Caulfield Racecourse/C60

Archived Posts from this Category

January 18, 2011

Frank Penhalluriack Letter

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

From today’s Stonnington Leader –

Move over, racing industry

JUST south of Stonnington lies the least used park in metropolitan Melbourne.

The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is 25 times larger than the MCG, yet it has just 20 race meetings a year. The problem lies with the 600 horses stabled and trained there.

They make it virtually impossible for the public to use what is zoned as a ‘‘recreation ground and public park’’. Horses are dangerous; it’s time to shift them to country Victoria, where horses can frolic and be free. Already 80 per cent of horses running in those 20 race meetings are trucked in. Why not truck them all in? Stonnington and Glen Eira are starved of open space. Sorry, racing industry – it’s time to selflessly move over, and give the public a go.

Cr Frank Penhalluriack, City of Glen Eira.

 

January 11, 2011

The Penhalluriack & Forge Submission

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

It seems that Councillors Forge and Penhalluriack have spent the time and energy to draft a submission to the VEAC inquiry on public open space. We applaud their efforts.

The submission is available here.

 

January 11, 2011

VEAC, Racecourse & Council

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

Submissions to the VEAC inquiry into public open space in metropolitan Melbourne have now closed. We look forward to reading the many submissions that individuals and councils have submitted. What should be particularly fascinating is the response from Glen Eira Council. Given that this item only came up at the final council meeting of the year (and the call went out in October), we can only speculate as to the kind of submission that will go in. Of greater interest to residents are the processes that went into any final submissions. Given that the Christmas break has occurred, as well as the holiday period, and the fact that there are no council meetings scheduled until February, we wonder if:

  • Councillors had any say in the writing of the submission?
  • Were they ‘consulted’ in any shape or form?
  • Did they get to see the final version prior to its being submitted?
  • Did they care – or simply abrogated their responsibilities to the administration?

If all of the above questions are answered in the negative, then it once again demonstrates how councillors (either willingly or unwillingly) are excluded from partaking in any truly democratic and representative process. The voices of our councillors will once more have been neatly silenced and side-stepped, even though we assume that the actual submission will have been drafted in their name – ie. Glen Eira City Council!

 

January 6, 2011

The New Broom & C60

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

The State Election has come and gone. Forgive the cliché, but we may be at a ‘new dawn’ not only in the State, but more significantly in Glen Eira. With a Liberal Lower and Upper House the time is ripe for significant change. The Southern Metropolitan Region has indeed seen a remarkable turnaround. Of the 11 parliamentarians, 9 are now Liberal. In the Upper House 3 are Liberal, 1 is Green and 1 solitary member is Labour. What does this augur for Glen Eira? How will these figures impact on the Caulfield Racecourse development and the C60? How will it impact on what has traditionally been seen as a Liberal dominated Council? Will it energise an otherwise compliant and passive lot of councillors to finally listen to their community? What planning changes should the community expect following the pre-election promises of these Southern Reps – especially Southwick? We ask again – will they deliver on such promises? 

Listed below are the names of members, their districts, and their contact details. We urge residents concerned about planning, and other issues, to contact their state representatives and to lobby for what they believe is important for this municipality and its surrounds.

First Name Last Name District/Region Party Position Contact
David Southwick Caulfield Liberal MP 95273866
Ann Barker Oakleigh Labor MP 9568 4625
Michael O’Brien Malvern Liberal Min Energy & Resources + Gaming + Consumer Affairs 9576 1850
Clem Newton-Brown Prahran Liberal MP 99819501
Martin Foley Albert Park Labor MP 9646 7173
Louise Asher Brighton Liberal Min Innovation Services & SB+ Tourism & Major Events 9596 9680
Elizabeth Miller Bentleigh Liberal MP 9557 6661
Murray Thompson Sandringham Liberal MP 9598 2688
Graham Watt Burwood Liberal MP 9809 1857
Ted Baillieu Hawthorn Liberal Premier + Min for the Arts 9882 4088
Andrew McIntosh Kew Liberal Min for Anti-corruption Commission 9853 2999
TOTAL ASSEMBLY Liberal + Labor   9 + 2    
John Lenders Southern Met 1 Labor MP 9529 1733
David Davis Southern Met  2 Liberal Min for Health 9888 6244
Andrea Coote Southern Met  3 Liberal PS Families & Community Services 9681 9555
Sue Penniciuk Southern Met  4 Green MP 9530 8399
Georgie Crozier Southern Met  5 Liberal MP 9555 4101
TOTAL COUNCIL Liberal + Labor + Green   3+1+1    
 

December 29, 2010

C60 & MRC Plans

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60
1 Comment 

MRC plans more meetings at Caulfield

Adrian Dunn.  Herald Sun, December 28, 2010

MELBOURNE Racing Club plans to hold more meetings at Caulfield – its premier racetrack.

 Club chairman Mike Symons said the club wanted to increase the number of meetings at The Heath by at least five a season, and no longer restrict the track to headline meetings. 

He said he would like to see Caulfield host as many as 28-30 meetings a season, seven more than this season.

For the best part of a decade, Caulfield has deliberately held only what it termed “premier meetings”, leaving Sandown to host all the industry “turnover” fixtures.

“I’ve never been a supporter of that (saving Caulfield for premier meetings),” Symons said.

“When you have A-grade facilities and a terrific track then you should utilise them as much as you can. Caulfield’s track performs very well from a wagering perspective and a performance perspective. Our view is, without wishing to compromise the performance of the track, there is scope to conduct further meetings at Caulfield.”

The MRC also plans to restructure its raceday program for its two feature February meetings by running all the Group 1 races at the tail of the meeting.

Channel 9 has thwarted the club’s bid to have the last three races on Blue Diamond Day as Group 1 races by ending its broadcast before 6pm.

But, Symons said three Group 1s – the Blue Diamond, the C.F. Orr Stakes and the Oakleigh Plate – would be races six, seven and eight on the nine-race card in February.

In another effort to secure a long-term income stream, the club last week finalised its purchase of seven hotels outright, as well as entering a separate joint venture with Country Racing Victoria for an eighth.

MRC chief executive Al Robertson said the club’s eight hotels and four club venues contained 738 gaming machines, which he projected had the capacity in the next five years to make “in excess of $15 million free cash”.

Robertson said under gaming legislation scheduled to be passed in August 2012, revenue is to be split 55 per cent/45 per cent between venue owner and the Government. “We see it as an extremely attractive investment,” Robertson said.

Meanwhile, VRC chief executive Dale Monteith will visit China next month to inspect television screen technology to be used when the club replaces its old Members’ Stand.

“The old members’ grandstand was built in 1923 and we’ve managed to keep it going and will so until we replace it in 2015, 2016,” Monteith said.

“With a new facility we believe we can grow our full membership from 23,000 to 30,000 and beyond and help pay for it.”

++++++

What the above report does not highlight is the impact that these plans will have on surrounding areas. With more race days residents can expect:

  • More traffic and congestion
  • More training
  • More drunkenness and loutish behaviour
  • More horse manure!
  • More gambling, more ‘profit’ to the MRC
  • Reduced access for local residents

Once again local residents have been totally ignored by the MRC.

 

December 11, 2010

C60: What Will Councillors Now Do?

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

Today’s Age:

New broom sweeps away planning laws

Jason Dowling

December 11, 2010

PLANNING laws that made building high-density apartments near train and tram lines in Melbourne easier have been dumped.

In one of his first official acts as Victoria’s new Planning Minister, Matthew Guy last night overturned the former Brumby government planning laws facilitating high-density residential developments near all public transport and began an overhaul of the state’s planning system.

It will take about 10 days for Mr Guy’s changes to planning laws on public transport routes to come into effect.

The minister told The Age that instead of sprinkling high-density housing across Melbourne, the Baillieu government would look at massive strategic developments in specific sites close to the central business district, including at Fishermans Bend, the 20-hectare E-Gate site just off Footscray Road, and the area around Richmond station.

In a wide-ranging interview Mr Guy also promised that:

■ His first priority will be to tackle housing affordability with increased land supply and urban renewal.

■ The Growth Areas Authority will be incorporated in the Department of Planning.

■ He will not retrospectively block the Hotel Windsor redevelopment, but believes it should not have exceeded the recommended height controls for the precinct.

■ Has no intention of reviewing the Heritage Act.

■Will work on housing more of Victoria’s booming population in regional centres such as Geelong.

Mr Guy said Victoria’s new Treasurer, Kim Wells, would soon announce the promised stamp duty cuts of 50 per cent for those buying a first home valued up to $600,000.

A new Urban Renewal Authority would be created in the next year to spearhead the massive new inner-city developments, Mr Guy said.

”We believe that Melbourne has huge potential for urban renewal.

”We look at places like Fishermans Bend, like E-Gate, areas such as Richmond station and others, which have been talked about for decades and never acted upon – we see these proposals as real opportunities for urban renewal in Melbourne.

”I believe this will be a hallmark of our generation, to leave to our children a city that believes not just in real homes on the edge of the city, but real opportunity for large-scale urban renewal close to the city, close to public transport and close to jobs, which can be realised, which is not pie in the sky.”

Labor planning spokesman Brian Tee said the Coalition’s housing strategy was too narrow.

”Baillieu promised to fix the problems, but this approach is going to create problems,” he said.

”You need an even spread, greater options rather just Richmond and the growth areas.

”Young couples need choices and we need to regenerate our housing.

”He is going to increase the cost of living, he is going to increase the cost of housing, he is going to drive young people, our best and brightest, interstate. They won’t have options – their only option is going to be growth areas or interstate.

”It is easy to say where people can’t live; Mr Guy has got to say where people can live.”

 

December 10, 2010

C60: Over To You Councillors!

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

The Agenda for Monday night’s Special Council Meeting is up on the website. Officers’ recommendations on the C60 are overwhelmingly in support of the panel’s recommendations. We’ve uploaded the agenda. Please read carefully and comment. Main recommendations are:

That Council:- 

1. Notes that the MRC has agreed to enter into a Section 173 agreement for the provision of infrastructure beyond the Amendment C60 land.

2. Enters into the Section 173 agreement with the MRC for the provision of infrastructure beyond the Amendment C60 land . (Refer Appendix 1). 

 

3. Enters into discussion with the MRC about the management of car parking and public open space use by the community in accordance with undertakings given by the MRC in their letter dated 9 September 2010. (Refer Appendix 2). 

4. Notes the recommendations of the Panel but adopts Amendment C60 in a changed form in accordance with the “Council position” detailed in Appendix 3.

5. Forward the adopted Amendment, as detailed in Appendix 4 , to the Minister for Planning for approval.
 
PS: We’ve now got both the hard copy and the web copy of the agendas for Tuesday night. On the item of Delegations under the Planning and Environment Act, the section on ‘Conditions and Limitatiions” are COVERED OVER. It is impossible to determine under what rules and regulations these delegations are being made. So much for transparency!!! Again, is this deliberate, since the Food Act, Road Act, Domestic Animals Act does not seem to be having the same problem? Councillors, is your copy decipherable, or are you also being hoodwinked? At the very least, this speaks volumes about the professionalism of this administratioin in that such a poor quality copy (and proof reading) should go out into the public domain. To cite Hinch – Shame! Shame! Shame! And of course, the CEO powers do not need to be reconsidered in any shape or form!!!!!!!

 

 

December 5, 2010

Consultation and Planning: #2

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

Reprobate has commented on the Racecourse and Election Candidates – but we feel that his ideas warrant a separate post. His views are also pertinent to the whole issue of ‘consultation and planning’. Readers may remember that the ‘consultation’ process for the Planning Scheme Review consisted of 3 ‘forums’, one negligible ‘discussion paper’ and submissions which never saw daylight. This sequence of events would place Glen Eira Council at Stage 2  –  4 of the ladder reproduced in the previous post. Still a long, long, way off from ’empowering’ residents and paying heed to their concerns.

Reprobate’s comment reads:

We’re getting to the pointy end of planning decisions regarding the Racecourse, and there has been a substantial shift away from Labor. I was one of them (not that I was ever a fan of Labor’s version of democracy). Our ex-Minister against Planning has gifted the MRC a significant parcel of Crown Land, yet ensured that most of the land within the Caulfield Racecourse and Park Reserve remains under the control of the MRC. The MRC desperately needs its much-sought planning permission to build a massive carpark in the centre of the racecourse reserve since it plans to develop the Member Carparks 1 and 2. As their justification for C60 states, they need to find ways to make more money because interest in racing is dwindling. So much for being a non-profit organisation.

A key question is just how much of public assets should be devoted to helping that clique make money. They have been poor custodians of the crown land in the centre of the reserve for 140 years, and little wonder as we increase density that people are keen to break their monopoly. I have absolutely zero confidence in my Council to plan for the area, since over the 4 years I have taken an interest in planning matters:

* Approved dozens of 3-storey developments that fail to comply with the standards contained in Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
* Approved 4+ storey developments next/adjacent/opposite to single-storey developments (not GEPS policy).
* Ignored traffic congestion as an issue, going so far as to lecture objectors because the problem will go away in 20 years.
* Decided that open space is not necessary to support high density living.
* Accepted that developer profit is sufficient reason to waive non-compliance with GEPS.
* Made cars a higher priority than pedestrian safety in Carnegie Major Activity Centre.
* Allowed a major development to build without a Planning Permit for 8 months (9 Morton Avenue).
* Failed to ensure the so-called Spotlight Centre (Carnegie Fringe) complies with its Planning Permit.
* Contradicted Parliament’s Road Safety Committee’s report that strongly recommended strengthening standards for off-street parking, by arguing for no standards with respect to gradients and sightlines.
* Published a review of the Planning Scheme in which *no* changes to the scheme were recommended, and failed to identify a single problem with the current Scheme, while unilaterally deciding that no multi-unit development should or need comply.
* Failed to publish any statistics to show whether all the development activity they have supported have contributed to their stated goals (e.g. housing diversity, employment, ageing population, reduction in greenhouse gases).
* Supported 100% site coverage and no landscaping, to help developers make more money.
* Allowed a developer to build something that failed to comply with their Planning Permit, then support the developer at VCAT in getting a retrospective amendment to make it legal.
* Usurped limited playground space at Carnegie Primary School for a kindergarten to replace the land they wanted redeveloped at the former Uniting Church.
* Allowed the Developer Contributions Overlay to lapse, so that developers don’t have to contribute to the costs of infrastructure to support their developments. Ratepayers are expected to subsidise not only the Developers’ planning applications, we’re expected to subsidize all infrastructure, and accept a loss of amenity from congestion, safety, loss of diversity.
* Restricted the provision of valuable services close to where people live, preferring that they drive to one of the 3 “major activity centres”, but then creating the economic conditions that make those centres far from active. Its one of the few arguments in favour of C60, or otherwise people will in the future need to do their shopping in another Municipality (e.g. Stonnington).

Essentially GEPS is a fraud. It has been used both by Council and VCAT to support development, regardless of the clauses designed to protect residential amenity. This situation exists mostly because people allow it, choosing not to get involved until they are the target. I don’t like that attitude. We should be insisting on fair and ethical treatment of all residents, on the basis of how we would wish to be treated ourselves.

 

November 30, 2010

C60: Another ‘Swifty’ by Council?

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

Today’s Glen Eira Council advertisement in the Caulfield Leader. We quote:

Notice is given pursuant to Section 89(4) of the Local Government Act, 1989 that a meeting of Glen Eira City Council’s Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee will be held on Monday 13th December 2010 in the Council Chamber, corner of 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 works in the centre of the reserve (the construction of a car parking area, amenities, playground equipment, and sport/fitness equipment).

We have major concerns with this announcement which we believe amounts to an attempt by this administration to ram through an unpopular option as quickly and quietly as possible. We demand answers to the following:

  1. Up until now the centre of the racecourse has been treated by Council as a ‘normal’ planning application. Suddenly it has become the domain of a Special Committee with delegated powers. Why is this application removed from an open council meeting?
  2. Were ALL councillors consulted/informed that this was to happen?
  3. The size of the advertisement is a further indictment on this Council and its genuine attempt to engage and inform the community. When half page ads can be taken out to promote ‘concerts’, then surely a half page ad –  at least –  can be taken out to inform residents of the most significant planning issue that has confronted the municipality!! We conclude that the intention remains – the less people know, the better!!

 

 

November 29, 2010

C60 Special Council Meeting

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

Council’s letter announcing the Special Meeting of the Racecourse Precinct Committee contained the following information:

  • Purpose was to consider the rezoning amendment
  • To ‘facilitate retail and residential development’
  • Agendas would be available at libraries, website, on the Friday preceding the Monday 13th meeting

One sentence in particular stood out: ‘You will not have the opportunity to address the council meeting’. The letter was signed by Susan Ross, Strategic Planner.

The results of Saturday’s election however, have cast an entirely different complexion on the issue. We cite a recently received comment from ‘Curious’ – “What an incredible result we got in Victoria. And the unnecessary spend and/or waste and/or lack of services clearly were the key factors in delivering the Government to Ted Bailliue Liberals. But the most surprising outcome is the result in Bentleigh, where Rob Hudson was rolled. I reckon that the unnecessary and therefore quite wasteful spend on GESAC, which attracted lots of money from Labour Governments has became a negative for Rob Hudson.

I think there is a lesson in that for the Glen Eira Council. Do not ignore community views! They were clearly not acceptable by many! The full impact of this huge GESAC project is yet to be revealed. And we are still to see how the issue of Caulfield Racecourse Recreation Public Ground and Public Park issue is going to be resolved by the Ted Baillieu Government? CONGRATULATIONS TO DAVID SOUTHWICK, ELIZABETH MILLER AND TED BAILLIEU FOR A STUNNING SUCCESS.”

What we now have is an entirely new ball game. Madden is gone, Southwick has declared his support for appropriate development of the Racecourse and surrounding precincts and Miller will follow suit. Even Huppert in her response to our questions laid the blame at Council’s doorstep! Now is the time for concerted opposition to Council’s inertia, and neglect of community opinion. Their latest effort in denying residents the opportunity to address the December 13th meeting must be challenged. Councillors must be made acutely aware that ‘a new age’ has dawned and their days of rubber stamping of administrative proposals is a thing of the past. We urge all residents to:

  • Email the mayor demanding your right to address Council
  • When your request is denied, inundate the wider media, parliamentarians, neighbours and friends with your disgust
  • Highlight again and again how the community is being effectively muzzled by the ‘gang of four’ and how undemocratic and anti-community this is
  • Demand the suspension of this meeting

Any other suggestions, thoughts, comments by readers are most welcome.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »