Caulfield Racecourse/C60

Archived Posts from this Category

April 12, 2013

Lest We Forget!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance
[9] Comments

For the first time ever we are repeating a post in its entirety. It’s the resolution on council’s ‘position’ on the racecourse centre. Given the sudden girding of the loins by the likes of Lipshutz and company, we thought it worthwhile to revisit the shambles that took place in April, 2011. There was no fire and brimstone then – only complicity, secrecy, and in our view, the utter sellout of residents. Now, when the deal is done and dusted, these very same councillors find their voice.

What was said 2 years ago should never be forgotten. What was NOT SAID last Tuesday night is just as important. No mention of what this council has done to ensure that the MRC abides by the various agreements – ie keeping gates open; pulling down fences; proper traffic management; ensuring the clean up of Queen’s Avenue, and so on. Utter, resounding silence on all these points. Instead the gallery witnessed nothing more than huge egos grandstanding. We have to also question whether the resolution to forward a ‘letter’ to MPs and others would have eventuated if the MRC had not embarrassed council even further with their Media Releases and interviews. If this council thought it was so important to ‘restate’ its position, then why did they not decide to write to all and sundry at the previous meeting? Was this even discussed in those secret assemblies? If so, how did the gang respond? Did they reject this idea a month ago? Our guess is that council were forced into the letter by the outcry against them! Again, everything is too late and useless!

Here’s our post from April 28th, 2011.

LIPSHUTZ: Claimed this was a ‘far reaching agreement’ which goes well beyond what was originally proposed by the MRC. Outlined and summarised the ‘agreement’. Critics will claim that council ‘ought to have been more robust’ . ‘both parties came to the negotiating table willingly’ and negotiations were robust, and ‘compromise for both sides’ resulted. Compared the previous position of the MRC and the current ‘improvements’ that the negotiating team now has, ‘last year $800,000 and now $1.8 million dollars’ for landscaping…..’As a councillor….I have to make decisions based on reality ….adopting an adversarial role’ gains nothing. ‘You can’t come to the MRC and simply make demands, they’re not going to be achieved….there has to be a compromise and this is a compromise…vote against….and you get nothing’ Some hope the government will step in and give us what we want – ‘that is not going to happen’. ‘What the government has sought from both parties is that we act reasonably…

PILLING: Agreement provides for ‘solid foundation’ for present and future improvements of ‘access, amenity and usage’ of the racecourse. Through this agreement the ‘MRC can no longer deny the community’ its share of the racecourse. Will ‘be viewed in future years as a productive beginning…our negotiating team have done a commendable job…there will need to be ongoing negotiation between both parties to ensure that all aspects of this agreement are fulfilled and delivered’ and this will mean ‘continued good will on both sides’ . Agreement is demonstration of good faith…’this approach should be encouraged’. Outlined ‘new amenities’, toilets, etc. and ‘these are all significant advances’ as are ‘fencing removal with a staggered time frame’; unrestricted access from 9.30 and ‘MRC will pay for all improvements….except for those on council land and we will share costs with them where there are boundaries’. Time line is also an ‘important aspect’ – all have been given a ‘reasonable definitive timeline’ ‘so it will happen, it’s not just open ended’. ‘To reject this agreement as some colleagues are urging would place’ at risk the good will that has been generated and the future. ‘This would be a retrograde step and a risk I’m not prepared to take’. ‘This item is not about past history, personal crusades, personalities or individual grievances’. It’s about ‘delivering tangible real benefits now’

PENHALLURIACK: Read the intended recommendation about the agreement and asked Esakoff to rule on ‘whether or not this would be in conflict with the terms of reference of the Caulfield racecourse Special Committee’ since the terms of reference for that the committee state that it is to deal with issues concerning the racecourse. ‘That would seem to fly in the face of the motion which we have now’ which is usurping its powers. Penhalluriack asked Esakoff to make a ruling.

ESAKOFF: ‘What’s your question Cr. Penhalluriack?’

PENHALLURIACK: ‘I ask you to rule’ whether this should be council decision or special committee decision.

