SPEAKER #8: stated that he was present to learn and this was an issue that he felt the community should be ‘very concerned’ about.
SPEAKER #9 – stated that this meeting is like the first meeting over the Caulfield Park pavilion, ‘when we had some technical matters only that we could discuss’ ….(what been determined here as discussion points is) ‘compliance of the toilet block and the carpark’. So if that’s the case ‘what is there really to discuss at all?’…..’What is the purpose of having us all here to talk about nonsense?’….’We are very concerned about what goes on in the centre of the racecourse……(unless there’s communication)’ what is the point of meetings like this?. They’re a farce!’ Urged council to get some ‘decent consultation going’ because ‘there seems to be a lack of consultation in all areas of open space’. reminded audience of a comment by John Patrick at the VCAT hearing over the pavilion when Patrick said ‘well, car parks are open space’! ‘Now is this an opinion the council holds generally?…..
Hyams interjected and said that no, council wouldn’t define a car park as open space. Speaker said ‘Well John Patrick did in front of four of us here’.

SPEAKER #10 – asked about the fence and if ‘tangalakis could give us an idea of some of the town planning considerations’ in relation to the fence. Asked if this would impact on amenity of enjoyment and whether this was another ground for consideration of the application.

TANGALAKIS responded that ‘appearance’ is what’s important about the fence. ‘How it looks…..and whether it’s appropriate for a park’. Hyams then said that they could modify the fence as part of their considerations.

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.

SPEAKER #12 – Questioned whether council looked at safety and who (either MRC OR COUNCIL) is ultimately responsible?

TANGALAKIS: ‘SAFETY ISN’T A TOWN PLANNING MATTER’!!!!!!!!! (uproar) repeated ‘Unfortunately safety is not a town planning matter’. Hyams then stated that they would need to get a permit to build the toilets and that’s when safety comes into it. speaker then asked ‘so that’s a separate issue and we have another meeting about it then?”. Answer from Hyams was ‘yes’. Speaker also related that she had rung council this morning seeking information and that since this was a planning application, ‘planning applications are not advertised’. Stated that it’s a really important issue so ‘would you be legally compromised if you put this meeting on your website?’ Hyams talked about putting up notices around the racecourse but speaker exclaimed ‘this affects everybody’ not just people around the racecourse. ‘This is a community issue for 40 square km of Glen Eira’….I couldn’t find out about this meeting I had to ring around’ when there are advertisements for everything else. Brought up C60, subdivision and the centre of the racecourse and ‘no body knows from one meeting to the other ….I am reasonably intelligent; I have followed this issue….completely and utterly confused….and I still am 3 to 4 years later’. (Applause)

SPEAKER #12 – ‘confusion is the name of the game’. Stated that original notices outside racecourse listed 31 Station St so not clear about the centre of the racecourse. Asked people to put up their hands if anyone received a letter from the MRC. Asked to come via the clocktower but dooor was locked. ‘do you realise there is 2km of concretised path to take cars’…..’application to park 1600 cars on event days and there’s no mention of it’. Hyams interrupted saying that this isn’t part of the application!….Speaker responded ‘well it’s on here and I’ve come tonight and this is what I’m going to say’. ‘No mention on original plan….car parking ‘area’. Fence – ‘do people think that we visually want to look at that?’…..’we go to have visual relief….we want to look at green open space….this council doesn’t really understand that’. …’.agree with trainers to improve visibility of the horses….the tenants of the tenants…’. Asked about the lake extension and whether they could have 10 megalitres of dam there since this is ‘another land grab’ since it will increase the size of the current lake. The MRC has also ‘sneaked in….too much roadway’ for ‘maintenance’. ‘That’s another 3 metre wide and probably 400 metres long’ – maybe they can simply drive around the circle?….’we don’t want all those things going through our park. I’ve never heard of such nonsense’. There’s also a description of a light pole ‘how many lightpoles are there going to be?’. ‘I think this needs throwing out and redoing’. With c60 we got a 3 dimension plan. ‘I came to look at this last week and none of this was here – it’s all just being added to every minute’. ‘Give us something to look at, something proper’. No scale anywhere. ‘Redesign this. Get rid of the roads and be honest about how many cars are going to’ be parked in centre. (APPLAUSE)

SPEAKER #13 Noted that he was here last week, banged on the door, ‘jumped in the car’ and raced down to caulfield pavilion. Frstrated that no notice on door that meeting was cancelled.’It’s just courtesy’. Hyams apologised. Speaker said ‘not you, it’s got nothing to do with you it’s administration’. Hyams then said that notices were hand delivered to all objectors. Outcry from audience at this point. Speaker stated he lives near but hasn’t received any of the 431 notices. ‘so somebody’s giving you porkies and be very careful of them’….there is no letters there is nothing’. ‘There’s always secrecy. People aren’t informed at major issues…..I talk to people….when I say come to the meeting they say ‘what for? What the MRC wants, council gives’….’Am I boring you (to Hyams and Tangalakis) I can stop if you like?’ (Hyams no’). Brought up the tetanus issue via a letter from Vic Health website which said that tetanus lives particularly in ‘horse manure’. ‘We have 150 years of horse droppings at that racecourse….tetanus will enter through the smallest break of skin’. The MRC wants tunnel used by people and horses. ‘That is really playing Russian Roulette’…I think you should first get a health clearance on this whole issue before you start building things….have to remove 4 inches of topsoil and put topsoil everywhere….

