Caulfield Racecourse/C60


Below is our coverage of the presentations made by the guest speakers at least week’s Community Forum. We invite debate and discussion on the points they raised.

Dr. Birrell – explicitly it is acknowledged that Melbourne 2030 is dead and that something different will take its place. …..we’ve seen a meteoric rise in Melbourne’s population growth….(but it’s going to fall)….because the reason why Melbourne’s population growth has accelerated is because of overseas migration. The dominant reason that overseas migration has contributed to the surge in Melbourne’s population is attributable to one group – overseas students. That acounted for about 60% of the migration growth in Victoria. …The overseas student industry is now in rapid decline and as a consequence it will affect Melbourne’s growth. No doubt about it. Melbourne could drop to the order of 50,000 or so….just because of this change in immigration policy. …But there’s more. One reason why Melbourne has been able to do so well as far as population growth is concerned ….because we have had the comparative advantage in the price of housing….that’s all changed. Prices of houses and land have escalated to the point where they are now more expensive than in Sth East Queensland. The possibility then of people leaving, particularly going to the west where land is cheaper than Melbourne and jobs are plentiful, to my mind is quite likely…..That may open up opportunities for rethinking the planning …that’s created the Phoenix Project. 

DR. LAY – ‘we know that roads are congested….by any standard……We have a long time spent in traffic (by international standards). We have long distances,….The two things you can do when you are facing congestion is …to build a new road infrastructure and I don’t even know of any proposals to build new road infrastructure in this area. I couldn’t even think of what they might be. And the other is to make the roads work more efficiently. …Vic Roads is one of the world’s best authorities in terms of managing the road system…the traffic signal system is viewed around the world as one of the best….a model for elsewhere…..but what I’m saying is that we are already milking our road system as efficiently as possible….we are using our road system quite well at the moment and there’s really not a lot of reserve that they can fix the thing….I now want to … explain why you’ve got what you’ve got (in Glen Eira). …We all know that infrastructure like roAds and trains doesn’t happen overnight….what you’ve got in Glen Eira you’ve had since about 1840! …..it hasn’t changed much at all. Glen Eira wasn’t really the centre of the universe even when Melbourne was founded in 1834 and the big competition for Glen Eira was downtown Dandenong…as you headed from Dandenong to Melbourne as you look at the map it’s a straight line, until you get to Warrigal Rd. At Warrigal Rd they hit Gardiner’s Creek. And Gardiner’s Creek was a sloppy, muddy, impassable creek. And that’s where Dandenong Rd starts bending. Glen Eira was the pits. Glen Eira was a swamp. …..there were about 14 known swamps and in between the swamps there were wet stoppages. ….Dandenong Rd and the railway followed the edge of the swamp…all the bends are attempts at avoiding the worst bits of the swamp. …..Caulfield didn’t develop and what Dandenong Rd did and then the railway,  was to make north south movement the popular route…but nothing here because of the swamp. …….You don’t have any decent connections running through! …The rest of Melbourne was divided on a mile square grid, but again because of the swamp and the other developments ……you’re stuck with a strange road system. It doesn’t really work as well as the rest of Melbourne and you’re also stuck with the fact that development happened around you. …..all sort of coming down on this area. And it was developed late….and the railways went through in about 1880 and again the railways weren’t built in this area to service Caulfield. They were built because down in Gippsland there was dairy farms, vegetables and then there was coal. So there was a market and private companies built the first railroad to get these products into Melbourne. …..The first shops weren’t in this area. They were along Hawthorn Rd. Camden Town was the first real (development) ….but they were not even strip shops in the way we understand them today like Glenferrie Rd (those active shopping strips) it didn’t develop the way the other side of the railway did. ….So you had a community which was very much a local community without any of the natural road infrastructure which was created elsewhere in Melbourne to provide the through traffic. You didn’t actually go through Caulfield to get to anywhere so there wasn’t any real demand….so nothing happened and the roads that you’ve got are very much a local road system. They’re flat so you put trams down them…but it is very much a local structure. There’s no way that you can conceive of that structure being any different in the future. There’s nothing that you can do; there are no fixes …..and I suppose that when I look at the future I don’t see any changes given the road infrastructure plans of Melbourne that there is any relationship to what happens in Glen Eira. ….You’ve inherited a road system….(all was in place) by the time motor cars came along about 1906. ……One of the propositions in 1906 was to ban cars in this area ……so even when cars came then it was recognised that this was not a community for fast rapid cars…. 

PROF CURRIE – one of the interesting positives about growth is that it’s helped the economy. And the CBD’s of capital cities have been a big part of growing the economy in Australia….the CBD’s have grown a huge amount. …There’s been a huge growth in the service sector and the knowledge economy….part of it was what Bob was talking about with international students…Australia is getting pretty good at using…universities as knowledge based economies with the service sector to actually feed off the economy of Asia in a very successful way. So it’s not just living off mining and so forth….When we talk about planning, there’s not a lot of success we can talk about, but here is one example we can. Growth in employment in the Melbourne CBD – it has skyrocketed…..(Then there is) the transport point of view….there’s been a lot of growth in usage, but also a growth in public transport usage..(the CBD) is now quite an interesting place; there’s a lot more people living there, and lots to do….the CBD has been very successful I think. ….We’re going to have some growth in different areas, but it’s mostly going to be in the outer suburbs…..in fact it has been. …Really it’s the fringe where growth is expected….It’s not going to be the same as it was in the past. We’ve got an ageing population and that ageing population is going to be in the outer suburbs. Why is it an issue? Well we won’t have the services and facilities in those places. …..What are the transport issues? Congestion! …the growth that has occurred has really been beyond what was originally forecast. …Business costs (because of congestion) are 3 billion dollars. …congestion is happening more and more in this area…We’ve got trams in the middle of traffic streams….so again slower…..traffic grows. Trains – massive meteoric growth in trains…..the trains in Melbourne are about 40% overloaded….(Question from audience: How does that compare with other countries?)…we’re about the same as Sydney….London would have similar congestion….

we haven’t talked about the environment ….you are surrounded by roads here and they are not nice things….accidents are still a major issue….there’s great concerns about how we’re going to drive in the future to get around….and one certain truth is affordability.. We’re experiencing another peak in fuel and we’re expecting much more…..when we have growth occurring in on the fringe this is a major concern…Also we’ve been walking less….Your area has got great sustainability. You’ve got great transport access, close to activities, within walking distance, ……There hasn’t been a great change in train travel in Glen eira, cars still dominate…..

Issues:…the bus service has no framework; rail crossings dominate. I think of Glen Eira as a suburb surrounded by transport problems and you’ve got through traffic that can’t get through….congestion is a real consequence. So what about the Phoenix project? One perspective is that we’re always talking about planning. You know, I often think that we don’t have planning in Melbourne. I think that whenever there’s growth and someone wants to develop they often, by any means possible, get what they want because they can get a market for it. I’m not saying that’s desirable, I just think that’s often what happens. But the real truth of where you are is that you are a mighty successful place. …..I think in the future that success will actually increase in many ways if your railway – you’ve got a very high quality railway -…..you’ve got great access in Melbourne to the CBD, and to developing areas, and regionally you’ve actually got direct connections to Gippsland and the rest of those areas. It’s quite staggering how well connected you are here. ….You guys are going to be a metro city that gives access to St. Kilda Rd and the CBD….Very desirable place in my opinion.  And whether you are interested in development or not there will be a lot of pressure for it here. ….

There is an opportunity here to try and do this properly. I think it’s very hard for you to try and stop this (the Metro/Footscray link) ….and certainly the transport opportunities with the Metro and so forth will tie this into appropriate development….Melbourne doesn’t have a second CBD. With all the accessibility here and with all that’s happening particularly in the growth of knowledge centres …Caulfield would be a mighty attractive second CBD. I don’t think anybody wants it to be as big as Melbourne, or even as big as it is in North Sydney and Parramatta,  but those places as well, don’t have the features that you have here already. you know, attractive development – a large university site. ….these will be a natural draw towards that… 

JEREMY HEARN (architect/designer): I’ve worked on a fair number of master plans for activity centres all over Melbourne, going back to the original Docklands where I was on one of the teams that put a proposal in for one of the major segments of that development…..I had a bit of a look at the various influences that are coming to bear on the area around Caulfield station. …Our previous speakers have commented  quite thoroughly on public transport and the road network and clearly they are two of the strongest influences on that area. The fact that Caulfield is a knuckle in a public transport system is quite critical and also, with Dandenong Rd a very major traffic route for cars. It will remain a transport hub. Not only will it remain…but we’ve all heard that there are plans for additional lines to go in on the Frankston line….Now all of those are going to require land. The area that has been designated for the Phoenix precinct is actually not very big. It’s been called up in the Melbourne 2030 plan as a major activity centre, but major activity centres are usually the size of something like Dandenong or even the Glenferrie Rd shopping centre. Chadstone actually jumps in as a major activity centre and that’s very dense now, but always wants to be bigger.

