Caulfield Racecourse/C60

Archived Posts from this Category

April 21, 2011

How Do You Like Them Apples?

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

We’ve received a set of correspondence between a resident and councillors in regard to the meeting scheduled for the 28th April. We also include a letter from Cr. Penhalluriack in response to this resident.

This first letter/email was address to Mr. Torres (planning dept) and cc’d to all councillors –

Dear Mr Torres,

Thank you for your undated letter received on the 20th April notifying us of the sitting of the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee meeting on the 28th.

As you will have discerned from the attendance of over 130 people at the recent meeting at the Caulfield Park Community Centre, there is a very large interest in this matter. Although there is no provision to address the councillors at the proposed meeting, it may be expected that a large number of those people who attended the previous meeting will want to attend to observe the actual decision process. Consequently, the decision to schedule it at short notice in a week’s time at this time of year is most unfortunate.

This is the Easter/Passover period, when very many people are away enjoying the Easter break. For this reason alone, the date is inappropriate.

However, it also coincides with a forum (Phoenix Precinct Rising) regarding the very same topic on which councillors are making their decision. This forum includes the mayor of Glen Eira as a participant. This will mean that since the two items are both of crucial interest, and on largely overlapping matters, that even those who are not away will be split in which meeting to attend. Again, the scheduling is inappropriate.

Further, one might have thought that given the nature and focus of this forum, with several well-known and distinguished panellists, that the councillors on the committee would have wanted to maximise their knowledge, prior to making such an important decision. So again, unless they have no interest in gaining more input, the scheduling is inappropriate.

We are sure that you did not intend it, but to many, it will seem that this hasty scheduling is a attempt to avoid public attendance and observation at this most important meeting. It is said that justice not only needs to be done, it also needs to be seen to be done.

We suggest that you reschedule this meeting in order to allow all the above matters to be properly addressed, and so that people can be given adequate notice of the meeting so they can arrange to attend and observe.

Yours sincerely,

Michael and Bridget Cramphorn

Cr. Penhalluriack responded to this missive and cc’d his response to all councillors –

Dear Mr Cramphorn,

I empathize with you.

Councillors themselves have had only one brief meeting to discuss the C60 development. I don’t recall seeing any of the “Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee” members attending the C60 Panel Hearings. If any of them attended it was only briefly.

You have correctly observed that the C60 decision is being rushed. So too is the decision on the proposed public (car)-park and the seven-lot subdivision.

Council posted letters out inviting objectors to a “planning conference” for C60 AND the proposed public (car)-park – until somebody realized they were actually obliged to have a “public consultation” and not a “planning conference”. More letters went out correcting their error. Then the MRC pulled the plug on their “public (car)-park” planning permit application, realizing that they would be better off negotiating with selected Councillors and the CEO behind closed doors than facing an angry public meeting. The CEO promptly declared the negotiations “confidential”, and that was the end of any pretense that we Councillors care about public opinion.

The Council Meeting on the 27th April will now decide what happens with the proposed public (car)-park in the centre of the Reserve. The following night (28th) the Special Committee Meeting (Crs Esakoff, Hyams, Lipshutz and Pilling), will meet to railroad through C60 and the seven-lot sub-division. It is all so rushed that the obligatory advertisement in the Leader announcing that meeting was overlooked, and an advertisement had to be placed in the Age instead.

The team negotiating with the MRC have achieved virtually nothing by way of concessions towards a workable park in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. As already mentioned, the situation is exacerbated because the CEO slapped a gag on public discussion – although from noon today Council’s web-site should contain both agendas.

I can say, however, that only one of the seven important demands passed by Council at its meeting on the 15th March has been achieved. You will recall, at the meeting on the 4th April, how some Councillors were extolling the negotiating skills of the family-law lawyer, Cr Lipshutz – and at the same time denigrating Cr. Forge and me as “too emotional”. (I took that as a compliment. It means that, unlike some of my fellow Councillors, I care.) However it now seems those negotiating skills were phantasmal, and the MRC team was able to get just what it wanted.

You may get a better understanding of why this has been so rushed, and why your request to reschedule the meeting will fall on deaf ears, if you ask which Councillor is taking leave of absence from the 1st May.

Cr Frank Penhalluriack.

COMMENT: Mayor Esakoff will now NOT BE MODERATING NOR ATTENDING the community forum. The ‘excuse’ was that there is a Special Committee meeting at Council. We however note, that Esakoff’s attendance was requested for 9pm to moderate a discussion panel. Since we expect the C60 to be rubber stamped within minutes, she would have had plenty of time to drive the 5 minutes to Monash and make an appearance!! We can only assume that she did not receive ‘permission’ to attend from Newton and Lipshutz?