Audience asked for a response and whether the health issue had been assessed by council. Hyams said ‘we will refer it to our health department’.

SPEAKER #14: stated he was a local resident and only became aware of this in last couple of weeks. ‘I’m leaving this meeting concerned, very concerned about the appropriateness of communication….is the health issue that has just been raised part of the planning? Hyams: ‘we will look at that one’. Speaker then asked whether it was appropriate for the planning department to look at it. Hyams responded ‘kind of not’…..’Can you call for interested parties….to give alternatives(to the plan)?’ Spoke about other countries and how residents can make application for ‘a different type of plan’ for open space. Hyams said that when its council land ‘we do have quite an extensive consultation process’, but in this case it’s ‘not one of our parks, its the MRC, sorry racecourse’. Discussion over MRC, trustees and why power was ceded to MRC. Hyams said he doesn’t know because he has never been a trustee. Question: ‘can we understand why the trsutees have abrogated their responsibility to the MRC?’ Speaker asked that application be set aside and residents give council something else to consider apart from this application.

SPEAKER #15: Asked where this application came from since there’s been an ‘agreement’ between council and the MRC. Was this part of the agreement? Hyams ‘The plans we have are in accordance with the agreement we have between Council and the MRC’ Speakder then said that ‘there hasn’t been any input from the community’. Asked Tangalakis which notes she has taken that ‘will affect the planning issues’. Wanted to know from everything that’s been said, what is ‘useful’? Tangalakis: ‘Just (first speakers comments) to tell you the honest truth’. Asked about health and Tangalakis responded that health is not a planning matter and ‘that’s why we have a health department here’. she would refer it to them. Speaker then asked why a meeting wasn’t held prior to the planning conference? another speaker then said ‘there should have been community input to the scheme that you, the council agreed with the MRC….it happens over and over that the thing that the community is really interested in ….agreed prior….’the horse has bolted. the thing that we are really interested in has already been decided’. speakers asked ‘where to from here?’. Hyams responded that ‘this is the most they(MRC) were prepared to give us, the most they were prepared to give us’. Speaker – ‘so are you saying that this is simply a statutory process and everything we’ve said is pointless?’

Hyams reiterated that he set out the parameters and that ‘these are not things we can consider when we decide’ on the planning permit.

SPEAKER #16: asked about planning law and what can be considered such as the fence. Wanted to know ‘on what basis, or what kind of criteria…..will you recommend that the fence be either 2.5 metres high or 1.5 metres high….on what criteria will you recommend that it be black mesh, or white mesh….on what criteria will you accept ….a dog exercise park smack in the middle of a jogging track….what criteria will you be using and…will that be explained to the community?’ Tangalakis said that she hasn’t assessed anything yet, so ‘you’ll find you’re answers in the council report’.

SPEAKER #17: Forge spoke about her role as a trustee and that she ‘will take the ideas’ from tonight to the next trustee meeting.

Tonight’s Planning Conference revealed once again the total disregard that this Council has for its residents and their views. It began very much like the previous one: directions to objectors stated to enter via the clocktower entrance. Of course this door was locked! No signs to direct people were put up at the other entrance from the carpark. Only 10 MRC plans were copied and available. Effie Tangalakis (as the Planning Officer) and Jamie Hyams as member of the Special committee chaired the meeting. From the committee Esakoff and Lipshutz were present (sitting in the back), and representing other councillors were Forge and Penhalluriack. There were approximately 30 residents present.

Hyams got the ball rolling by stating that the evening was not designed to ‘bag’ the MRC – it was strictly a planning conference. Tangalakis informed the audience that there wasn’t too much change in the planning scheme from the last meeting – just a few minor adjustments such as grassed areas. No additional objections. Advertised the same way as last time – 432 notifications sent to owners and occupiers, one ad in the Leader. She summarised original objections. Stated that the application had been referred to traffic and other departments. Her job was to assess whether the plans complied with the ‘Public Recreation zones’ of the planning scheme and whether ‘building and works will pose any adverse amenity impact’.

Questions and comments were then taken:

Penhalluriack stated that since planning conferences are meant to bring parties together and try and resolve issues, ‘where are they’(ie the MRC didn’t show up as per last time). Hyams replied that this ‘does happen from time to time in planning conferences’ where the applicant choses not to show up.

Speaker #1 – Excited that a public park is on the horizon – but that plan lacks real detail. Council has power over residential development it should also have power over this application. It’s basically ‘all about toilets’. HYAMS interrupted at this point to say that it’s not for council to tell the MRC how good their plan is. Speaker continued with: ‘There is no detail in the plan…and who is going to be maintaining this equipment in a Glen Eira public park?’ Access isn’t addressed and ‘can’t be used for horses if people with prams, bikes…..soccer players are to use it for access.Explain access paths (for soccer players)…(No map signage mentioned)…’Is there lighting for walkers, joggers….signage, communication….all of these things are part of this plan…(Suggested performance benchmarks and penalties to be set) and to make it happen’. Quoted the Select Committee again from 2008 where the MRC was criticised. Asked where the trustees were since this is in their jurisdiction. Horses should also have room to graze and not be cooped up in sheds. Spoke about removal of training and lack of open space in Glen Eira.’Can they resubmit to make it accessible and to invite the community to see what this public park can be?’ (APPLAUSE)

Hyams again talked about the MRC application and the job is to ‘see whether it fits in with planning law’…’we will decide on planning grounds and planning grounds only’ – so the question of horse training ‘is not something that we’re going to take into account…it’s not what we’re here to discuss’.

Penahalluriack: Said that the MRC has already modified their plans and that what is needed is a ‘park that is going to work’.

SPEAKER #2: we always hear these sorts of things when we come to these meetings ….everything that the community is saying is irrelevant….because (it’s all about planning) and frankly, I’m getting a little bit tired ….I know it’s a planning conference but I would be interested to hear what are these planning realms….what does (the MRC) know about designing a playground….we need a good playground a well designed one….(with) good access…..and importance of access in north west corner….so if you’re not interested in hearing from us (about these things which concern us) what can we talk about?….

TANGALAKIS: ‘it’s about the construction of the toilet block,….construction of the parking area – not the number of spaces – ….just the construction of it….that’s it!

SPEAKER #3: Supported previous speakers and ‘just appalled’ about the whole thing. Asked what grounds for refusal and Hyams said it’s ‘not grounds that you have it’s grounds that we have because we have to make the decision’….we can only do it on planning grounds….

SPEAKER #4: Asked if council has already agreed upon this. Hyams said that council, ‘wearing the hat’ of recreation agreed on the deal and ‘now it’s coming’ to council for decision. Explained about the council ‘agreement’. Penahlluriack spoke about how little opportunity there was for public input and ‘that that was not very democratic’. (APPLAUSE) Speaker then said that it was voted on by council, there hasn’t been an opportunity for consultation and now going to planning committee and again no consultation. it
was a ‘sham planning process’.

SPEAKER #5: Wanted to ask MRC questions but not present. Asked about 2.1 metre mesh fence. Wanted details about the fence and whether it is a ‘permanent structure’

TANGALAKIS: ‘I presume the fence would be a permanent structure’. Speaker then asked that if training goes will the ‘fence remain in position’? Tangalakis said that she ‘wouldn’t know’ because it’s not under town planning consideration. Question from audience – ‘so you’re voting on something that you don’t know?’. Tangalakis said that it wasn’t ‘appropriate’ for her to comment nor something that she could assess.’The only thing that I can assess it it’s height and what it looks like’. Speaker queried how you can have a permanent fence across a recreation ground. Spoke about original crown grant. Said he saw this as an ‘application to divide the area’ into racecourse and public area….’so open area (with access for the public) will be gone forever’…

SPEAKER#5: Speaker lives distant from racecourse. Objection is about open space and what happened in Stonnington. Open space is promised but it doesn’t eventuate.

SPEAKER#6: Lack of community consultation especially around public land. Said that no one can explain to him the ‘legal entitlements given to the MRC’. Wanted someone to explain what is involved in public and private land at caulfield and not have ‘dual owenership concept used as a tool to betray the public interest’. ‘the land is public land and therefore the public have every right to decide what that use should be’. Major issue is that there hasn’t been a public consultation. Hyams explained that some of the land is freehold and other parts are crown land administered by crown. Asked to show these areas on map, but stated that he wasn’t sure and that the decision isn’t based on his ability ‘to delineate the areas’. Penhalluriack then explained with laser pointer which areas were freehold and crown land. Also went on to explain access points – plan however doesn’t show all access points.

SPEAKER #7: Was concerned about racecourse’ disappearing behind fences’ and that this proposed fence shouldn’t further restrict access. Last ten years have witnessed diminishing access. Also raised issue about ‘all purpose playing field’, now all of a sudden it’s designated as a soccer pitch.  Wanted to know how that happened. By designating it as a soccer field this gives preference to a certain group of residents/clubs. What’s needed is a multi purpose field that will allow more and different groups to use it.  It will become the ‘thin end of the wedge of exclusion here’

Someone asked for clarification on this and Hyams responded that ‘it’s not really a planning issue’. Interjections came ‘but it’s in the plan’; ‘do we have any say?’ ‘who decided on soccer?’ Hyams answered that ‘that was agreed between MRC and Council’. Another comment ‘it wasn’t council – it was 5 people’. Speaker then said that calling it a junior soccer field has somehow ‘surreptitiously snuck in’.

WE WILL REPORT ON THE REST OF THIS MEETING IN THE DAYS TO COME. WATCH THIS SPACE!!