ESAKOFF: ‘It’s on the ordinary council meeting agenda so my reading would be that it qualifies council to’ consider. Penhalluriack then questioned whether because something is on the agenda does it mean that it’s’legal’? Esakoff’s answer was ‘It’s on the agenda. We’re dealing with it tonight’. Again Penhalluriack questioned Esakoff stating that since it’s on the agenda’ that makes it legal?”. She responded ‘Yes’.

LOBO: ‘this is one of the biggest issues to come before the council …what I feel is that we are racing, we are going too fast. Perhaps we should slow down and postpone…..

FORGE: ‘it disturbs me’ that some are saying ‘we must rush into this in case we lose it’. ‘We’re just beginning….I was under the understanding that the community expected further consultation…what further input do you expect to get from the public in this regard?’ Esakoff asked to whom Forge is addressing her question. Forge responded ’to the special committee’. Esakoff then claimed that she didn’t understand the question enough to be able to answer it. Forge then quoted Lipshutz as saying that the special committee would be going back to the public. Esakoff interrupted and asked whether the question was concerning the centre of the racecourse. Forge replied that the issues were ‘intermarried’. Esakoff then stated ‘No, tonight we’re dealing with the Caufield reserve only’.

PENHALLURIACK: ‘Cr. Lipshutz would make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, Cr Pilling, the only Green on council….

Pilling then interrupted claiming ‘personal attacks’ and told Penhalluriack to ‘speak to the issue’ and not indulge in personal attacks. Esakoff agreed with Pilling. Penhalluriack then dissented from her ruling claiming that ‘all I said was that Cr. Pilling is a member of the Green’s Party. If he finds that offensive he should resign from the party!. Esakoff then said ‘Cr Penhalluriack, we’re speaking to a motion here. We’re not having personal attacks on each other’.

PENHALLURIACK: Began by reiterating the history of the racecourse and stating that the public has been ‘excluded’ from the grant by Queen Victoria. ‘Tonight I stand ashamed to be a councillor of Glen Eira because the negotiators’…..’did a terrible job’. ‘almost everything they achieved was achieved by a letter from the MRC to Council in september last year….that was held secretive from council, all councillors I presume until it was published in the agenda for the Special Council Meeting on the 13th December last year’....’What has been achieved in my opinion is pathetic.‘ ‘Nobody will go into a public park with a big fence around it’ Most people are at work at 9.30 and instead of allowing people to enjoy a barbecue in summer they have to be out by sunset…’what’s wrong with having lighting in this particular park?’….’It will not work as a park’…’and the access is shared with horses. Sure the horses go, but they leave their shit behind and when you go into the park you can smell it’. Outlined his solutions for walking horses across the area…’It’s a deliberate move by the MRC to exclude the public because for the last 8 or ten years the public is suddenly gleaning an understanding that it’s their park’. It is not ‘the exclusive domain of the Melbourne Racing Club as they would like you to believe it is’….The MRC is a non profit organisation but ‘I’ve never known a more avaricious organisation in my life’. Spoke about the profits from pokies and compared Zagame’s payment of 8.3% in tax because it owns the land, compared to the MRC which can spend this ‘tax’ on watering the lawns in the racecourse and paying the labour. ‘We should have that money in council’. ‘You heard cr Tang earlier talking about this massive increase in rates that you’re going to be facing,…it should not be happening. That $3 million dollars…should be coming back to council’. ‘What we’ve got with this dreadful negotiation is a piece of nonsense….I can tell you that….in 24 months time the MRC will go to the government and say ‘Look we’ve wasted a million dollars on this park and nobody uses it’…..Cr. Lipshutz….has ‘caved in’ …or whoever was dealing with the MRC and it may well have been our CEO because the CEO and the planning department had a number of meetings with the MRC ….which we’re not informed about as councillors and we should be informed about it’. Reiterated that this deal came from the MRC last September and ‘we didn’t know about it….we are heading for a disaster, we have missed a golden opportunity….If the motion is lost I’m going to move that there be further’ negotiations with the MRC’. Doesn’t believe that it should be ‘discussed here’. ‘The deal we’ve got is a waste of the paper it’s written on’. ‘Five years to pull down the fence on Queen’s Avenue. I can do it in 5 minutes’!

FORGE: attempted to raise a point about ‘Winky Pop’ and the legal advice she had received that morning.

