‘Planning mess’: Outcry over Caulfield Racecourse redevelopment
By Cara Waters and Damien Ractliffe
February 1, 2022 — 12.01pm
The destruction of 100-year-old trees for the redevelopment of Caulfield Racecourse caused community outcry, but local authorities are unclear who bears ultimate responsibility.
Demolition work at Caulfield began on January 10 after a Christmas Eve amendment by Planning Minister Richard Wynne overruled heritage and council controls on the $570 million development of the racetrack and surrounding area.
One of the 42 trees destroyed was an Aleppo pine grown from the seed of Gallipoli’s Lone Pine. The works also involved the demolition of a toilet block and asphalt removal.
Heritage trees were cut down with chainsaws, prompting the interim protection order.
Work stopped this week after Heritage Victoria made an interim protection order on January 27 that means it must sign off on any work in the next four months.
Minister Wynne’s amendment to the planning scheme was requested by the Melbourne Racing Club. A spokesman said the club had done “everything by the book”, and had consulted on its plans with club members, the broader racing industry and the local council.
“We will also continue to do the right thing and work with Heritage Victoria on how we can proceed where appropriate,” the spokesman said.
The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust said it was aware of the planned demolition work but did not realise it would start without any chance for public consultation.
Andrew Paxton, general manager of the Trust, said it was unusual that Minister Wynne approved a planning amendment scheme, which did not require public exhibition, on Christmas Eve.
“The community of Glen Eira have an expectation of consultation and being engaged,” Mr Paxton said.
The local council said it was “blindsided” by the minister’s actions and the destruction of the trees. The Glen Eira council said it was yet to receive a response from Mr Wynne, confirming it was the Glen Eira Historical Society which applied for, and secured, the interim protection order after some trees had already been cut down.
The local council said it was unaware of the demolition work until it occurred, noting it lodged a request with the government on August 18 last year, seeking Mr Wynne authorise a heritage amendment to protect the racecourse.
“We’re a small little volunteer-run organisation, so not geared up to dealing with an entity like the Melbourne Racing Club,” volunteer Anne Kilpatrick said. “What we’ve come around to realising is that somebody needs to step up for this. In this instance, we thought well, no one else is, we will do that.”
Glen Eira Mayor Jim McGee said the council was “blindsided” by the demolition work. They’ve given the Melbourne Racing Club the go-ahead to do whatever they like, and unfortunately, they’ve started by destroying what I believe to be heritage buildings, destroying heritage trees and just going hell for leather,” he said. “It’s just another example of the Melbourne Racing Club, paying absolutely no attention to residents. They haven’t done it in 150 years, so I’m not surprised that they are not doing it today.”
In a letter to Mr Wynne, Cr McGee said the process for approving the redevelopment work on Christmas Eve appeared misleading and secretive.
“The community are rightly outraged about what’s happening at the racecourse,” he said.
Mr Wynne said the government had engaged extensively with the council, including as recently as last year, on its plans to redevelop the racecourse area into a “people friendly community recreation space”.
“It beggars belief that the Glen Eira council is claiming to be surprised by the development occurring at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve – which the government has made significant investments in to unlock open space for the community,” he said.
However, many people, including MRC members, said they were surprised by the works.
“We have been racing at Caulfield for 150 years and most people would be very surprised that nothing at Caulfield has any sort of heritage protection,” MRC member Anthony Del Monaco said. “[The] question is why the club, the council or the government haven’t taken action earlier to get heritage protection for this much cherished state asset. and avoided the planning mess that has resulted.”
Member for Caulfield David Southwick MP said the community was consulted about the plans for the construction of buildings and new sports fields, but not about the demolition work or removal of heritage trees and buildings.
“They’ve gone so heavily in terms of consulting with the community about what could be in the middle of the racecourse, yet they’ve forgotten to actually look at protecting some of the heritage value around the actual precinct itself,” he said.
“There’s been no consultation with them, and the fact that the minister on the 24th – Christmas Eve – can effectively rubber stamp something and have these trees, including an Aleppo pine, destroyed I think is really upsetting.”
Mr Southwick said the way the redevelopment was handled had important implications for planning across the state.
“[If] you’ve got one minister, a planning minister, who can do whatever he likes in anyone’s backyard without any third-party appeal, then he’s a real concern for any Victorian right now,” he said.
COMMENT:
The MRC in the above quote, admits to ‘consulting’ with members, race goers, and council. Significantly, the one important omission is the community/residents of Glen Eira.
Also surprising is Council’s claim to have requested interim heritage protection in August last year. There is no formal council resolution that we can find to this effect. Why wasn’t this brought before a full council meeting in order to (1) make this request public, and (2) to ensure full ratification by councillors?
Will council now make public all of its communication(s) with the Minister, the MRC, and with the department? Did Council employ its own heritage advisors or did they rely on the MRC appointed advisors? Were councillors fully aware of any of these meetings, communications?
There are a myriad of questions that need answering from all – including the Minister, the MRC, the Trustees and Council.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 1, 2022 at 1:26 PM
No surprises here. The mrc are a law unto themselves aided and abetted by both sides of politics and rubber stamping done by council.
February 3, 2022 at 9:10 PM
Council had absolutely NO involvement in any decision to remove trees or buildings. The Mayor has written a very strong letter of protest to the Minister. (See my Facebook page for details) https://www.facebook.com/DavidZyngierGreensForCamden/
February 4, 2022 at 11:34 AM
Wynne’s office has made the public claim “The Government has engaged extensively with the Council” about the racecourse redevelopment. I don’t believe the Minister, but the public record of what discussions took place, between whom, what information was shared, and what was agreed to is non-existent. When the word “council” is used it’s not even clear whether that refers to council staff, or to councillors. The government is pretty hopeless, but Council could at least fill some of the void by providing better public records of its interactions with the government.
I also wonder about one claim in the Mayor’s letter. He writes, “Council is committed to transparency and fairness in decision-making in planning matters. Our community ought to have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to have their voice heard and their comments fairly and transparently addressed in decision making that impacts them and their local area.” My own experience is that Council has failed repeatedly. Council should respond to feedback obtained through any means, including community consultation, but doesn’t. I attempted to find out what “fairness” means to Council. It decided it meant doing up to and including whatever the State Government wanted–an utterly useless and contemptible definition.
February 4, 2022 at 4:23 PM
Indeed the Minister and the CRRT consults with the council regularly (usually the officers who report to Councillors), but that is the Race Course Reserve he is talking about – not the plans of the MRC to cut down historic trees and destroy heritage buildings in the process of being listed as such. I cannot comment on your personal experience or anything before Nov 2020 – but since that time I have been pushing for as much transparency and genuine consultation as possible. If you saw the December OCM you will have noted that my voice was silenced by a conservative vote.
February 1, 2022 at 1:43 PM
A truckload of unanswered questions and the residents are in the dark and they don’t seem to count…..atrocious
February 1, 2022 at 2:06 PM
The old blame game is in full swing, which is just the way they like it.
I’m blaming the trees for growing there without paying rent to the MRC.
GE Council is sidelining itself more and more into taking on a advocacy role.
By doing this the councillors and the resident never get to scrutinise what actually happens. Whose interest they advocated for, or how hard they advocated for a particular outcome, etc.
Council “supposedly” took on an advocacy role with the Glen Huntly, Neerim road level crossing removal project. The outcomes on creating useable public open space and flood resilient stormwater infrastructure was woeful.
It’s looks like the same with latest’s at the racecourse, we the ratepayers will never know what was said and in whose interests were served by who in these so-called advocacy screens.
The whole advocacy role, “what that ever means” as it could mean so many things, it boggles even any ration explanation, other taking the word on its dictionary meaning, is an absolute black-hole for good governance because of its lack of public process and documentation.
February 1, 2022 at 3:42 PM
What has happened here has been the complete and utter undermining of our democracy. The Minister has, in secret and without satisfactory justification, made changes to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme on behalf of the MRC. He has done so using his notorious s20(4) power that has been widely abused by the Andrews government, and by Matthew Guy before that. Before even giving Parliament an opportunity to revoke the Amendment, trees have been felled and candidate heritage buildings demolished.
The MRC CEO, Josh Blanskby, living in his own parallel universe, has decided to insult members of the public who are unhappy with the process in which decisions are made based on secret information and conversations by politically-connected individuals with vested interests in particular outcomes. He has decided the use of the s20(4) power is “open and transparent”, despite knowing the MRC deliberately didn’t go through the normal Planning Amendment process, in which documents would ordinarily be made public and the public have an opportunity to comment. Even now, there are a bunch of documents that the Government has suppressed from the public, the very documents that specify what the MRC are and aren’t allowed to do.
While it is shameful that the MRC have been allowed to have the hegemony it has over our public park and public reserve, it is understandable for the MRC to pursue its private interests at public expense since interest in racing keeps dwindling. What isn’t acceptable is the role the ministers involved have played. Wynne is fleeing politics but has granted developers some questionable favours on his way out. I’ve not heard anything from Lily D’Ambrosio, why she is on-board with the removal of the Aleppo pine, why she supports the bypassing of CRRT, GECC, and the local community.
February 1, 2022 at 4:28 PM
We don’t need advocacy, we need clear stated policy written into our planning scheme, so everyone knows what the position is, and when the rules are bent or broken.