It’s unlikely that the size of land that the Phoenix Activity Centre represents is sufficient for a major activity centre. So the area that we’re looking at to be a major activity centre is not really there at all. It would have to take in a much larger area. Dandenong Rd and the railway are of course a huge barrier to any kind of general movement from one side, so it’s almost certain that any expansion of that area would go to the south. So I would see realistically, that any development for a major activity centre would actually have to rezone areas all the way down to the south end of the racecourse reserve at least. And with the same sort of width as well. So it would be a much, much larger area. …..

In a way it’s quite inappropriate …because there are so many issues of state significance involved in this particular area…first off it’s a transport interchange, with various additional lines which will require more land; secondly, it’s got the racecourse…..there is no doubt that the State Government and the major activities part of the state government consider that the Caulfield racecourse and the Caulfield cup to be a substantial leg of Melbourne’s party town atmosphere which houses our tourist industry…so the State government would have a very strong interest in maintaining Caulfield as a racecourse……(people) know about Caulfield on the other side of the world (by virtue of the Melbourne and then the Caulfield Cup)…..it’s also historic…and hence part of Melbourne’s fabric….it also has a major use as an exhibition centre….part of major events calendar there…

You then have the shopping centre which is usually considered the heart of a major activity centre. Well, frankly, I’ve done a lot of shopping centres in my time and I really can’t see the basics there for much increase in terms of retail. You’re competing against a very well established shopping centre in Glenferrie Rd which is 5 minutes away once you get on the road, and just down in the other direction you’re competing against Chadstone, which is the largest and best known shopping centre in the whole of Australia. So I really don’t see that there will be much development in the way of retail around Caulfield. It will remain as a local shopping centre, with a slightly struggling supermarket. But even if you bring in another 3000 people, …I don’t know how well that will go.

Then you’ve got the Monash University Caulfield Campus with their own plans to get bigger and stronger, and I would have thought that they had trouble with the amount of land they’ve got. A very condensed campus. Especially when you consider that it’s not in a major city centre. Normally you would expect in Australia that any kind of tertiary institution would have access to quite  extensive playing fields to keep the youth of the day healthy and here there is really not a lot.

….So all in all, there seems to be three state level influences and one local…..Then there’s the State government’s intention in the Melbourne 2030 …..for the reasons I explained earlier I don’t think it’s going to be a Major Activity Centre unless the state government moves in and gets fairly serious about it and it would have to do some substantial (with) road operations and probably lose Caulfield Racecourse entirely for it to become big enough for it to classify as a Major Activity Centre. I think that one is just waiting to fall over.

So when you stand and look at all those, you have to look as a resident and ask ‘what do we want for the area?’ Should the Monash University campus become bigger and take over more area? Should the racecourse move in and extend itself towards the tramline and create some sort of entertainment precinct which seems to be almost, reading between the lines, being a competitor for the casino? Or should we land bank a lot of the land around there  for future transport infrastructure? A very legitimate thing to do but without the state government stepping in and doing the planning work it’s hard to see. I have difficulties with the plan that’s been proposed because it doesn’t seem to address any of those issues. It addresses the land that is owned by the MRC and its specifically dedicated to allowing the increase of density of that area….I had a look at the Incorporated plan which is when you draw little boxes and say ‘that’s what it’s going to be’ and I’ve worked on a number of those, and they never end up like that., because when you actually look at details you find that they don’t work. So you end up having to go back and get another planning permit anyway. So the Incorporated Plan overlays don’t really work ……

What’s been proposed is to increase the densities and to reduce the required car parking under the planning regulations. I don’t know that that’s a terrifically good idea. Essentially it seems to me that the MRC has been acquiring that land over the last 40 or 50 years for the purpose of car parking to make sure the racecourse has adequate parking on race days. and I imagine most of you, if you are residents, and have driven past on a raceday, you know that they need every bit of it. So, taking up that land that they’ve got for carparking and putting buildings on it and reducing the required car parking seems to be not a really good idea….I had a look at the MRC aims for their organisation …and they were to ensure they had a cash flow to provide prizes for races….selling off the land in order to have the prizes….it doesn’t seem to me that the whole thing has been thought out. ….I haven’t come across anyone in the community who has said ‘wow I’m just waiting for them to redevelop that land’…’I really wanted 20 storey buildings there, that’s why I moved in’….

It should be done over a very much larger area than just that limited area that they’re talking about. …(20 storey) has another disadvantage….the only thing that will be built there are lots of units…..when you allow a building to be sold off as own your own units it’s almost impossible to redevelop that site later on. Because to do that you have to go and deal with 20,40,100 owners of individual units to buy that block of land. …..If you want an activity centre that you want to develop over time as this was units, now it’s going to be an office block…if you allow that plan to be developed as own your own units – forget it. You can’t do it. It’s just locked in forever. So essentially we’re looking at a proposal to create a very high density set of units in that area and to reduce the carparking availability for the other purposes. So when…they want to move the roads so they can put an extra railroad line in, they won’t be able to without buying 80 odd owners of units. which doesn’t seem to me to be very smart. ….We should  be working to convince the State Government that they ….need to have a look at this from their own point of view because too many state level interests are being overridden by this local and very specifically owner based proposal.

Caulfield Racecourse: development

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) — I address my adjournment matter to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. The minister would be aware that last week an agreement was reached between the Melbourne Racing Club and the City of Glen Eira that will provide more public use of the centre of Caulfield racecourse. My electorate of Caulfield is aware of my efforts to provide more open space in the electorate. As I have said on numerous occasions, the city of Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space of any municipality, and my constituents are naturally interested in maximising the open space available. The Caulfield racecourse is part of Crown land that is considered open space, but it has had little promotion and few facilities available to the public. Caulfield is a great racecourse that is world renowned, but outside of race day it remains empty and underutilised. 

The agreement that I was part of facilitating between the Melbourne Racing Club and the City of Glen Eira means that the Melbourne Racing Club will provide $1.8 million to upgrade the park. The new park within the Caulfield racecourse will be open outside of race day on some 352 days of the year. It will have five precincts, including a picnic area by the lake, a large dog-off-leash area, walking and jogging paths, areas for fishing and a junior soccer pitch. All of these will exist inside a racecourse. I am extremely happy with what has been achieved for Caulfield by improving access to the centre of the racetrack — — 

Honourable members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! If members at the table would like a conversation, please leave the house.  

Mr SOUTHWICK — Access to the centre of the racetrack and the creation of a wonderful new resource  will be greatly appreciated by my constituents. The next part of the puzzle for my constituents is the land adjacent to the racecourse known as the Booran Road reserve. This was part of a land swap by the pervious government. It is now Crown land and has the potential of being a great sporting precinct.

I call on the minister to visit this area and meet with community representatives to investigate how this land can best be utilised to provide a great community resource for local residents. 

This is a great story for Caulfield: it means that for the first time the Caulfield Racecourse will not only be a racecourse but it will be a park as well. It will provide an amenity not just for the people of Caulfield to be able to share and enjoy but for the people of Victoria as well. I am very proud to have been involved in discussions to ensure that this will happen. I thank the City of Glen Eira for its negotiations and its fine work, and I also thank the Melbourne Racing Club for coming together on this very important announcement. I look forward to the minister visiting Caulfield to look at what we have been able to achieve and to take up the challenge of the next part of the puzzle in delivering the Booran Road reserve.

Please take careful note of the David Southwick statements included in this media release and also the qualification – IF HORSE TRAINING IS REMOVED!

Friday 29 April 2011

Agreement on public use of Racecourse Centre

Glen Eira City Council and the Melbourne Racing Club have reached agreement on increased community use of the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve.

More facilities for the community to enjoy including a picnic area by the lake,  large dog off leash area, walking and jogging paths and a junior soccer pitch. The lake area will be available to the public 352 days a year and the whole of the centre on all days other than race days and major event days.

Additional access will be provided including a new pedestrian rout from Neerim Road across the racecourse, vehicle access through the tunnel after 9.30am with 20 car spaces reserved for the community and a separate footpath through the tunnel.

Fences will be converted to open up views across the Reserve starting with the corner of Neerim Rd and Queens Avenue. If horse training is transferred from Caulfield, additional areas will be added to Glenhuntly Park.

The Mayor, Cr Margaret Esakoff, said: “Council has been working to achieve public use of public land and we welcome the agreement for the benefits it will provide to our community”.

Melbourne Racing Club CEO Alasdair Robertson said that the Club and Council had worked closely together to deliver an outstanding result for the Community.“The MRC will provide a new $1.8 million public park in the racecourse infield. The MRC will pay for the design, landscaping, community facilities and ongoing maintenance of 5 recreational precincts.”

The infield public park will include new BBQ and picnic areas, a kid’s play area, shade and toilet facilities, a boardwalk around the lake including areas for fishing and a junior soccer pitch.

State Member for Caulfield, David Southwick MP worked with both parties to bring about the agreement. He said: “this is a great result for the people of Caulfield with the creation of new open space, new facilities and access to the Racecourse Reserve.” “I am very happy that I have been able to bring the Glen Eira Council and the Melbourne Racing Club together to facilitate this result and to promote greater access to this significant open space in Caulfield.” “Our community had real concerns about the lack of access to the inside of the track and about the low amount of open space in the City of Glen Eira. This agreement creates an excellent destination for a variety of recreational activities and will be greatly enjoyed by Caulfield families”

The Agreement and plans are on Council’s website.

MEDIA RELEASE 

Friday 29 April 2011

Council places limits on C60

On 28 April 2011, Glen Eira City Council adopted Amendment C60 with changes to restrict heights, restrict student housing and ensure higher levels of on-site car parking. Amendment C60 rezones land but does not authorise any construction. Future development will need to satisfy Council in six areas: an environmental management plan, integrated transport plan, car parking management plan, drainage management plan, landscape plan and waste and recycling management plan. 

Any development proposal which is not consistent with Council’s decision of 28 April would need to start again with a fresh planning application which involves advertising, submissions, decision and the opportunity to appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). On height limits, Council did not support the view of the Independent Panel that there should be no height limit at the end nearest Monash University. Council has imposed height limits on 100 per cent of the area ranging from two to three storeys at the Kambrook Road end to not more than twenty storeys at the Monash University end. 

On student housing, Council changed the provisions relating to developing student housing in the C60 area and required any student housing to undergo a full and separate planning process including application, advertising, determination and appeal rights to VCAT. On car parking, Council imposed higher requirements for on site car spaces than in recent comparable developments. For retail and supermarket uses, the car parking requirements are higher than recent VCAT decisions for mixed-use developments. For some other uses, Council imposed higher car parking requirements than the State Government approved for the nearby Monash University Equiset proposal. In addition, car parking restrictions will be established in surrounding residential streets in consultation with residents and at the cost of the C60 applicant. 

Consultation on C60 has included: 

  1. exhibition of the amendment 19 November–21 December 2009;
  2. the planning conference of 8 February 2010;
  3. six days of hearings before the independent panel in May 2010;
  4. public release of the panel’s report, July 2010; and
  5. public consultation meeting on 4 April 2011. 

It will now be up to the State Minister for Planning to consider Amendment C60 and decide whether to approve it.

The C60 Amendment and the 7 lot subdivision were passed unanimously tonight – all according to plan no doubt. The gallery were assailed with the usual cliches, motherhood statements, and half truths. The rhetoric was familiar and repetitive. The C60 is the best deal that can be got; look we’ve protected residents, it’s only going to be 20 storeys instead of 23 and yes traffic will be a problem, but it’s already a problem so what’s the big deal? On and on and on. We’ll provide a more detailed report in the days ahead.

We’ve also chosen the title to this post deliberately. We think it speaks volumes of the actions of these four councillors and the administration in their total betrayal of residents. Top of the Brutus Scale is our first Green Councillor – Pilling. We simply wonder what his party must be thinking of him now?

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 adversial 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 amenties’, 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 resopnded ‘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 becuase 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.

Item 9.12 – ‘Agreement’ between MRC and Council regarding the Centre of the Racecourse was decided tonight. The votes were: Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling in favour of agreement. Lobo, Penhalluriack and Forge against. Both Magee and Tang had vacated their chairs declaring a conflict of interest – ie as MRC trustee members.

We’ll report on this in full tomorrow.

From yesterday’s Caulfield Leader

We’ve gone back and had a look at the Council resolution that was passed about negotiations with the MRC and compared this with the proposed ‘agreement’. It was decided that council’s position would be: 

1.That the opaque fences be replaced by palisade fencing as soon as possible;

2. That the centre of the circumferential training tracks be fenced off and the general public be given exclusive and unrestricted access via the tunnel from Glen Eira Road to this entire area;

3. That the Melbourne Racing Club landscape this area to plans and specifications to be agreed with Council, but which will include sporting ovals, areas for passive use, change areas and toilets;

4. That a firm timetable be set for the expeditious removal of horse training from the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve so the Crown Land used for training can be made progressively available for unrestricted public use.

5. That aside from the tunnel there be further public access to the centre of the Racecourse.

6. That car parking not be permitted in the centre of the Racecourse except in association with the use by the public of the public park.

7. That the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve be administered by Independent Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust not dominated by any one group.

What Newton and co have come up with doesn’t cover half of what was in the resolution. There’s nothing here about unrestricted access, a firm timetable for getting rid of training and greater access to the centre. It’s also odd that this item hasn’t got a single name attached to it. All we get are disclaimers such asCouncil has no more control over this land than it does over the average residential property.” 

Also of note is that decisions on fencing remain with the MRC and not council. Further, Glen Eira residents will be forking out further monies to share in the construction of various entrances and fences. So much for the MRC footing the entire bill! Oh, and there’s a time limit of up to 5 years for some of this fencing to go. 

Of greatest concern is the total failure of this so called ‘negotiation’ to insist on the expeditious removal of training from the racecourse and the establishment of an independent trust ‘not dominated by any one group’. As it stands, this ‘agreement’ does not in any shape or form adhere to the council resolution. If this ‘agreement’ is passed then Lipshutz, Tang, Esakoff, Hyams, Pilling and Magee will have to parry charges of hypocrisy since they all voted in favour of Penhalluriack’s motion on what council’s position should be. The motion still stands. They are therefore obligated to support the motion or be viewed as the lackeys of the MRC.

From Supporters of Caulfield Reserve

OPEN LETTER OF PROTEST

TO ALL POLITICIANS

MEMBERS OF LOCAL, STATE & FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS 

The proposed C60 Amendment for theCaulfield Villageand the Centre of the Caulfield Racecourse redevelopment will change the face of Caulfield forever. As residents of the municipality we protest in the strongest possible terms to:

  • The failure of state, federal and local authorities to  have in place a democratic and transparent process for the development of a holistic plan which involves all stakeholders
  • We decry the current situation where democratically elected councillors are denied the right to represent their constituents as a result of spurious ‘conflict of interest’ claims
  • We denounce the abandonment of the original Phoenix Precinct Plan and the progressing of this MRC proposal in a piecemeal but wilful fashion that deliberately undermines the Public view and wishes
  • We maintain that the MRC proposal fails to adhere to the underlying tenets of the Planning and Environment Act in protecting residents’ amenity
  • We denounce the failure of the current proposals to adequately consider the consequences of high rise and high density residential and commercial development on the immediate surrounding areas and the permanent social, economic and environmental damage this will cause
  • We denounce the secrecy and failure to keep the community informed as to the alleged progress of this development

 If this proposal is accepted the Caulfield and wider Glen Eira community faces the inevitable:

  • Reduction in quality of life and liveability
  • Unacceptable increase in traffic congestion, and destruction of urban amenity.
  • Loss of public open space as agreed to by the Queen Victoria grant and George VI reaffirmation of the grant in 1947
  • Economic downturn of local shopping strips
  • The ceding of Crown Land to private interests
  • Public perceptions that horses have more rights than public citizens 

We Urge All Councillors And All Members Of Parliaments To Immediately Resolve To: 

  1. Ensure the C60 Amendment is abandoned.
  2. Institute a fully representative panel to co-ordinate the development of the  Phoenix Precinct Structure Plan followed by Master Plans, and
  3. Ensure that all stakeholders are represented on this panel: Zagame Corporation,MonashUniversity, VATC (trading as) Melbourne Racing Club, Caulfield Racecourse Trustees, Victorian Government, Federal Government, and those affected by the changes – Ratepayers and/or Residents or their Representative bodies. 

SUPPORTERS OF THE CAULFIELD RESERVE

Informing Glen Eira Community 

http://melbournecommunities.org.au/caulfieldheath.html 

« Previous PageNext Page »