Caulfield Racecourse/C60


trustees

Source: http://www.probuild.com.au/projects/caulfield-village/

Click on image to enlarge.

probuild

The following is taken from the Moonee Valley Council website. Comparisons between Glen Eira’s and Moonee Valley’s attempts to safeguard social amenity for residents is self-evident.

Planning & Building

Draft master plan and rezoning for Moonee Valley Racecourse

Moonee Valley Racecourse

29 July update

The State Government’s Advisory Committee has commenced a six week consultation process on the Moonee Valley Racecourse revised Master Plan and Council’s proposed heritage controls for the site. Residents living around the site would have received something in the mail from the Advisory Committee.

The community is encouraged to view the documents and put in a submission to the Advisory Committee.

Council is currently working on its own submission as part of this process.

Information sessions

To help the community stay informed and to understand the process, we are holding information sessions at the Clocktower Centre on Mt Alexander Road Moonee Ponds.

Sessions are:

  • Sunday, 11 August, 2pm-4pm
  • Thursday, 15 August, 6.30pm-8.30pm

To RSVP contact 9243 8888 or email mvrcmasterplan@mvcc.vic.gov.au

Council continues to be concerned about the major information gaps in the revised version of the Master Plan. These gaps and concerns are summarised below in the 18 June update.

More information on consultation process, how to have your say as well as copies of the Master Plan and heritage amendment documents can be found on the DPCD website.

18 June update

Council has responded to the questions asked by the State Government’s Advisory Committee about the revised racing club’s master plan.

While the revised master plan does make some concessions in terms of the scale of the proposed development, it still does not address some key issues that Council previously raised with the club. There are still concerns that the proposed master plan does not provide enough detail. Some of the gaps include:

Car parking and traffic congestion
The revised plan does not adequately show how the substantial increase in vehicles in the area will be managed. This includes both daily vehicle movements and vehicle movements when events and races are taking place.

Public access and safety
Council has concerns over the proposed access to the racecourse, where the majority of patrons would be funneled through a single entry point.

Layout of the site, new residential buildings and the new grandstand
Council doesn’t feel that the proposed layout is the best outcome for the site, and it is of concern that there would potentially be a negative impact on neighbouring properties.

Lack of significant open space
The location and size of open space within the site is insufficient.

Public transport capacity
The revised plan has still not addressed how the significant increase in demand for public transport in the area would be managed.

Drainage and infrastructure impacts
The site has significant drainage issues that have not been considered in the design of the master plan.

Heritage and significant trees
The proposed development would not retain any important heritage features of the site.

We are now waiting for the Advisory Committee to confirm the next stages in the process and dates of when they will undertake community consultation.

Featured below is the centre of the racecourse manifesto published by the MRC. That this features prominently in Council’s Resident’s Handbook is literally astounding given that:

  • Most of the ‘agreement’ terms are not being met – ie times of access
  • The number of days open to public
  • The area now declared as off-limits to residents due to the synthetic track
  • The countless fences that were not in the original submission

That council sees fit to publish this version is to endorse the MRC completely and to abandon, we suspect, all attempts to ensure that the Melbourne Racing Club adheres to the terms of the original ‘communique’. Surely council could have refused to publish this document at the very least?

racecoursePS: Here are some photos that we’ve received from a resident that shows just what a waste of space this so-called ‘development’ has turned out to be. The photos we’re told were taken Sunday last in the mid afternoon.

car park

access

We’ve received an email from a resident regarding a complaint sent into the Minister. Here is the response. Please note that the final sentence of this letter should read: “It is hoped that the Trust and the MRC will continue to work with Glen Eira City Council to monitor the use, and if required, improve the community facilities provided in the centre of the track.”

Racecourse Centre0001

There are some very interesting public questions as well as a few other events from Tuesday night’s meeting that are worthy of highlighting. First the public question on the Racecourse:

“At council meetings I note reports are frequently given by representatives who attend other bodies such as the MAV on behalf of council and reports are given. This being the case why do our three representatives on the Caulfield Racecourse Trustees never give a report, because it is absolutely impossible to find out what is going on in the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Do the Glen Eira Council Trustees realise that their residents are actually never granted permission to attend a CRT MEETING although this is advertised as being possible on The City of Glen Eira website as being the case? Is council prepared to take any action to ensure that the entrance to our reserve from Glen Eira Road is made to be more welcoming?

Or is council prepared to have the entrance pathway sealed and cleaned so that wheelchairs and prams do not collect horse excreta over the tyres and what action can be taken to remove the barrier at the eastern end of the pathway. A person in a wheelchair would have to reverse all the way to get out if unable to remove the barrier when in their wheelchair. This barrier has been in place for quite some time.

Could our representatives on CRT walk on this path and into the park and assess the situation in detail rather than speed through by car? Council came to a decision with the Melbourne Racing Club regarding this entrance issue and once again it seems the non-racing public has come off with a very bad result as it is being currently administered. Can our three trustees move to improve the situation for all residents of Glen Eira even those travelling in wheel chairs and pushing prams?”

The Mayor read the response on behalf of the Councillors who are appointed as Trustees to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust. He said:

“Thank you for your questions.

1. The premise in your first question however is not correct. Whereas there are Council representatives on various committees and bodies representing the views and interests of the Council – hence reports are made to and received by Council – that is not the case with the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust.

Council is requested by the State Government to nominate Councillors to be appointed as Trustees. Council nominated 6 Councillors and it was the State Government that then appointed the Trustees. The three Councillors who are Trustees do not sit on the Trust as Council representatives per se but as Trustees. Any enquiries about the deliberations of the Trust should be directed to the Trust or to its chairperson, Mr Greg Sword.

2. We are aware that to date residents have not been granted permission to address the Trust. The decision as to whether a non-Trustee may address the Trust is determined by a majority of the Trustees. Council has advocated for the Trust to be more open and transparent, and will continue to do so.

3. Council has advocated for some time and continues to advocate that the tunnel entrance from Glen Eira Road be more welcoming and accessible to the public. It is for the Trust however to ensure that the entrance is clean and not for Council.

4. As Trustees we will certainly be raising with the Trust the issues to which you refer.”

++++++++++++++++++++++

The in camera report contains the following:

Crs Lipshutz/Delahunty

That Council

i) Rescind its 18 December 2012 resolution to appoint Green Home Green Planet Pty Ltd, ACN 137 823 360 as the contractor under EOI number 2013.030

Two points bear making here:

  • The Local Law does not have provision for rescinding motions as we’ve stated numerous times
  • This council appears to make its own rules as it goes along and when it suits. For example the recent resolution to enter into further ‘community consultation’ regarding the Caulfield Park Conservatory was made WITHOUT rescinding a previous motion that the conservatory be ‘restored’ and ‘redeveloped’.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Finally, there is this Request for a Report regarding the ABC Studios in Elsternwick. We have no doubt that since this has reared its head and has come up at a council meeting that plenty of ‘negotiations’ have already occurred and that the potential token ‘open space’ that Council might be granted will be offset by another huge, multi-storey development! Watch this space!

Crs Pilling/Delahunty

That a report be prepared on the ABC site at Elsternwick. This report should detail past history, current usage and outline the present future plans for the site. It should also identify types of community uses and benefits for at least part of the site and set out strategies and steps Council can take to achieve this.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) declared a Conflict of Interest as he lives in close proximity to the site.

9.06PM the CEO left the Chamber.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

The Hon. Matthew Guy MLC

Minister for Planning

Level 7

1 Spring Street

MELBOURNE VIC 3000

Dear Minister,

I am writing to express my concerns about the administration of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and the lack of public recreation space available in the Glen Eira area.

According to the City of Glen Eira, despite the lack of public space in the municipality, there is large amount of unused public space available at the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

You would be aware that the reserve is Crown Land and currently administered by the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust.  The reserve was granted to the people of Caulfield for the provision of not just a racecourse but also for a public recreation ground and a public park.  However, while the racecourse is well provided for by the Trust, the other purposes are not.

It is the responsibility of the Trust to ensure that the reserve is set aside for the public enjoyment and use of the people of Victoria, particularly those in the local area.  However, the current structure of trust does not allow for good governance and accountability in administration of this public land.  In particular, I am concerned that six of the positions on the Trust are filled by members of the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC), which is a tenant of the reserve, and that those trustees may experience a conflict of interest between their roles with the MRC and their duties as trustees.

Therefore, I ask that you take action to ensure the integrity of the Trust.  Given that the Trust is responsible for approximately $2billion of public land, the Victorian Auditor General should be its Auditor. To ensure that the Trust is currently operating effectively, the Auditor General should conduct a performance audit immediately.

Furthermore, all bodies that manage Crown Land should comply with the Guidelines for Committees of Management of Crown Land, which are provided by the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Crown Land is reserved to benefit all members of the public.  However, the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is currently used for commercial purposes including a successful Tabaret. Nearly all income from the use of this public land accrues to a non-public body.  The people of Caulfield and Elsternwick would be better served, in my view, if any non-core activities are charged a commercial rent and money reinvested into the provision of not just the racecourse, but also the other mandated purposes, a public recreation ground and public park.

I note that the Victorian Parliamentary Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Public Land Development in its final report in September 2008 found that, “The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve profits to the Melbourne Racing Club have been disproportionately directed to racing users, with inadequate provision for use of public park and recreation users as required by the original Grant,” and recommended, “That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees direct a substantial amount from the profits made by the Melbourne Racing Club over many decades to the provision of public park and recreational facilities, including promotion of the public use of these facilities as recompense to the community.”

The City of Glen Eira has the smallest amount of public open space per capita of all Melbourne municipalities. In addition to this, it is predicted that the MRC’s C60 Development, on its freehold land across Station Street from the Racecourse Reserve, is projected to include 1500 dwellings. More effective use of the existing public land at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve can assist alleviating the open space problem in Glen Eira for current and future residents.  However, this is not possible until the current Trust structure is operating effectively, to ensure this an immediate performance audit will need to occur.

I would appreciate it if you would consider my concerns and get back to me at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours sincerely,

Michael Danby

Federal Member for Melbourne Ports

 

cc. The Hon. Ryan Smith MP

 

Newton, Southwick, and the notorious Special Racecourse Committee should hang their heads in shame or better still, resign! The so-called ‘negotiating’ team has been a total disaster in terms of what they have delivered to the Glen Eira community. The Centre of the Racecourse and the so called ‘agreements’ are not worth a cracker. We maintain that:

  • This is not a ‘park’ and never will be as long as fences continue to mushroom everywhere
  • Access remains limited
  • Terms of the ‘agreement’ are not being met
  • Playground is NOT a playground
  • Landscaping is appalling
  • People would need a GPS system to find their way through all the fences and of course, no signage or directions anywhere
  • Concrete paths are cracking every 2 to 3 metres
  • No shade over barbecue tables
  • Signage on ‘entrance’ points is contradictory (and again not in accordance with the ‘agreement’)
  • One would need to be a mountain goat to scale the Queen’s Rd., entrance – plus no disability access through this entrance whatsoever.
  • If this token ‘development’ really cost $1.8 million, then someone has been ripped off big time. It fails on all criteria of aesthetic, environmental, and open space design.

We will let our photos do the talking. But, how on earth any of this was ‘negotiated’ and how this council can continue to let the MRC get away with blue murder is unforgiveable. Lipshutz, Hyams, Newton, Esakoff, Pilling and Southwick are fully to blame for their monumental sellout of a potentially great community asset.

Here are a few photos and then a slideshow. Please read carefully the nonsense that the MRC has been allowed to post at the entrances. Special attention should be paid to: the statement about ‘restricted areas’; times of opening; and the totally inaccurate maps.

P1000111

For the historical record here’s what was said by residents and these councillors when the application came up for approval. The relevant URLs are:

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/mrc-planning-conference-the-farce-continues/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/mrc-planning-conference-part-2/

https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/2594/

And some of the most pertinent comments are highlighted, especially ESKAOFF’s –

SPEAKER #11: Asked if playground was part of application – was told ‘yes’. No detail provided about the playground; Tangalakis then asked if the speaker was an original objector and if so she would have seen the drawings. Speaker responded that what she’d seen were ‘board games’  and “I think that is a silly idea’. Stated that she has young children and couldn’t imagine anyone bothering to go over to a board game if that’s all that was going to be offered.  Kids need better designed playgrounds. ..’.waste of money to put a board game there’. Suggested that unless decent scale is erected then it would remain ‘isolated’ and ‘neglected’. Queried the location adjacent to a lake – safety. Needs fencing and will be cold. Looked at plans, ‘i tried but I could not work out the scale so had no idea’ of anything. In support of developing centre, but if the plan goes ahead it will simply be a ‘lost opportunity’ to do something worthwhile. Concerned that this is all MRC work and that council should ‘independently assess’ merits. Objects to fence, and ‘why it’s necessary’ since access is denied until training over, so why need it? Access point for family not officially recognised so makes it difficult for people to get to facilities. Needs to be ‘equitable access’ to these facilities.

ESAKOFF: Concurred with both Hyams and Pilling. The post and rail fence becomes ‘something more acceptable….we will be pursuing further (playground) equipment….other than that I’m happy with this approval…

From David Southwick’s website – http://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/fun-run.html

Over the past 6 years, the Melbourne Racing Club has sought to expand the accessibility of the Caulfield Racecourse for the community. Through community consultation, and discussions with local government and David Southwick MP, the MRC have funded a $1.8 million upgrade to the public facilities therein.

winningpost

« Previous PageNext Page »