April 21, 2011

The ‘Sell Out’ is Complete!!!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Council Meeting(s)
[5] Comments

Here are the agenda items of note for next Wednesday night’s council meeting. We will be writing much, much more of these issues!

MRC and Council Agreement for Centre of the Racecourse

Readers should carefully dissect this proposed agreement. It basically ignores the resolution passed by Council less than a month ago! (See Item9.12)

Strategic Resource Plan

Rates up 6.95%
$5.5 million for Duncan MacKinnon in 20011/12 and then another $1.8 in 2012/13
Pavilions – $2m p.a. commencing in 2012-2013.
Elsternwick Child Care Centre – Council has developed a proposal to obtain use of some Crown Land on the east side of Kooyong Road to build a purpose-built child care centre – $250k has been allocated in 2011-2012 for building design and community consultation and $1.35m in 2012-2013 for building works.
Booran Road Reservoir – The SRP allows for the reinstatement and redevelopment of the Booran Road Reservoir Site – $4m in 2017-2018 and $3.5m in 2018-2019. (Hence for another 4 years this valuable open space will remain untouched!)

COMMENTS

No appreciable increase in spending on drains
Pavilions are the major priority of this council it seems – without any cost benefit analyses as to refurbishment/redevelopment as opposed to demolition and new buildings

Tree Protection

Incorporating Tree Protection into the Planning Scheme is considered too ‘cumbersome’. Instead, there is the option to simply introduce a new clause into the Local Law, which will require a permit for about 100-200 trees in the special category of ‘Classified’.

COMMENT: How will this stop ‘moonscaping’?

Council Plan

“Council proposes to retain the existing Council plan” (No further ‘consultation’ since it was done so wonderfully well in 2008!)

Planning Applications

Address	Proposal	Notification	Objections
29 Railway Pde	3 storey/16 dwellings	12 residences notified; 22 notices sent	21 objections
285 Hawthorn Rd	Synagogue/reduction in car parking	7 properties notified; 25 notices sent	14 objections + petition of 47 objections
8 A’Beckett St	2 dwellings	9 properties notified; 23 notices sent	2 objections
14-18 Lillimur Rd.	Amend current permit	35 properties notified; 49 notices sent	2 objections
Halstead, Cromwell & Hawthorn Rd	Subdivision into 19 lots; remove reserve status (current use: private open space)	82 properties notified; 148 notices sent	2 objections

COMMENT: The usual lack of notification continues. Please note that inverse correlation.

April 19, 2011

At Last – The People’s Voice!

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

A petition has been organised which is to go to the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. The objectives of the petition are:

To suspend the decision on the C60 amendment
To ensure that a proper Master Plan is developed for the entire Phoenix Precinct
To ensure that a Committee of ALL STAKEHOLDERS (including community representatives) is created to oversee the Master Plan, and
To ensure that the plan incorporates the social, environmental and economic mandates of the legislation

We have uploaded the petition and ask readers to:

Download a copy, print it off and then ask their neighbours, friends, associates to sign
Ensure that signatories understand what the current proposed C60 amendment (if accepted by Council) will mean to their lifestyle, and well being
Once signed, we ask that all petitions be handed in to the organisers of the April 28^th Community Forum. Full details are available from http://melbournecommunities.org.au/caulfieldheath.html

April 19, 2011

Deliberate or Merely Incompetent?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Consultation/Communication
[16] Comments

We’ve repeatedly highlighted the fact that when it comes to ‘advertising’ of planning applications that are likely to cause a stir, there appears to be a direct inverse correlation between the number of objections and the number of residences notified. Now, we have another example of either deliberate ‘non-advertising’ or just plain old incompetence.

The Special Committee Meeting to decide on the C60 appeared on Council’s website last Friday afternoon (15^th April). The decision to hold the meeting was therefore made at the latest, either the day before, or possibly that morning. So why is there not one single word about this meeting in the Caulfield Leader? All it would have taken is a quick filling out of the standard template, a quick email to the Leader, and the public would have been informed of this major announcement. Now all the public has announcing this meeting is a single one liner link on council’s homepage. Not good enough!! And especially not good enough when one considers that the Local Government Act specifies that ‘advertising’ has to be included in local newspapers with at least 7 days notice!! It may well appear in the Moorabbin Leader tomorrow, but it is the Caulfield Leader which reaches the people most directly impacted by the probable decision.

If next week’s Caulfield Leader is to run the ad, then that would make it the 26^th (a public holiday!) – far less than the legal requirement of 1 week. So our questions are:

Why wasn’t an ad placed in the Caulfield Leader? Deadlines are Monday morning. And given the ‘hard working’ Mr. Burke, even an email over the weekend would surely have sufficed?
What does this say about Council’s commitment to a proper ‘engagement’ policy?
Or is this again a typical example of keeping people unaware and ignorant?

April 18, 2011

The Schemozzle That Is C60

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

A comment by Reprobate, reproduced here as a post:

If Council has all the information it needs to make a decision, then it should make a decision. In that sense its not indecent haste. I seriously doubt though that Council *does* have the information it needs, and I further doubt the Special Committee has mastered the detail.

Regardless of the merits of C60, it is appalling that Council has failed to provide an up-to-date Incorporated Plan for residents to inspect. The members of the Special Committee have a moral obligation to ensure the documents being published under their imprimatur are kept current, especially before the recent meeting that ostensibly was to listen to the community. Those who attended might still not be aware that what is being proposed doesn’t match the published Incorporated Plan (dated 2008). [The Panel commented on this.]

I’ve explained before why this matters, but as a reminder, C60 removes third-party rights except in very narrowly defined circumstances involving the Incorporated Plan. The Explanatory Report, published under the aegis of Council, reveals why. Its to help the developer make more money (thats the reference to “facilitate”).

There is no compelling need to make the area a Priority Development Zone (PDZ), despite the claims of the Explanatory Report. The proposal is primarily for residential development in a Residential Zone (R1Z) and mixed development in a Mixed Use Zone (MUZ). It does however seek to obtain Crown land and change its zone to build MRC’s beloved tower. Additionally it seeks closure of some inconvenient roads. This can all be done without a PDZ.

Loss of third-party rights is something *every* non-developer resident of Glen Eira should be concerned about. Council has already argued, successfully, at VCAT that standards designed to protect residential amenity should be waived when it involves multi-unit development. While most attempts to insist on compliance with the Planning Scheme are doomed, nevertheless third-party appeal rights keeps pressure on Council to have to explain itself. Its a sad fact that Council rarely explains itself until it appears before VCAT.

At both the recent C60 community meeting and planning conference re an MRC 8-lot subdivision, Cr Lipschutz has attempted to intimidate attendees. This is unacceptable. Far from helping people understand the process and listing all the matters that the Responsible Authority *must* and *may* consider, he has provided his own, and I would argue erroneous, interpretation of the Planning and Environment Act. This has extended to mentioning VCAT explicitly in his assessment of planning permit applications in Council. Somebody as aggressive and clumsy when dealing with the public on controversial topics is not an ideal choice for chairing such a Committee.

There is a curious double-standard used by Planners (spelt with a capital P), whereby they cling to anything that supports what they want, and ignore anything that contra-indicates support. So it is that Cr Lipschutz (without apparent consultation with his Committee colleagues) has decided narrowly what matters the committee will consider, regardless of the considerable powers PAEA confers. It was the MRC that thought it appropriate to include photos of a few thousand cars parked in the centre of the Caulfield Racecourse And Public Reserve. In a submission from their partner, Monash University, parking in the centre of the racecourse was explicitly mentioned. Further, both Council and VCAT disagree that a Use of land should meet its own parking needs. That’s why non-compliance with parking requirements as specified in the Planning Scheme are so universally waived for developers. Creating traffic and parking problems is a de facto Council policy in and around Activity Centres.

The Panel probably correctly identified the interface with existing residential areas as the most sensitive interface. The published Incorporated Plan as far as I can tell seeks to build 4 storeys closer to existing single-storey dwellings than the Standards (guidelines if you’re VCAT) specify. If increased traffic isn’t an issue (the Panel doesn’t think it is), and proximity of 4 storeys to existing single-storey dwellings isn’t an issue (Council doesn’t think it is), then its time to scrap the Minimal Change Area policy as being manifestly unfair (fairness is a key Objective of Victoria’s Planning Provisions).

There is something really really odd when so many documents that Council has published re C60 have “Supporting_document” as part of their name. Its almost as if the matter has been prejudged.

I repeat that nobody knows what the development that C60 is designed to facilitate will look like. Not Council, not its officers, not the MRC, not the Panel, not successive State Governments. There is a rough concept, which has met considerable community resistance. The powers that have aligned behind the proposal desperately wish to silence critics up front, secure their funding and valuable crown land, and move on with the development, safe in the knowledge they cannot be scrutinized by people whose amenity they are impacting

April 15, 2011

Indecent Haste Continued….

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

Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee Meeting 28 April 2011

Notice is given pursuant to Section 89(4) of the Local Government Act 1989 that a meeting of the Glen Eira City Council Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee will be held on Thursday 28 April 2011 in the Council Chambers, corner Hawthorn and Glen Eira Roads, Caulfield commencing at 7pm. The business to be transacted at this meeting will be:

	Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) Planning Scheme Amendment C60 to consider either approval (adoption) or abandonment of the amendment; and
	Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) to consider a planning application for a 7 lot subdivision.

Amendment C60 was exhibited on 19 November–21 December 2009, was the subject of six days of hearings by the independent panel in May 2010, the panel’s report was released publicly on 30 July 2010 and the Special Committee considered further submissions at a meeting on 4 April 2011.

April 15, 2011

Newsflash: MRC 8 Lot Subdivision

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

Last night saw the planning consultation meeting for the MRC’s 8 lot subdivision that we’ve highlighted previously. From all reports very few people even knew it was on, much less received official notification from Council. Hence there was a poor turnout. A couple of things should be noted:

It was chaired by Lipshutz, who on several occasions threatened to close the meeting and insisted that discussion not include the C60 (again!)
The Planning Officer did not appear to have a good grasp of the issues when asked specific questions by people
The MRC were given the privilege of responding last (again not the usual state of affairs)

There is much more to this subdivision than meets the eye. Once again we witness the complete orchestration of events by Council and its failure to properly inform residents. The proposed subdivision is integral to public entry to the racecourse via the tunnel and hence the centre of the racecourse issue, which in turn is central to the C60. Separate them all and do things in reverse order, as is being done now, and all the cards fall neatly into the lap of the MRC. Readers should also ask themselves what role our dear council is playing in all this?

April 13, 2011

Where Will The Cars Go?

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

Speculation is rapidly rising that the ‘gang of four’ will pass the C60 in the very near future. They will do this without solving the major problem of where will the cars go? If this in fact eventuates then not only will mayhem follow in terms of traffic congestion, but it will represent the total failure of this council to deal with its legal obligations – namely to ensure the social, environmental and economic liveability of the municipality.

Major questions remain unanswered and unsolved:

What happens on race/event days? Where will these cars go if not in the centre of the racecourse?
Why is the C60 being decided before the Centre of the Racecourse issue? We have not been provided with any feasible ‘excuse’ for this decision.
Why will most of the traffic be diverted through Kambrook Rd? On what ‘best practice’ planning and traffic management principles has this decision been made?

What is even more galling about the impending decision is that these four councillors, after having listened to the articulate, knowledgeable and reasoned arguments of residents, and heard first hand the angst that is out there, are about to once again thumb their noses at the community and their wishes. It’s incredibly ironic that this also happens to be the week that the so called ‘Engagement Strategy’ has been released for comment. Once again, residents have clear evidence as to how this council operates and the direct collusion of Lipshutz, Hyams, Pilling and Esakoff in ensuring that their masters’ wishes are carried out. Whereas other councils fight tooth and nail to ensure the amenity of their municipality, this council does not lift a finger to support residents, much less acknowledge the validity of their claims.

Residents need to ensure that their memories of this upcoming debacle persist well into 2012 when their disgust will be expressed via the ballot box.

April 12, 2011

Letter to the Editor

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

The MRC is bluffing

IT has been rumoured that if Glen Eira Council does not strike a deal with the Melbourne Racing Club over C60 that the MRC will walk away from the situation and sell its land to a developer.

The MRC is probably bluffing anyway, to try to pressure the council. If a professional developer came in, they would be required to build a proper residential precinct with proper observance of residential regulations regarding amenity, parking and traffic – something the MRC has tried repeatedly to flout.

As for relocation of current parking for races and events from the C60 site, whoever develops this area will provide parking only for the actual development , not for the MRC’s activities.

April 11, 2011

Monash Uni Master Plan

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

This message was approved for distribution by the Office of the Campus Manager

for and on behalf of Facilities and Services.

************************************************************************************************

The Caulfield campus masterplan can be accessed at http://masterplan.fsd.monash.edu.au/news

Staff are encouraged to attend the following drop-in session to find out more about the master planning process:

Caulfield campus – Wednesday 13 April from 12 – 2pm in Room H1-16.

If you are unable to attend this session, there are other ways you can continue to be involved:

Email your feedback and ideas to masterplan@fsd.monash.edu.au

For any enquiries regarding master planning please feel free to contact Poul Tvermoes, Manager, Urban Design, from the Facilities and Services Division on poul.tvermoes@monash.edu or 51600.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates