The following announcement has gone up on council’s website:
| Notice of Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees meeting |
|
Caulfield Racecourse/C60
Archived Posts from this Category
February 27, 2012
February 15, 2012
Stonnington Council has the following on its website (http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/whats-new-detail/?ID=30). We wish to highlight how this council has approached a major development in stark contrast to Glen Eira. Readers should note:
- The impact on social amenity is emphasised
- The existence of interim height regulations and now Council’s application for permanent controls
- The joint effort with local community groups and the community at large
Glen Eira’s effort in the C60 debacle should be kept firmly in mind – especially the claim that Glen Eira actually set ‘limits’ to the development by its acceptance of 20 storeys.
590 Orrong Road
Planning Application
Stonnington Council refused a planning application by Lend Lease for a major development at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale at a special meeting of Council on 30 January 2012, with over 200 people attending.
The planning application was for a development of 475 units, up to a height of 13 storeys.
Mayor, Councillor John Chandler said: “Council refused the planning application as it represents a significant overdevelopment of the site. There were a number of reasons for this including excessive height and bulk in an area that has much lower density, impact on the community and neighbourhood character, lack of quality open space, overshadowing, plus traffic and access issues. Council received over 600 objections for the development.
“The 2.5 hectare site at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, located adjacent to Toorak Station and Toorak Park, is one of the most important redevelopment sites in Stonnington and it is important that the right balance is achieved to ensure an appropriate outcome for the site.”
Cr Chandler said Stonnington Council had initially refused to exhibit a planning scheme amendment for a major development from Lend Lease in December 2010, including a proposal for 480 dwellings with building heights up to 16 storeys at the subject site.
He said: “Over the past 18 months, Council has undertaken extensive consultation and received feedback from all stakeholders on this important strategic site.
“Stonnington recently sought interim planning controls, which, if approved by the Minister for Planning, would take effect immediately. Council has also submitted a request to the Minister for Planning to exhibit an amendment to introduce permanent controls for the site. This would mean that any developer and VCAT would be obliged to take the controls into account with regard to development proposals. We’re eagerly awaiting the Minister for Planning’s approval to exhibit the Amendment.”
To view information on the planning application for 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale click here
Adopted Urban Design Framework – Planning Scheme Amendment
As quoted above, Council has submitted a request to the Planning Minister to apply permanent controls for the site through a planning scheme amendment which would go out for further consultation. The permanent controls propose to restrict the height to 17 metres and a site yield of 250 units.
Council adopted the revised Urban Design Framework at Council on 21 November 2011 following community feedback. For further information on the Urban Design Framework and planning scheme amendment visit www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/590orrongroad
February 15, 2012
Application Number
GE/PP-24358/2011
Date Received – 16/11/2011
Site Location 31 Station Street CAULFIELD EAST VIC 3145
Overriding Site Location Land to the rear of Heywood Street and Normanby Road
Proposal (i) To vest Reserve No 1 on LP2446, shown as Lot 1 in PS700473C, in the Glen Eira City Council (ii) To remove the Reserve status from Reserve No 1 on LP2446 shown as Lot 1 in PS700473C
Status Advertising Period Commenced
Planning Officer – Michelle Yu
February 10, 2012
There’s Movement At The Station…..
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Planning[13] Comments
This message was approved for distribution by the Office of the Campus Manager for and on behalf of Peter Marshall, Vice-President (Administration).
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Caulfield Campus – Concept Design for new Faculty of Law/Business & Economics building
For many years the University has been proposing to develop the western end of the Caulfield campus; indeed over the last 10 years there have been a number of proposals put forward to bring about such a development. The University’s Estates Committee of Council have now endorsed a Caulfield Campus Master Plan available to view at URL, which provides that any development of the western end of the campus should have as a centrepiece a major new academic building.
http://www.monash.edu.au/study/campuses/campus-masterplan-caulfield.pdf
It is presently proposed that such a building should accommodate staff of our Faculty of Law (currently based at Clayton) and Faculty of Business and Economics along with a range of revitalised retail offerings to service the local community and Caulfield campus staff and students.
At this stage this is only a proposal, but the university has endorsed a major fundraising campaign, that if successful could provide a funding base to enable this proposed building to be constructed. To support the fund raising campaign, the Monash Facilities and Services Division will shortly be calling for expressions of interest for architectural design services to produce a concept design for the proposed Law/Business building. This design will be a major support component of the fund raising campaign.
As you would appreciate the University can make no formal commitment or provide a clear time frame to undertake this building project, as, when and if the project moves forward is entirely contingent on the success or otherwise of the fundraising campaign. Therefore, at this stage all we will be seeking to do is to develop the concept design over 2012.
I hope this advice clarifies where we are with respect to this proposed facility, however if you have any questions regarding this concept design project please contact Bradley Williamson, Director, Strategic Planning and Development on bradley.williamson@monash.edu
Helen Dunne
Campus Manager – Caulfield Campus
Monash University
December 29, 2011
The Truth Shall Set You Free
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Planning[7] Comments
From page 8 of the Melbourne Racing Club Annual Report – http://secure.melbourneracingclub.net.au/news/2011MRCAnnualReport.pdf
Council decided upon a further period of community consultation before passing a resolution at the end of April to recommend adoption of the Amendment, with only minor alteration to the original proposal. This led to the formal announcement of the approval of the $1 billion dollar development at Caulfield on 28 June.
The Planning Scheme Amendment for the mixed use Caulfield Village development allows for up to 1,200 – 1,400 residential apartments, up to 20,000 (square)m of office space and approximately 17,500 (square)m of retail shopping, food and beverage outlets. Caulfield villege is to be situated on five hectares of land adjacent to Caulfield Racecourse. Approximately 2,000 car parking spaces will be provided within the development.
In taking the project to the marketplace, the Club is seeking expressions of interest from premier developers and investors within Australia and Internationally. This will be a two stage process, with expressions of interest being taken until early January, after which the Club will then narrow the candidates down to a preferred short-list.
In some ways the project is only now about to commence and works will be staged progressively over several years. I would like to expressly thank the development Team led by Brian Discombe for their outstanding work in delivering this approval.
Prior to the development of Caulfield Village, the Club will review Members’ car parking arrangements. As previously advised, Members’ car parking facilities will be relocated to three key areas – the Guineas Car Park, the newly expanded Kambrook Road Car Park and the Centre of the Racecourse, which will have dedicated reserved Members’ car parking.
COMMENTS
Finally, the truth is out! The ‘plan’ submitted by the MRC and passed by the gang was, and is, a work of fiction. Please note the following:
- The sudden increase in both office and retail space
- The sudden increase in potential apartments – now up to 1400 units
- The use of the centre car parking as a “dedicated” members carpark – in other words, a public carpark suddenly becomes a private “members” carpark!
- What does “approximately 2000 carparks” mean? – 1950 for 1400 units? Or 1850 for 1400 units? Or maybe just 1000 car spots? Your guess is as good as ours!
- We can only conclude that nothing which has been put before the public is set in concrete. That the MRC will change, adapt, and manoeuvre however they choose and with the probable full complicity of Glen Eira Council!
December 10, 2011
The Wisdom Of Solomon – Or Cow Towing To The MRC?
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Service Performance[27] Comments
Following several comments we decided to do a little bit of investigating. Readers will remember the Queen’s Avenue issue and residents’ call for something to be done in regards to the overgrown vegetation and lack of real footpath which forced pedestrians and joggers onto busy Queen’s Avenue. The issue was therefore one of safety.
With typical convoluted logic, the officers’ report tabled on the 2nd November 2011 recommended, in part, the erection of a barrier in order to ‘force’ residents and joggers to use the other side of Queen’s Avenue. This barrier has now been erected for the princely sum of at least $15,000!!!!
What is quite ridiculous about this barrier is that the very officers’ report which purported to support ‘safety’ included the following paragraphs:
“Safety
Since Council called for this Report, Council has involved the Crime Prevention staff of Victoria Police. They do not support any changes which would increase the use of the strip of land without increasing safety by significantly reducing the risk of ‘ambush’ from vegetation and clearly separating pedestrians from vehicular traffic along Queen’s Avenue.”
“To improve safety along Queens Avenue, officers have previously recommended that Council move to encourage pedestrians to use the footpath on the east side of the road. This is because some pedestrians continue to use the informal track on the west side where they risk tripping and/or stepping into on-coming traffic.”
Solution? Put a barrier in to ensure 100% that pedestrians have to step into traffic! And pay $15,000 for the privilege. What should also be borne in mind is that BECAUSE of the overgrown vegetation, pedestrians will not see the barrier until they are upon it. How’s that for shrewd ‘risk management’ and prudent expenditure of public monies? And we have to ask, how much would a little pruning have cost?
December 8, 2011
Compare & Contrast: Racecourse
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication[10] Comments
Council playing favourites, racing club claims
5 Dec 11 @ 02:33pm by James Twining
A RIFT has emerged between Moonee Valley’s racing club and council over the draft racecourse master plan, just weeks after the proposal was officially submitted.
The club says it was “excluded” from a public information session run by the council last Thursday night but that the rival Save Moonee Ponds residents’ group – campaigning against the club’s draft master plan and rezoning – was given a platform to slam the proposal at the meeting.
Club spokesman Brian O’Neil said the club was “perplexed” by SMP being given floor time at the information session, attended by more than 100 people.
“The (club) is extremely disappointed that council excluded it from (the) information meeting, yet gave a resident action group a 30-minute presentation and a seat at the head table from which to voice their opposition to our proposals,” Mr O’Neil said.
Council chief executive Neville Smith said the council was approached by SMP for support.
“Save Moonee Ponds is a newly formed community group,” he said.
“They are not a large profitable organisation like the Moonee Valley Racecourse.
“Save Moonee Ponds approached council for some support to help them raise awareness of their group and issues. We thought the best place to do that was when we were getting the community together for our information evenings.”
Mr Smith said the community meetings – another was held on Sunday – were to share information about the planning process and not to go into detail about what was proposed.
He said the racing club would “definitely” be involved in the formal consultation process, to start in the first half of 2012.
By way of further contrasts we’ve uploaded 2 presentations – one by the Moonee Valley Council and the other by the Save Moonee Ponds Group. Please note:
- The fact that this council features resident advocacy groups material on its official website
- The council’s ‘consultation’ will include online surveys, facebook pages, etc. (see their presentation)
Even these two simple things are a standout in comparison to the Glen Eira methods employed for the C60 and the Centre of the Racecourse debacle.
// Comments
Julie Vulin writes: Posted on 6 Dec 11 at 08:56am
-
Yes, SMP is not a large profitable organisation with deep pockets and endless resources such as MVRC. As YOU say, SMP is a community group. MVRC’s let the cat out of the bag – they are not under threat of going out of business, they’re greedy business people with no regard for the community of Moonee Valley. The community already know who MVRC is, now we need them to honestly and fully know what they propose to do to ruin it – that’s where grassroots SMP comes in to play. Mr. Browell, Mr. O’Neil, please come to the next community meeting, allow us to ask questions that you’ll give direct answers to, such as why are you being so contentious and not considering a reasonable development appropriate for a residential location not on a category 1 road!
- Annie Spilar writes: Posted on 5 Dec 11 at 08:01pm
-
Oh please MVRC… are you really serious? I mean, the MVRC ‘consulted’ the general public didn’t they? Oh no, that’s right, they just set up a room to view the proposal and didn’t offer any consultative process with the community. Hence, ‘Save Moonee Ponds’ was born. The last form of communication I had from MVRC was a letter basically saying, this is happening and if we don’t get what we want, we will move elsewhere. Again, I fail to see where the consultation is happening between MVRC and the residents. SMP is merely the name given to us, the residents, who are saddened and dismayed at what is happening to our community, rather than naming us all individually. Work with ‘us’ MVRC… so far, I have only seen you work against us.
- Sarah writes: Posted on 5 Dec 11 at 06:31pm
-
I am “perplexed” that the Moonee Valley Racing Club suddenly wants to be involved in community information sessions. The MVRC held their own information sessions, at which they presented their submission. They then promised further consultation with the community prior to their submission, which was never delivered. The MVRC had ample time and opportunity to consult with the community prior to making a submission, but they chose to ignore the concerns raised and plough ahead with their submission anyway. There is nothing wrong with getting the community debate going about the issues surrounding the masterplan. Council was perfectly justified in allowing the residents to get up and talk about their views in an organised manner. The discussion held by Save Moonee Ponds did not “slam” the proposal and was in fact positive about the prospects for development at the Moonee Valley Racecourse, including the long term survival of the club. The MVRC are feeling “excluded” because their proposal is largely unwanted by the community and they simply don’t like what they are hearing.
- John Westwood writes: Posted on 5 Dec 11 at 05:49pm
-
Making no satisfactory concessions to the community, apart from an extra exit, it’s outrageous that MVRC thinks that those who are trying to represent the community are being shown favours, unreasonably so, when Moonee Ponds will be affected by 20 years of dirt and noise in such a hostile development. New residents living in the MVRC development will have their open space reduced to 1/2 a meter, according to Sunday’s Forum at The Clocktower. So where are the children going to play? Go to school? Or, for that matter, get there? Thankyou Mr. Neville Smith for pointing out Save Moonee Ponds does not stand to make any profit in trying to spare homes, the neighbourhood, schools, infrastructure, amenity, heritage and the environment. Instead of complaining, why don’t they try negotiating a proposal the community can live with.
December 5, 2011
The ‘Clayton’s Agreement’
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Service Performance[16] Comments
Numerous angry residents have contacted us in regards to another event held today at the Caulfield Racecourse. This time it was the CFMEU (construction workers) annual picnic. By all reports traffic was mayhem, noise unbelievable, and of course, cars parked in the racecourse itself. Entrance for union members was $30!
We raise this issue since events at the racecourse are proliferating at an incredible rate. In fact the Glen Eira News itself is featuring a large advertisement for a ‘food’ spectacular early next year.
Residents were lead to believe that an ‘agreement’ exists between Council and the MRC as to the number of events permissible per year outside of racing. But what has never been made clear is WHEN this agreement is supposed to actually start! There’s up to a 5 year leeway for removal of fences. Again, when does 5 years start – in three years’ time? All appears to be in favour of the MRC and council sits silently by and allows public amenity to be abused time and time again. Either there is an agreement with a specific starting date or there isn’t. It’s about time that this Council fessed up to what is really going on.
November 24, 2011
The MRC application for the 7 lot subdivision was heard at VCAT yesterday. There were two objectors. Council was represented by lawyers, as were the objectors and the MRC. The following are some general impressions of the hearing.
- Council’s lawyer provided all the ‘background’ material, including a 150 page bound ‘booklet’ which also became the reference document for many of the MRC’s arguments. We wonder whether ratepayers paid for the production of this tome, or the mrc?
- Council’s lawyer used the word ‘access’ (the focus of objections) probably only 3 times in his 35 minute presentation.
- The meeting revealed that Council and the mrc had come to a previous agreement regarding the need for a Section 173 rather than the creation of an easement. This information was not available to objectors until 24 hours before the hearing. Hence they were literally caught with their pants down.
- There were several adjournments while the MRC and council’s lawyer ‘consulted’ with their respective bodies. The MRC provided the proposed draft wording for the Section 173 which was acceptable to Council’s lawyer.
- It should also be noted that a council planner who was present was taking notes. The first words he wrote down on his sheets of paper were ‘Forge’, ‘Penhalluriack’ who were both present.
Our conclusions are that the member will have very little scope to find in favour of the objectors given the constraints on her power and the limitations of the Planning and Environment Act. We also conclude that there have obviously been many, many (secret) discussions on this application between the MRC and council. It is also unacceptable that objectors are not fully informed of any changes to an application in a timely manner.
November 21, 2011
MRC: Trustee Meeting & 7 Lot Subdivision
Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60[3] Comments
We are seeking help from any of our readers who may have knowledge, or documentation, concerning the history of any public access points to the Caulfield Racecourse. The MRC has objected to Council’s conditions placed on the 7 lot subdivision. There have also been resident objections. The VCAT hearing is scheduled for this Wednesday.
If any reader has any information or documents (ie maps, photographs) could they please contact us via gedebates@gmail.com and we will pass the information onto the resident objectors.
On another MRC matter – there is a trustee meeting scheduled for December 1st at 10am. The blurb on the council website states that residents may request to be heard at this meeting in relation to any of the published agenda items (a first by the way!). Included in the agenda items is the ‘land swap’ featuring the State Government. This is for ‘discussion and decision’!!!!!! Once again we find the timing incredibly interesting and given that the VCAT hearing is scheduled for this Wednesday and it is highly unlikely that a decision would be handed down before the 1st December, we can only speculate whether this land swap ‘discussion’ is an attempt to pre-empt any VCAT decision on the the 7 lot subdivision.
Glen Eira Debates 