ESAKOFF questioned relevance. Forge responded with importance of the issue and it shouldn’t be decided tonight. Esakoff responded ‘this item is going to be decided tonight’.

HYAMS: ‘this is the best we’re going to get’. Stated that if council wants more ‘negotiation’ then ‘we’ll get what the MRC originally asked for which is less than what they’ve agreed to now – if we’re lucky!’….’we can’t get more….the MRC is not prepared to give us more unless a higher power is prepared to make them give us more and the advice that we had is that that’s not going to happen....so either we want a park in the middle of the racecourse or we don’t want a park…..My understanding is that the government thinks that the negotiations have been reasonable but if we keep on procrastinating, they might change their mind’. ‘There is an element here of taking a crusade against the MRC ….so personally….PENHALLURIACK OBJECTED AT THIS POINT saying that the allusion was to himself. ESAKOFF stated – “I don’t believe your name was mentioned Cr. Penhalluriack’. Penhalluriack then asked Hyams to whom he was referring. Hyams answered ‘Not just you Cr. Penhalluriack’. Esakoff then asked Hyams to withdraw the statement. Hyams then said there is an element of ‘concern with the MRC’s past behaviour’!!!! that ‘they would rather get nothing than perceive to lose to the MRC….I think if we say no to this it is actually a loss to the community….we can look at this in a year’s time and either we’ll have a park….or we won’t and it will be our fault for saying ‘no’. It’s that simple’…..negotiators did the best job they could have done…..compromise……MRC has moved a long way…..certainly we have not got all the 7 points – that was our ambit claim….we set out our position, we didn’t get our position and now….this is what we either accept or not….that’s not to say as time goes on…..there won’t be further improvements’. The ‘MRC can’t do that on their own’ (get rid of training)….’they need somewhere to put it, and those facilities need to be found’. In regard to sport, Hyams said you can’t have sport without facilities such as change rooms, ‘and the MRC doesn’t want to put facilities in the middle of the racecourse’. …..The question is do we want a park there or not? If we want a park vote for the motion….or keep butting our heads against the MRC for no other purpose than to make us feel good about ourselves….

ESAKOFF: negotiations when two parties get together and walk away both happy ‘a win win situation’ or a compromise on both sides.’ Negotiations are not held with one of those parties saying ‘this is what we want and unless we get it, forget it.’ The agreement will be ‘valuable’ and ‘meaningful’ to the community in terms of open space’….compared the decision making involved in this to the decision making that contestants make in game shows. ‘some take huge gambles and say ‘I came with nothing and I’m prepared to go home with nothing…in this case though it’s the community we’re playing for….we need to ask ourselves, what would the community do, what would they want. I believe they would want this win’….I don’t believe our residents would thank us if we were to say this is not enough….the risk is too great….to come home with nothing is irresponsible….I believe that this is a good outcome’.

LIPSHUTZ: ‘One thing you don’t do when you’ve been arguing for many years’ and then you talk only to say ‘hold on another three months….we were charged with negotiating…(and) each person represented the council’s position…each party has said it’s position is final and there is no more, that is the time to bring it back to the council’. Stated that Penhalluriack’s claims of avaricious MRC and their failure to pay council has ‘nothing to do with tonight’. ‘What we have tonight is an issue involving the park….all the issues that Penhalluriack has raised have been raised with the MRC….that’s what it is a compromise. Restated that there has been a major change from the past in that previously it was an ‘adversarial position’, now it’s a ‘conciliatory position’ ‘we’re working together and that is something that I think is very important’. Referred to Penhalluriack’s claims that the CEO had not informed council. ‘The CEO meets with many people during the course of the day….some have nothing to do with councillors…..to the best of my knowledge every meeting that the CEO has had with the MRC …has been brought back…I reject any issue of secrecy’. ‘….If we accept the community wins’.

MOTION PUT TO VOTE: Penhalluriack called for a division

REQUEST FOR REPORT

PENHALLURIACK: I’d like a detailed report on the meetings Andrew Newton has had with the MRC or representatives of the Trustees over the past two years. Seconded by Forge. ‘we’ve just heard’ that the CEO has reported on all meetings, ‘I don’t believe he has’, so I’d like detailed reports on what has been discussed and which hasn’t been reported back. Wanted to know what occured ‘behind our backs’.

HYAMS interjected and said that Penhalluriack should withdraw ‘that imputation’ about ‘behind our backs’. Penhalluriack said that if he’s wrong he would apologise. Esakoff asked Penhalluriack to withdraw the ‘assumption’. Penhalluriack then asked Esakoff what the assumption was that she was referring to. She repeated about meetings ‘behind our backs’ only to have Hyams interrupt again and state ‘negotiations behind our backs’. Penhalluriack insisted on the word ‘meetings’ – he withdrew negotiations and substituted ‘meetings’. Repeated again ‘behind our backs and without our knowledge’.

FORGE: ‘I can bear witness to that fact told to me by the CEO of the MRC that he had several meetings with Jeff Akehurst and the CEO’ and that councillors were not aware of that.

HYAMS claimed he had no objections to the report because if they voted against it, it would make it seem that they were trying to keep something secret.

TANG asked Penhalluriack to detail the previous report by CEO which had been approved by council

PENHALLURIACK: about 12 months ago; included some dates and some gaps

LIPSHUTZ: what were the gaps?

PENHALLURIACK: it was incomplete

MOTION CARRIED. PENHALLURIACK ASKED FOR A DIVISION

Newton later on spoke to the ‘request for a report’. We’ll comment on this in the next day or so.

April 11, 2013

Council’s ‘Position’

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE RESERVE

MAGEE moved a long motion which basically reiterated what had previously been stated – ie not enough sporting grounds and that it should be for racing, recreation and sport. Also mentioned recent history such as the Select Committee Report and their recommendations. Last part of motion was to write to all MPs, Ministers, Auditor General, etc.

MAGEE: spoke about population and lack of sporting grounds so that clubs have to play outside of Glen Eira. Claimed that 35 to 40 teams ‘would love to play in Glen Eira’ but presently can’t because lack of grounds. Said the plan could be ‘reconfigured’ to suit everyone and it’s really about the trustees and MRC who regard the land as theirs and that racing is more important than anything else. Said the MRC owns land all around the racecourse for their stables that they rent out so that gives trainers the right to train horses on the reserve. Then read out a long list about ‘prescribed uses’ such as weddings, exhibitions, exams etc. and noted that training is not listed once in this long list ‘according to the DSE’. Many things such as access, lighting ‘needs to be better’ and that the land should be given back to the community ‘who actually own it’. Saw this as ‘an opportunity to almost solve’ all the problems they’re having with sport. This isn’t happening and even though a barbecue area and running track will soon be opened it’s one that ‘just happens to run past the car park’ so that racegoers ‘don’t get dirty walking to the pavilion’. The toilet also suits the boot area. Therefore instead of this being a ‘great community park’ it’s ‘actually going to be used for racing’ ….’it will be used by you and me’ but you have to go through the tunnel ‘without suffocatig and getting mud’ and horse poo all over you. We’ve got a 2 billion dollar asset ‘sitting on’ the doorstep and yet Glen Eira can’t provide for its kids on sport.

OKOTEL: supported motion and ‘unfortunate’ that some people ‘misunderstood’ the position paper from the last council meeting. Said that this motion ‘seeks to clarify council’s position’ and to make this known to ‘all of the relevant stakeholders’. Went on to say that council ‘will honour’ its existing agreements and the intentions of council in ‘how to deal with this land in the future’. Hoped that this would prevent any ‘further misunderstanding’.

PILLING: endorsed the motion and said that it’s good that this would be sent to politicians because that’s really where the issue lies ie ‘with successive state governments’. ‘Training in the long term does have to go’ if council is to get what it wants. Said that this ‘position’ isn’t really that much different from its ‘previous positions’ just ‘articulates it better’. Said that the plan basically showed the ‘potential’ of the site and how it could be utilised for both active and passive recreation.

DELAHUNTY: also endorsed the motion. The report helped people understand just how much land is available and it’s just a concept and ‘may not be how it ends up’. Reiterated that ‘passive recreation’ is important. Spoke about jogging around the area and walking the dog years ago and would would ‘like to see some of that balance restored’. Saw that sport is about 2 issues – allocation and ‘supply’. Asked the community to support council’s position, ‘to get behind’ this move. Thanked officers for the report.

HYAMS: said that the focus of racing is a result of the ‘failings of previous trustees and government’. Criticism of the previous ‘issues paper’ was ‘unwarranted’ and the MRC’s media responses as well as Pakula’s ‘unfortunate speech’ in Parliament was ‘misleading’ so this ‘sets out the full context’. Mentioned the MRC spending $3 m on the synthetic track. Acknowledged that they’ve carved off Glen Huntly park but that there would now also be ‘1500 dwellings’ as part of the C60. Hoped that this was the ‘start for far more progress’ being achieved for the park.

MAGEE: 2 years ago Forge and he met Southwick who said this was ‘important’ but that in this time all he’s done in 2 years is ‘organise a fun run’ and that’s ‘insulting to everyone who actually voted for David Southwick’. He should apologise. Continued that ‘this is far too important’ to be ‘political’. ‘This is not going away’ and the MRC and Trustees should know that ‘council is just starting’ and will go on right to the 2014 election. If Southwick want relection then he ‘needs the people of Caulfield right behind him’. The whole issue is ‘about greed. Nothing more’.

MOTION PUT: carried unanimously

PS: THE FULL MAGEE MOTION AS PER THE MINUTES –

Crs Magee/Okotel
1. That Council note:
(a) That there are more people wanting to play community sport in Glen Eira than there are grounds for;
(b) That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown land is reserved for “A racecourse public recreation ground and public park”;
(c) That, as shown by the report provided by independent consultant Simon Leisure, in addition to horse racing, the Crown land could potentially accommodate additional grounds for soccer, AFL, netball, baseball, rugby and cycling, as well as a range of passive recreation opportunities;
(d) That the Glen Huntly Reserve was originally part of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve;
(e) 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.”;
(f) That, pursuant to an agreement with Council of April 2011, the Melbourne Racing Club has spent approximately $2 million on
providing public park and recreation facilities in the interior of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve;
(g) That, in relation to training, that agreement provided, “One of the current uses of the Racecourse Reserve is for the training of more than 500 horses.
For training to be relocated from Caulfield, there needs to be
· an alternative site
· construction of new facilities
· and transfer of the training activities.
This will not be achieved in the short term.
It is not within the sole control of the MRC.
Agreed Priority in this transition would be
1. removal of training from Crown Land before freehold land
2. top priority is the south-east corner of the Reserve which would become available for use as public open space consistent with the already established joint communique in conjunction with Glen Huntly Park, at the expense of the body controlling the land.
3. within the Racecourse Reserve, the only tracks required would be for the conduct of races and all other tracks would be re-incorporated into enlarged precincts mentioned above.
4. Council and the MRC would enter into further discussions about further improved facilities and uses of the Centre for the benefit of racegoers and the community.”
(h) That training infrastructure constructed in the interior of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve since this agreement includes a
synthetic training track worth approximately $3 million;
(i) That the MRC’s C60 Development, on its freehold land across Station Street from the Racecourse Reserve, is projected to
include 1500 dwellings; and
(j) That, in accordance with the April 2011 agreement, Council’s position paper on the Crown Land at the Caulfield Racecourse
Reserve, adopted at its March 19 meeting, stated “Training of horses on a commercial basis is not one of the purposes for which the Crown Land is reserved. Providing a “public recreation ground and public park” takes precedence over the training of horses. To the extent that training prejudices the provision of public ground and public park, training should be phased out.”

2. That this report and motion be sent to:
 the Minister responsible for Crown Lands
 the Auditor General for Victoria
 the Victorian Government Solicitor
 the Department of Sustainability and Environment
 each member of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust
 the Secretary of the Trust
 the Minister for Sport and Recreation
 the Minister for Racing and
 all State and Federal Members of Parliament representing Glen Eira.

The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.

April 10, 2013

MRC News

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[6] Comments

CLICK TO ENLARGE!

April 5, 2013

Done Deals?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[14] Comments

The items set down for Tuesday night’s council meeting are truly staggering, leaving us to ponder the very serious question of : how many done deals are we looking at? How much more spin will this community tolerate? Here are the lowlights:

CENTENARY PARK PAVILION DEVELOPMENT

More loss of public open space
More loss of mature trees
Another $600,000 for extended car parking
No traffic report or any statistics to justify these actions
No consultation with residents – just so called ‘stakeholders’ – ie ONLY SPORTSCLUBS
A ball park figure of $2.68 million

CENTRE OF RACECOURSE SPORTING FACILITIES

No mention of the independent consultant who was supposed to draft the report? Where is it?
From ‘no ball games’ the plan is now to have: 2 baseball diamonds, 5 soccer pitches, 1 footy oval, etc.
What secret discussions have been going on with the MRC, and Maccabi? Would council really propose something like this unless such discussions had already taken place?

LOCAL LAW & SPORT & RECREATION COMMITTEE MINUTES

Secret, closed meetings that continue with the useless navel gazing! Lipshutz promised the local law would be ready in February. There still is no Tree Register, nothing on Organised Sport, and a brief one sentence about ‘meeting procedures’. We are not privy to any of the ‘reports’.
Does the right hand really know what the left hand is doing? Why is the Sport & Rec committee suddenly discussing local laws? Why isn’t this done via full council meetings so that transparency is assured? When will the draft Local Law finally be ready or will it all be crammed into one meeting and thus hopefully rammed through like everything else this council does?

SELL OFF OF RESERVE

Is council really prepared to forego $40,000 because it might cost them $5000? Land has been valued at over $60,000 but council is willing to sell it for $20,000.
Is it mere coincidence that an adjacent property was sold last year and that the other neighbour is now about to acquire 130 sq metres for a song. Does he/she perhaps own the adjoining property and that we can expect an application to come in very soon for a huge development? Or are we merely being too cynical?

GESAC

More brilliant planning that has led to:

Another $120,000 to be spent on outfitting another ‘studio’
Another $125,000 spent on “better entrance and exit between the foyer and pool hall’
Still no word on costs for ‘liquidated damages’ and the Hansen & Yuncken legal battle

April 3, 2013

Trustees’ Meeting: April 4th

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[10] Comments

Tomorrow features the postponed Caulfield Racecourse Trustees’ meeting with our three new councillor representatives. (See: https://www.melbourneracingclub.net.au/mrc/governance/caulfield-racecourse-reserve-trustees). For a committee that does not publish minutes, that does not have open meetings and does not perceive that there are serious questions regarding potential conflicts of interests, we find the accompanying blurb quite remarkable.

Over the past 5 years we know of at least 4 individuals who have attempted to present their point of view at such meetings – as per the invitation. They have been barred from admittance and if their correspondence has ever been tabled, then they certainly were not provided with any feedback as to the outcomes. Words and actions are miles apart. All that remains are the ironies of the actual agenda items and the notion that there is, or could be, an actual ‘governance policy’ that comes close to enacting what most people would regard as open, transparent and accountable process. We also have to wonder whether Lipshutz will do a Tang and actually show up for these meetings or miss more than half! But since the minutes are secret, and our representatives perceived first duty is to the Trustees rather than their electorate, we will probably never know!

Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees

The next meeting of Trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve [CRR] will be held on Wednesday, 27th March 2013.

Trustee meetings are not open to the General Public; however Trustees have resolved that any Glen Eira resident wishing to address a specific Agenda Item as listed by the Trustees, must first submit their request in writing to the Chairman in advance of the CRR Trustees meeting. The Trustees will then consider the request and, if appropriate, invite the resident to attend for that specific agenda item only.

Correspondence should be addressed to:

The Chairman
Caulfield Racecourse Reserve
Level 1, 25 Flinders Lane
Melbourne VIC 3000

Or emailed to: CRRTrustees@bigpond.com

April 2, 2013

The Leader & Racecourse

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

March 27, 2013

The ‘Clayton’s Agreement’ Carries On!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Service Performance
[26] Comments

We’ve received numerous comments and emails from residents as to the failure of both Council, the MRC and/or Trustees to ensure that the terms of the ‘agreement’ are adhered to – especially in terms of ACCESS to the Racecourse. Time after time gates, which are supposed to be open from 9.30 to sunset are locked. Not good enough! What has council been doing to ensure that access is available? Why is this situation being allowed to drag on for years and years? Why has there been no public comment from this council demanding that all terms of the agreement are met – especially the removal of fences and access.

We’ve revisited the January 2011 VCAT decision on the 7 lot subdivision and note that the member made explicit comments as to the Section 173 ‘agreement’ regarding access. It is now 14 months later and residents still cannot enter the racecourse as determined. Why has council allowed such a situation to continue? Here are some extracts from the decision –

“Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner of Lot 5 must enter into a section 173 agreement which provides that public access across Lot 5 to the entrance to the tunnel to the centre of the racecourse must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The Tribunal understands that it is the Trustees of the Crown Land that set conditions relating to public access to the Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse and whilst the MRC has control over its own land that abuts the racecourse, as well as occupying the Centre of the Racecourse, it does not control or set in place the conditions for public access to the Crown Land. MRC can therefore only control access over its land from Glen Eira Road to the entrance to the Tunnel.

The Club will reconfigure all horse movement to enable the tunnel from Glen Eira Road to be open 9.30am to sunset.

Public access to the Centre will be provided as follows.

On all days excluding scheduled race days and 10 event days as above:

a. by vehicle through the Tunnel from Glen Eira Road

b. by a footpath created in the tunnel from Glen Eira Road – the footpath will be separated from the vehicle pathway by post-and- rail fence with the tunnel having enhanced lighting

c. by the pedestrian tunnel from the Guineas car park

d. by new surface pedestrian access from Glen Huntly Park across the race tracks into precinct 4 by providing gates or gaps in all the rails. The Club reserves the right to modify, suspend or change access after consultation with the Council in the event of damage to the racing surface

e. by foot via the existing gate from Queen’s Avenue

On all days excluding 3 scheduled race days and 10 event days as above:

a. by vehicle through the tunnel from Glen Eira Road

b. by a footpath created in the tunnel from Glen Eira Road – the footpath will be separated from the vehicle pathway by post-and- rail fence with the tunnel having enhanced lighting.

All the above applies up to 352 days per year as above, 9.30am – sunset, as set pout in section 2.1.

The improvements in a – e above will be established by the MRC within 3 months of this agreement being executed subject to formal planning approval, the Trustees approval and Public Land Manager consent.

The Responsible Authority agreed that MRC’s recommendation of the entering into of a section 173 agreement between MRC, as owner of lot 5 and the Responsible Authority would allow for an assurance that public access would continue to be available over this portion of land.

In particular the entering into of a section 173 agreement that is required to be placed on the title to lot 5 will ensure that public access can be continued in this location.

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/104.html

March 23, 2013

History Repeats Itself………..

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[4] Comments

Below are 3 newspaper items – two dating back over 100 years. We’ve retyped them because of poor digital quality. There are plenty more if people would like to do a search on TROVE for themselves. All tell the same story – the racing industry as a law unto itself; resident opposition; government connivance and Council impotence and/or inaction. All this has been going on for well over a 100 years and we wonder exactly what has been achieved for residents?

“RATEPAYERS AND RACECOURSE TRUSTEES

At a meeting of the Caulfield racecourse trustees yesterday, counsel (Mr. J.G. Dutfy) advised that the regulations and by-laws of the V.A.T.C. were, in some respects, ultra vires, and that they exceeded the terms of the deed. The trustees decided to have the work of revising the regulations immediately entered upon. The revision will touch such points as the charging of training fees. Under the deed the V.A.T.C are allowed to race horses and charge for admission only on 15 days in a year, and it is doubtful whether they have even authority to have men at work or in any way assume possession at other times. It is to the continual training that the ratepayers object.

The Advertiser, Monday, 1^st October, 1906. “

“For more than an hour yesterday Mr H. McKenzie (Minister for Lands) listened to arguments bearing upon the old question of the rights of the public to the Caulfield racecourse reserve. The board-room of the Lands Department was crowded. Occasionally the supporters of either side spoke intemperately, and addressed their remarks to one another, but the Minister was in a tolerant mood. Sir Frank Madden (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) was present.

The case put by Mr H.S.Wood, on behalf of the Carnegie and Caulfield progress associations, was that at the present time the public were denied those privileges to which, under the grant, they were entitled. He urged that new regulations of a “public park and garden nature” should be at once issues; that the public should enjoy the free use of the whole reserve on all days of the year other than the 15 set apart for racing; that the present representatives on the trust be removed and replaced by trustees elected by the public; that the secretary of the trust be a gentleman removed from the influence of the V.A.T.C.; that the regulations providing for the training of horses on the reserve be withdrawn and that the public be allowed free use of some part of “their reserve and public park on all days in the year.” An objection was also made to the erection of the new grandstand and the extension of the members’ reserve.

Among the speakers were Mr. C.L. Russell (Vice-president of the Owners’ and Trainers’ Association), Mr George Woodforde, Mr. W. Pitt, Mr, Alan Currie, Mr McCutcheon, M.L.A. Sir Frank Madden, and Mr J. Retallick.

Mr McKenzie, in reply said that he only wishes that Mr. McCutcheon’s suggestion of a conference between both parties would solve the difficulty, but he was afraid that it would be ineffectual. Having visited the course, he could see no objection to the erection of the new stand, and the slight enlargement of the area set apart for members. He thought, however, that something might be done in the direction of restricting the hours for training. He would confer with the trustees, and endeavour to prevent any infringement by the club upon the rights of the public.

The Argue, Thursday, 11^th January, 1912, Page 6.

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE: ITS USE AS A SPORTS GROUND

The committee of the Victoria Amateur Turf Club has received a request from Caulfield Council that the club should clear the heath and scrub from the flat at Caulfield racecourse and also to level off the ground so that it may be available for the playing of cricket and football matches on week-ends when there is no racing of the course (says the Melbourne “Age”). The council has pointed out that playing areas in the district are becoming more and more congested each year and that it is not possible for the council to allot grounds to all the sports clubs that make applications.

When the matter was recently before the council Councillor Hall said that with the rapid growth of population playing areas were becoming more and more restricted each year in Caulfield. Racing was only held at Caulfield on 18 Saturdays out of 52 and they should not lose the opportunity of having the reserve, which belonged to the public, made available for the purpose of amateur sport when it was not being used otherwise. Councillor Worthington questioned whether the sandy soil on the flat would be suitable either for cricket or football, even if it were levelled. Other councillors thought the ground would be quite suitable, and the council representatives on the racecourse trust were instructed to advocate the clearing of the ground. The V.A.T.C. committee has already made available a disused building on the course for the purpose of a training room for the Glen Huntly Athletic Club. The club has been permitted to instal electric light and to fix up lockers in the building.

The Advertiser (Adelaide), Thursday, 3^rd December, 1925.

PS: Apart from history, there is also the matter of ‘shifting the goal posts’ to suit current interpretations. Symons’ language in the interview (see previous post) provides clear evidence of how the goal posts have been on the move (with the undoubted aid of council’s ‘negotiating’ team). Below is part of the ORIGINAL ‘agreement’ and the stance taken on training.

March 22, 2013

Interview

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[4] Comments

Here is the link to an 8 minute interview with the Chair of the MRC.

PS: From ‘The Argus’, 1912

March 21, 2013

Hansard: Legislative Council

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
[14] Comments

Caulfield Racecourse: training facility

Hon. M. P. PAKULA (Western Metropolitan)

Tomorrow night Black Caviar runs at Moonee Valley in what might be the last race she will ever run in Victoria.

Earlier this week she would have had a very early morning hit -out at Caulfield where she is trained, but this morning it was revealed that the Liberal – controlled Glen Eira City Council has released a position paper expressing support for the closure of the training facility at Caulfield.

That is an act of extraordinary bad faith by the council given that in April 2011 the club a and council entered into an agreement. The agreement involved the club spending some $2 million; it involved the club making the infield of the course available for public use 352 days out of 365. It involved the club installing toilets, barbecues, a children’s play area, parking, change rooms and a boardwalk.

It included an acknowledgement that training would continue at Caulfield in the medium term and would only move under certain preconditions, including another facility being located and the agreement of the racing industry.

That agreement was promoted in a joint media release in April 2011. That media release included comments by the member for Caulfield in the Assembly, Mr Southwick.Now his allies on the council, including councillors Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz, who are the council nominees as trustees, are seeking to tear up that agreement.

The council is acting in bad faith.

The Premier, who is also the Minister for Racing, should tell the member for Caulfield to have a chat to his local numbers men and women and tell them to pull their heads in.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates