Caulfield Racecourse/C60

Archived Posts from this Category

July 24, 2012

MRC: Back To The Future!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Planning
[19] Comments 

Radical Plan for Racecourse

Andrea Kellett

Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is set for a dramatic shakeup. The new chairman of the reserve’s board of trustees, Glen Eira councillor Jim Magee, has vowed to end racing’s stranglehold on the land and return it to the people. He also wants to make the board “more accountable” and end the days of “secrecy” surrounding management of the crown land.

“The racecourse belongs to you and me not the MRC”, he said last week. He is also looking to increase the Melbourne Racing Club’s annual rent on the reserve land from $77,000 to a “more realistic” $1 million and phasing out training at the racecourse.

“I will put together a licensing agreement for what the centre of the racecourse can be used for and as part of that I want to see more public access and the moving of training from the racecourse” he said.

He has sought legal advice about changing the way the board of trustees operates, including making meetings open to the public.

Cr Magee intends to hold a board meeting next month where he will call for a vote on many of the changes.

Melbourne Racing Club spokesman Jake Norton said the club did not wish to comment.

PS: LEST WE FORGET!!!!!!

From the minutes of 15th March 2011

Crs Penhalluriack/Forge

That Council invites authorized representatives of the Melbourne Racing Club to meet with Councillors to discuss future arrangements, including timetables, for the sharing of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Crown Land. The Mayor shall open the meeting and introduce Councillors Forge and Magee who shall explain, using overheads, Council’s position. The meeting shall then be open for all Councillors and MRC representatives to contribute. The meeting shall be minuted.

DIVISION

Cr Penhalluriack called for a Division on the voting of the Motion.

FOR                                                    AGAINST

Cr Penhalluriack                                Cr Pilling

Cr Forge                                             Cr Tang

Cr Magee                                            Cr Esakoff

Cr Lobo                                              Cr Lipshutz

                                                              Cr Hyams

On the basis of the Division the Chairperson declared the Motion LOST.

 

Crs Lipshutz/Hyams

That Council authorize Andrew Newton, Chief Executive Officer, Cr Margaret Esakoff, Mayor, Cr Michael Lipshutz, Chair of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee and Cr Jim Magee, member of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, to meet with representatives of the Melbourne Racing Club to put Council’s position in relation to the improvements to the centre of the Racecourse, after which they will report back to Councillors promptly and in detail. Any decisions would be made by Council resolution. 

The SUBSTANTIVE MOTION was put and CARRIED.

 

July 10, 2012

Letters To The Editor

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
[11] Comments 

Council policy detrimental 

IT’S no wonder the blocks in Glen Eira get smaller and the growth gets higher. Glen Eira Council continues to operate planning policy to the detriment of residents.

It will soon get to the point where there are as many amendments to their scheme as there are applications.

A number of voters are calling on the council to review its entire planning scheme and introduce structure plans that can identify density and heights before applications are received.

Newton Gatoff

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

Bitter blow to residents  

NEWS of the Caulfield racecourse development proceeding is a bitter blow to local residents.

While the development will be almost a billion dollars itself, little, if any, infrastructure will be provided to cater for it. This will see both road and rail networks overwhelmed, along with drainage and parking. Open space will also be reduced. Given the chorus of community opposition, you really have to wonder if we are living in a developers’ dollar-dazzler democracy.

Matthew Knight

 

July 2, 2012

More On The MRC

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

Admittedly old news, but we’re repeating this given the additional comments by Robertson.

Caulfield high-rise a ‘crass monstrosity’ and ‘future slum’, Danby warns

BY JAN FISHER
02 Jul, 2012 04:00 AM
CAULFIELD racecourse’s controversial high-rise development has been described in Federal Parliament as a ‘‘crass monstrosity’’ and ‘‘a future desolate slum’’.Melbourne Ports MHR Michael Danby said the development, which will include up to 1200 dwellings, would impinge on the nature and identity of Caulfield’s quiet residential streets.

“Frankly this $1 billion so-called Caulfield Village is over the top, does not have enough open space and will eventually turn the area into a desolate slum like the overdeveloped parts of the Gold Coast,” he said.

“As the state member for Albert Park, Martin Foley, has stated, the Victorian Liberal government is seeking to turn parts of our electorate into their version of the tawdry Surfers Paradise.”

The development, on the present car park site, will move a step closer by the end of July when the project builder is chosen.

Three developers have been shortlisted for the project — Lend Lease, Mirvac and joint venturers Beck Property Group and Probuild.

Melbourne Racing Club chief executive Alasdair Robertson did not wish to respond to Mr Danby’s comments but previously said he was pleased with the project’s progress.

“All the proposals are totally consistent with the planning requirements and, most importantly, are taking into account integrating the community, the racecourse, the train station and Monash University,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s a pretty exciting vision.”

The development proposal approved by Planning Minister Matthew Guy included a mix of townhouses and apartments up to 20 storeys, office space, a retail centre including a supermarket and 2000 car spaces.

Mr Robertson did not expect building to begin within the next 12 months. “There are a number of planning processes to complete once we have the final proposal,” he said.

With construction expected to take 10 years, Mr Robertson said resident amenity would be taken into account once the winning bid was announced.

Meanwhile, the development of the racecourse’s infield continues. The works include a water feature, boardwalks, parking, barbecue facilities, exercise equipment and children’s play area and are expected to cost $1.8 million.

When finished the infield would be available to the public from 9.30am to sunset every day except for a handful of race days. The work is expected to be finished in time for the Spring Carnival.

 

June 19, 2012

Racecourse Machinations: A Little History

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

The bane of residents’ lives has undoubtedly been the creation of the Racecourse Special Committee – originally comprising Hyams, Lipshutz, and Pilling, and then, in November 2010, the addition of Esakoff. The coup was thus complete with the installation of the ‘gang of four’. Part of the argument used was that the 3 councillors serving as trustees had a ‘conflict of interest’ and that the Winky Pop decision eliminated Penhalluriack and early on Forge before she became a Trustee. We have therefore had the repeated spectacle of Magee, Tang, Whiteside, and now Forge and Penhalluriack being ‘sidelined’ because of their presumed conflict of interest. Lobo simply didn’t count it seems! That left the door fully ajar for the Special Committee to decide the fate of the C60 in April 2011 and the centre of the Racecourse.

We’ve revisited these meetings and found that:

  • On the 23rd November, 2010 Penhalluriack and Forge moved the motion that the Special Committee be disbanded. It was defeated on the casting vote of the chairperson with Tang and Magee having declared a conflict of interest. Lobo voted with Penhalluriack and Forge. Pilling was absent
  • Hyams and Lipshutz then got Esakoff elected to the committee – completing the rout – and setting up the ‘gang of four’.

What’s fascinating and continues to be fascinating is the consistent position taken by Tang, Forge, Magee as trustees. In all bar one instance when Magee felt he didn’t have a conflict of interest, all other occasions have had these individuals declaring a conflict. Even Penhalluriack has bought the line about his being Winky Popped!

It then becomes very, very interesting to go to Hansard and read the following extracts from the debate on the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010.  What’s important here, is that this bill received assent on the 14th September 2010 – well before the April decision on the c60 and the Centre of the Racecourse. Here’s what the Minister of the time (Wynne) had to say about the Amendment as well as the current Minister of Local Government, Jeanette Powell.

WYNN: A councillor or council officer will not be considered to have a conflict of interest because of a conflicting duty if the relevant duty is only a position held as a representative of the council on another organisation and as long as there is no remuneration for that position.

POWELL: The bill also exempts a person from a conflict of interest that may arise from a conflicting duty if the person was appointed to the relevant position as a representative of the council and does not receive any remuneration for that position. This will replace a similar exemption that was limited to not-for-profit organisations and did not rely on the person being a council representative. This was previously quite confusing for councillors who were council representatives on a referral body such as a catchment management authority or a planning authority.

In such cases, when the council dealt with an issue related to a particular body in council, the councillor who was a representative on that body had to disclose that they had a conflict of interest, had to not take part in the discussion or vote and was required to leave the room.

It was a silly measure because it meant that the person in the room with the most knowledge of that referral authority or the issue had to leave the room. It did not mean that that person had more of a conflict of interest than anybody else. This amendment clarifies that if a councillor is on a special committee as a representative of council, they do not have a conflict of interest. (11TH August 2010).

COMMENT

There was therefore, and still remains, absolutely no need for a Special Committee since Tang, Magee, Forge do NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST according to the above. The Special Committee could have been voted out in November 2010. That of course would have dramatically altered the landscape and possibly had the potential to scuttle the unholy alliance between Newton, his little band of troopers, and the MRC. Instead we are still saddled with the most iniquitous and undemocratic committee in the history of this council. The committee should never have been set up, and nor should it exist now!

