/news/secret-plans-to-develop-caulfield-and-sandown-race-courses-20150911-gjkcac?stb=twt