An astonishing item (9.8) features in today’s agenda. Council is proposing to enter into a potential 9 year lease with the VRC (aka MRC) for 2 sections of the Wedge – ie the land that has stood vacant at the top of Glen Eira/Booran Rds for years and years. The terms of the proposed lease are:
- For the first 5 years the payment to council (as committee of management) of $137,500 and for each 2 year extension up to a further 4 years, a rental of $30,400 per annum.
- The land under discussion includes a 153 square metre area that contains a water bore, and another area to the east of the Wedge of 675 square metres. This second area abuts the current freehold land containing the stables.
Our take on this is as follows:
- Why would the MRC agree to pay even this pittance for a lease on land that has stood empty for years unless this is nothing more than a major land grab to accommodate future residential development to the east of this strip? Below is a screen dump taken from the VPA website which makes it clear that the MRC is thinking of more development once training goes.
- Is the payment of basically $27,000 per annum a reasonable rent given that any commercial block of 675 square metres would certainly receive far more in rent?
- Does this lease mean that training will not be gone for another 9 years at least? In 2011 a 5 year time limit was put on. We are now talking 2027 at the earliest.
- Why has this item made an appearance at this stage given that the newly appointed trustees are set to begin their reign on the 1st August, 2018. Does the signing off of this lease usurp their power and authority and hence is the timing deliberate? Surely council could have waited another 2 weeks given the years when nothing has happened?
- What does this mean for the proposed dog agility facility? How can dogs, kids, and adults co-exist with trucks, workmen, etc having unrestricted access to the bore?
- Why is the last sentence of the Department letter redacted? What potentially damaging info does this sentence contain?
- One sentence of the officer’s report is worth repeating –As the lease term is less than 10 years Council is not required to give public notice of the intention to enter into the lease with the MRC. Skull duggery at its best! No publicity, no objections, no community involvement whatsoever! Well done council!
All in all another cave in by council and the department to the Melbourne Racing Club!
Glen Eira Debates 
July 20, 2018 at 5:23 PM
History has shown that the mrc cannot be trusted and their objective is to squeeze every bit of crown or freehold land into a profit making enterprise. Both council and the pollies have worked to allow this to happen. The agenda also has another item about the abandoning of the amendment for social housing and not to increase the mixed use borders for precinct three. I take this to mean that the mrc has now been given the green light to increase the number of apartments in precinct three (since the land area will be bigger) and that down the track they can build to their hearts content on the stable land meanwhile paying practically nothing and keeping training and profit going for another decade. Nothing has changed and noone is willing to take on the mrc.
July 20, 2018 at 5:30 PM
Why the rush; if the new trustee appointment’s date is 1/8/2018 (less than 2 weeks away) surely this is best left for them to evaluate, otherwise its like the liberals with the S/E extension, rushing it through to spite labour who inturn throw the baby out of the window (wasting $1.0 billion in cash) just to spite the liberals.
This is not good governance, nor is it intelligent thinking by council but it sure smacks of “Bloody spite” to push things through in a hurry. Are council scared that the new trustees will revoke there decision so lets rush it through to get the result; we the council want?
July 20, 2018 at 9:38 PM
I’m not sure the incoming Racecourse Managers would have any say over this parcel of land. Council is leasing as the manager of this land and pocketing the rent, not DELWP. But having said that, anything Glen Eira council does in and around the racecourse is sure to to a rort in favour of the MRC.
July 21, 2018 at 11:59 AM
Checking the legislation (Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Act
2017) the following would appear to endorse the role of the newly appointed trustees and their functions in granting leases. We quote –
to confer functions, duties and powers on the
Trust in relation to the management of the
Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, including
Leasing and licensing powers;
to undertake proper financial management of
the Reserve
The Trust, with the approval of the Minister,
May grant a lease of the whole or any part of
The Reserve.
(2)
The Minister must not approve the granting of a
lease under subsection (1) unless the Minister is
satisfied that—
(a)
the purpose of the lease is not detrimental to
the purposes for which the land is reserved;
and
(b)
the granting of the lease is in the public
interest.
July 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM
Yes, that is true, so why is council negotiating this lease, surly they could only do this if they are confident that they are the manager of this parcel of land. If they are not the legal managers, it would be fraudulent to take money for leasing land that’s not yours to lease?
Another point would be who requested this lease arrangement, I can understand the east strip with the stable on it, but that other easement on the other side doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
July 23, 2018 at 12:38 PM
IIRC the land was not incorporated into the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve when it became Crown land and is not therefore subject to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Act 2017. It is hard to tell because the land the Act applies to is indirectly specified by reference to Government Gazettes from 1879, 1884 and 1930, along with “any authorised additions, excisions or revocations”. I doubt Council could be appointed as Committee of Management if it was Trust land.
July 21, 2018 at 10:21 AM
A key question is whether members of the public would vote for this deal on the basis of the information supplied, because if we wouldn’t, Council shouldn’t. I don’t see any documents backing up the officers’ claim that the proposed rental is “acceptable”. It’s not clear what Council’s short, medium, and long-term goals are for the land.
The report doesn’t reveal the extent to which other land uses and plans are compromised if the stables remain and right of access to a bore maintained. What sort of access is required? Heavy machinery? Is a second dog agility area required so close to another? Or is the land partially used by MRC as a dumping ground for heavy machinery and racing debris to be returned to that exclusive use?
Council a few years ago rejected becoming a Committee of Management and argued the money offered was insufficient to develop the land to meet public park and recreation needs. So what has changed?
As part of the infamous landswap, the Minister indicated he expected “area 1 to be fully landscaped by the MRC at its cost”. So what happened? On 10 December 2008, the Minister specified a maximum term of 10 years to be allowed for a lease of parcel 2 for it to be available for track training purposes. Again landscaping work was to be done to the Department’s satisfaction by the tenure expiry date. Market rent valuation was to be done by the Valuer General, not a mate from the development industry. Wonder what the Minister claims to have been the public benefit from the last 10 years.
And what happens if the lease proposal is defeated? Is Council allowed to say no?
July 23, 2018 at 6:06 PM
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON WE WILL HAVE A COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT TO DEAL WITH THIS NOT COUNCIL OR DELWP
WHY IS THIS HAPPENING PRIOR TO SETTING UP OF THE NEW COM IT STINKS
July 24, 2018 at 1:32 PM
Another year, another dirty deal done behind closed doors. If only an investigative body or investigative journalist could go over all this with a fine tooth comb, a flood of dirty dealing could finally be revealed. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and we are all powerless to stop it.
July 25, 2018 at 7:48 PM
To update, it got up 7 votes for, 2 votes against. Another big win for racing.