 

June 19, 2012

C60: Closer & Closer

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

From today’s Australian Financial Review

John Stensholt

A decision on the winning bid for the $1 billion Caulfield Racecourse re­development in Melbourne will be made by the end of July after the recent shortlisting of three developers vying for the project.

Lend Lease, Mirvac and a joint venture between the private developer Beck Property Group and construction company Probuild have lodged bids and made presentations last week to the Melbourne Racing Club committee.

A decision on the winning bid is expected to be made towards the end of July, with Melbourne Racing Club chief executive Alasdair Robertson telling The Australian Financial Review he hoped to give a recommendation to the committee by July 19 and make a public announcement of the winner shortly afterwards.

Mr Robertson described the quality of the binding proposals lodged by each of the three finalists as “excellent” and said that each will “integrate the racecourse with the surrounding community, which is very important to us”.

The Caulfield Village precinct, one of Melbourne’s largest inner-city residential projects, will be built on a five-hectare carpark adjacent to the historic racecourse.

The planning scheme amendment to allow for the project to go ahead was announced by Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy in June 2011. Mr Guy announced the development would include 1200 dwellings, 10,000 square metres of office space, 15,000 square metres of retail space including a supermarket and about 2000 carparking spaces.

Mr Robertson said the finalists for the project had mostly stuck to the mixed-used plans, though some had allowed for a higher amount of townhouses compared to apartments.

“It’s important that the project is incorporated with the nearby areas and they have done that. There are links to the Monash University campus and the nearby cafe and restaurant precincts and plans for a public art space as well. We’re partners remaining on the site throughout this so it has to be of high quality.”

Mr Robertson said the project will take about 10 years to complete, and construction is likely to begin next year. About 5000 jobs are expected to be created during the building period, which will be completed in three stages.

One precinct will probably contain a new entrance to the racetrack, office, apartments and serviced accommodation units, while a new boulevard with a supermarket, ­dining and specialty shops will provide a link between Station Street to the rail underpass to nearby Caulfield Station. A third sector will house medium-density dwellings.

The racecourse is already undertaking a $1.8 million revamp of its infield which includes barbecue facilities, a children’s playground, fitness area and running track, and a junior football field. Mr Robertson said the facilities would be open to the public on most race days.

 

June 3, 2012

Racecourse: The Clayton’s ‘Agreement’

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

We’ve received quite a few comments of late relating to the Council/MRC ‘agreement’ and the fact that the promised actions have not eventuated. If anything, the MRC has gone on its merry way, totally ignoring Council and the community.

Adding insult to injury is the total silence by the Special Committee (Lipshutz, Pilling, Hyams and Esakoff) – as well as the administration. Apart from 2 planning applications not a word has come from these sources. Nor have we heard a single mutter from the Trustees – Magee, Forge, and Tang (when the latter actually makes it to meetings!) Nothing but nothing has been reported upon: no ‘progress’ reports, no minutes, no media releases, no statements. Residents have been left dangling with no information and no knowledge of what is really going on. Once again Council mission statements of transparency and accountability belong to the Goebbel’s school of propaganda (to use an old Lipshutz analogy).

The only information to eke out has been the result of public questions demanding explanations for the failure to inform residents of street closures. The pathetic response included:

“The recent notification provided by Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) to residents for the Caravan and Camping Show was disappointing and unacceptable and the MRC has been so advised. Consequently as a basis for more timely notification to residents, Council officers have advised the MRC that a calendar of all their future events is to be provided .

The process is that a traffic management plan is prepared by the MRC and reviewed by Council for every event that is expected to significantly impact traffic conditions in the vicinity of the Racecourse Reserve.

As traffic management arrangements are continually being trialled to ensure impacts to residents are minimised (and different events have different traffic management requirements), no formal agreement can be put in place with the MRC regarding which roads would be impacted (and for how long) or which roads are closed.“ 

Has this ‘calendar’ materialised? What does ‘significant’ mean? Is ‘no formal agreement’ a euphemism for ‘the MRC can continue to do what it likes, when it likes?’

As to the events themselves, here is a list of what’s been happening at the Racecourse for the past 8 months or so and how ‘access’ for the public has been handled. We’ve probably missed some, so the list shouldn’t be seen as complete.

EVENT

 DURATION

GATES

Caulfield Guineas

 1 day

closed

Caulfield Cup

 1 day

closed

Baby & Kids   Market

1 day

  

Sewing & Craft   Show

4 days

  

Monash Exams

5 days

  

Platinum Play   Family Fund Day

 1 day

Queen’s Ave closed

Monash Exams

10 days

  

Carlton &   United Breweries Family Xmas Day

 1 day

Queen’s Ave closed

Wholesale Direct   Shopping Evening

1 evening

  

Mathilda Market

1 day

  

Building &   Construction Workers xmas

 1 day

Closed (high noise   level)

Metricon Xmas   Function

1 day

  

Harvest & Graze

1 day

  

Caravan & Camping   Show

 6 days

Closed – used for   parking

Twins Plus Festival

1 day

  

Caulfield Farmers’   Market

1 day

  

Carex – Health &   Aged Expo

2 days

  

Age VCE Career Expo

4 days

  

Caulfield Farmers’   Market

1 day

  

Open University   Exams

 4 days  
Early Childhood   Development

2 days

  

Circus (one already held & one upcoming)

2 MONTHS (WITH SOME DAYS 2 SHOWS A DAY)

  

Just these figures alone give us a tally of roughly 130 days. Wouldn’t it be good to know how much REVENUE Council receives as a result of all these fixtures? Or does it all go to the MRC and not a cent returned to Council?

Surely if this venue is to hold so many events then a traffic management plan IS essential and should be made public. It is also incumbent on Council to ensure that all gates are open as per the agreement.

The issue of fences, pathways and other ‘developments’ in the centre, we will leave to another post.

 

May 11, 2012

The Leader, Council & The MRC

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Planning
[15] Comments 

About a month ago the Caulfield Leader featured a story on the VCAT objection to the centre of the racecourse development. The alleged ‘culprit’ in all this was one woman, who through her objection was singly responsible for holding up the entire project. We’ve learnt the facts about what really happened. In chronological order, they are:

  • The resident was phoned up by The Leader.  An ‘interview’ time was arranged
  • The reporter plus photographer duly arrived and were taken by two residents on a visit to the racecourse
  • Discussion revealed that The Leader had been contacted by none other than Jeff Akehurst and told that there was one objector holding everything up.
  • During the tour the reporter found that her shoes were totally unsuitable for wandering through the mud and manure filled tunnel at the top of Glen Eira Rd. The stench was also remarked upon as were the numerous locked gates
  • Both reporter and photographer were appalled by the condition of the racecourse once they viewed it
  • The argument was put, and seemingly accepted by the reporter that given the inaction by the MRC and council for the past decade, another few months in order to get it absolutely right would scarcely make a difference

So what happened between the visit and the publication of the article? What pressures might have been brought to bear to produce an article that basically laid all the blame at the feet of one resident and absolved the MRC and Council from all responsibility? What role did Akehurst and Hyams have in this whole affair? Does this in any shape or form constitute harassment (maybe bullying?) and the attempt to possibly exert undue pressure on a resident exercising her legal rights?

What also needs to be noted is:

The resident had previously met with the MRC and outlined her objections and thinking. She has gone to extraordinary lengths to provide the MRC with scientific research on the issues of concrete versus softer surfaces, standards for wheelchair access and other aspects. The understanding was that the MRC would go away, consider this, and organise another meeting. She is still waiting for this to occur! It is also worthy of mention that Hyams was present at this only meeting. His first words to her were: ‘Why are you holding up the development’?

Numerous readers have commented in the past on the ‘unholy alliance’ that appears to have been forged between the Leader, its editorial policy, and this Council.  We are just staggered that what a reporter saw does not feature at all in the ensuing article. We also find it concerning that a council officer calls a newspaper and points the finger at a resident. This is technically legal since objectors’ details are freely available, but it certainly isn’t ethical when combined with the (probable?) intent of finding a convenient scapegoat for a poorly conceived plan, the acquiescence of Council, and the simple fact that the MRC has for years been a law unto themselves.

To what extent the MRC are a law unto themselves is evident by the sudden frenzied erection of hundreds and hundreds of metres of plastic white fences within the racecourse centre WHICH DID NOT FEATURE IN THE PERMIT! This again just makes a mockery of the MRC claim that one resident is holding up development when work is (perhaps illegally?) progressing. It also looks like (yellow) concrete is the preferred option since stacks of reinforced wire mesh is lying alongside ripped up sections of turf. This couldn’t possibly be an attempt to pre-empt the VCAT hearing could it?

After nearly a year of total silence on the Racecourse issue by this Council, residents have every right to conclude that their interests are far from being looked after by Council. It is surely not too much to expect that the likes of Newton, Hyams, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Pilling find out exactly what is going on and report back to the community. It is also not unreasonable to expect this Council to enforce the conditions of the so called ‘agreement’ in a timely, transparent, and open fashion.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

May 1, 2012

MRC Land Swap

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

A year has come and gone since the notorious ‘agreement’ between Council and the MRC and not one little peep of any substance from Lipshutz & co throughout this entire time. Not a word about the failure to adhere to the ‘conditions’ such as removal of fences or limiting the number of events. The Special Committee has not met or reported and neither has the Racecourse Advisory Committee – apart from the centre of the racecourse shemozzle.

So, has the MRC diligently been working on any of their promises? Have they successfully ‘beautified’ what was supposed to be a public park in the much heralded land swap with the State Government? Has the MRC in any shape or form fulfilled its end of the bargain? And what has our dear old Council been doing about any of this?

The slide show we present below shows the area designated as the land swap and its supposed rejuvenation into a fabulous open space/park area. Residents can see exactly how instead of a park, we have been granted something akin to a rubbish dump replete with overgrown and unkempt vegetation.

The silence from Council on any of these issues is deafening.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

April 10, 2012

The Leader: Leading Or Lead?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning
[30] Comments 

Caulfield woman’s concrete objection

10 Apr 12 @  05:00am by Andrea Kellett

A SINGLE objection has put a $1.8 million upgrade to Caulfield Racecourse Reserve on hold. A Caulfield North woman has lodged an appeal with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) against the project.

Glen Eira Mayor Jamie Hyams said the appeal could delay the project up to a year.

Mary Healy is opposed to a planned concrete path in Glen Eira’s “precious open space”, and will put her case to the tribunal on May 31. She said she would propose an “alternate” gravel path. “There’s too much concrete,” Ms Healy said.

The appeal is a massive blow to the Melbourne Racing Club, which has hoped to create a public park in the racecourse infield before the Spring Carnival.

It is also a blow to Glen Eira Council, which has for years wanted to increase recreational use at the reserve. The council voted unanimously to grant Melbourne Racing Club a permit in August last year.

The plan includes a lakeside picnic and barbecue area, a large off-leash dog area, walking and jogging paths, a junior soccer pitch, a playground and fitness equipment. The racing club will pay for the design, construction and maintenance of the facilities.

Cr Hyams said the VCAT appeal had “stymied” a much-needed community facility. “It’s disappointing because this was going to be a really good park for the whole of Glen Eira,” Cr Hyams said.

Melbourne Racing Club development and strategic planning manager Brian Discombe said the appeal had delayed the project. “Any delay is not a good outcome for the club or the community,” Mr Discombe said.

PS: The most expensive piece real estate used as a car park. Photo 20th March!

 

March 9, 2012

Residents – Always The Last To Know!

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

We’ve received the following email and attachment from a resident –

“NOT GOOD ENOUGH

“The Caravan Industry Australia wishes to keep you fully informed of short-term road closures during the upcoming 2012 Caravan and Camping Show”  has today (9th March) appeared in impacted residents letter boxes.  Notification the day before does not constitute being “fully informed” and who the heck gave these people the right to limit my access to my property.   During last year’s Spring Racing Carnival, the MRC pulled the same stunt, with one days notice. Calls to Council complaining resulted in Council denying all knowledge of the closures.  About two weeks later, Council sent out a survey to local residents.  None of the results of that survey have been announced or reported back to residents.   Council is responsible for managing traffic movements and street closures in Glen Eira – Council has a traffic management department for this purpose. 

  • So why isn’t there a published traffic management plan for major events at Caulfield Racecourse
  • Why  haven’t impacted residents be allowed to review and comment (we know our streets better than anyone)
  • Why is any Tom Dick or Harry allowed to close off my street
  • Why is the closure notice presented the day before (these events are well known before hand and have had months of planning).
  • Will Council enforce the parking restrictions in the surrounding residential streets?

Council is definitely failing residents in this instance.”

The flyer is uploaded HERE

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »