Glen Eira Debates

Response to questions regarding Caulfield Racecourse

1.      Immediate public access to the middle of the racecourse

Members of the public currently have access to the middle of the racecourse everyday between 9.30am and sunset, other than on race days and when there are major events. The hours of access are readily available on signs located at various points around the racecourse perimeter.

2.         Development as a public recreation ground and public park

Following discussions which I convened between Glen Eira City Council and the Melbourne Racing Club, agreement has been reached regarding development of new recreational facilities within the centre of the racecourse, as well as improved access and extended hours of access.

Plans for the works have been submitted to Council for a permit, and I look forward to the works being completed in early 2011.

3.      Appropriate development of Caulfield Village

The Melbourne Racing Club is seeking the rezoning of land between the Racecourse and the Railway Line. This is a matter for Glen Eira City Council, and not the State Government. The Liberal candidate for Caulfield appears not to understand the planning laws, which provide that rezoning decisions are determined by local government.

4.      Development as a major transport hub

Metro are investing in a new café at Caulfield station as part of their plan to turn stations into community hubs. Caulfield is very well served by public transport with the station located on the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines and a number of trams and local bus routes.

5.      Involvement of local and wider community together with stakeholders at each step of development

In relation to the proposed development known as Caulfield Village, members of the public have had the opportunity to have input into the planning scheme amendment process. In relation to use of the racecourse, Melbourne Racing Club recently held a public meeting regarding the plans for the new recreational facilities in the centre of the Racecourse. I .encourage both Council and the MRC to continue to keep residents and stakeholders involved in the planning for the precinct in the future.

We received the following comment from a reader and wish to highlight it in a separate post. It reads:

“Received notification of a caulfield racecourse precinct special committee meeting on Monday 13th December 2010 at 7pm at the town hall. It states you will not be allowed to address the meeting or ask questions. Obviously the decision has been made by the gang of four. Heaven help us all.”

As per usual, nothing is up on Council website, so we would appreciate it if readers could please send us a copy  – gedebates@gmail.com

As a result of the almost deafening silence on the Caulfield Racecourse issue from candidates in Saturday’s election, we’ve compiled the following table listing their details. Contact them, ask your questions, and get some answers!

There is a deafening silence from the vast majority of State Candidates about the Caulfield Racecourse and the entire Caulfield Village development. Only two candidates have expressed views:

1. Peter Brohier – Independent Candidate for Caulfield District campaigns for extensive infrastructure development to become the junction between East and West of Australia and to link Hastings Ports to Tasmania. He sees the Racecourse as a Public Asset to be used properly by the Public for the Public use;
2. David Southwick – Liberal Candidate for Caulfield District (replaces Shardey) campaigns against an inappropriate development in Caulfield and in particular around the proposed MRC Caulfield Village. He wants to work with the community and the Glen Eira Council to resolve the issue of Public use of the Racecourse. 

No other Candidates are campaigning on the issue of the Racecourse and the development of the greatest asset that Victoria has got according to Peter Brohier. The value of the area, which was also examined in the Sir Rod Eddington’s Report, is between $10 billion to $20 billion at present. The proposed developments plus the likely future developments may either double the value or if it is NOT done properly it may destroy the area and ALL other areas around the proposed Caulfield Village.

 On the grapevine we hear that both major parties are divided about the proper use and future development of this area. Baillieu is totally against the development and Brumby has not said a word. 

There will be 17 MPs in the Parliament, whose votes are important for the Caulfield Racecourse Public Recreation Ground and Public Park with its surrounding areas. The Public deserves an answer from ALL candidates on this big issue that will affect the whole of Victoria and Australia as this transport hub should be developed into a major link between East and West.

We ask each candidate to state their position on the following:

1. immediate public access to the middle of the racecourse
2. development as a public recreation ground and public park
3. appropriate development of Caulfield Village
4. development as a major transport hub
5. involvement of local and wider community together with stakeholders at each step of development

Caulfield is currently inundated with election posters, pamphlets, notice boards. All are full of promises about the Caulfield Racecourse. David Southwick appears to be winning the stakes (excuse pun!) in this area. Ms Abramson’s publicity machine is running a very long second we suggest. She definitely needs to pull the whip out and begin to concentrate on the local community.

We thought that those readers who may not have seen the latest Southwick effort might be interested in this poster that went up under his name and concerns the Caulfield Racecourse. We quote:

Fight inappropriate development at Caulfield Racecourse 

The proposed Caulfield Racecourse development will mean:

• High density towering commercial buildings
• Traffic congestion
• Local lost amenities
• The threat of antisocial behaviour 

The Brumby Labour government has done nothing to protect Caulfield residents from the proposed massive racecourse development which would see

• Twelve hundred residential units (including high rise towers)
• 20,000 square metres of office space
• 15,000 square metres of retail space

 I want to work with you and the local community to ensure a better deal.

 David Southwick

 Liberal for Caulfield.

Below is a chronological account of the Planning Meeting for the centre of the Caulfield Racetrack.

• No signage at town hall alerting residents where to go. Doors were locked. Eventually informed by Crs. Forge and Penhalluriack (once they themselves found out) that the meeting was to occur upstairs in one of the rooms
• Present 11 residents; Crs. Penhalluriack and Forge (as observers); Magee chaired the meeting and Town Planner was to take notes and ‘explain’ the application. An projector displayed the plans on a wall.
• Not everyone received a copy of the plans since not enough were made available
• NO REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MRC WAS PRESENT
• Magee’s role as chair was questioned since he is a member of the MRC trustees and therefore whether this constituted a ‘conflict of interest’. Magee claimed it didn’t since this meeting was not a ‘decision making’ meeting.
• Several residents began by criticising council and its failure to adequately inform the community of this meeting, as well as failing to provide sufficient copies of plans. Town Planner responded that 432 letters had been sent out; notices placed around the racecourse and advertising in Local Papers. She emphasised that council was adhering to the law since their obligation was only to notify ‘abutting’ residents. Several present complained that they ‘abutted’ the racecourse and had not received notification via council. The point was made that council always acted upon the LETTER of the law rather than the SPIRIT of the law and that this was not good enough. Town Planner retorted that she had received only one objection earlier and one handed in today. A resident present stated that he had submitted an objection and asked Magee whether he had read it. The response was ‘no’.
• Complaints were also made about the indecipherability of the plans; that the meeting should have tabled the application in its entirety. Several residents claimed to have inspected the file, but that in each instance the documents differed.
• Magee explained that the purpose was to act upon the application – not its purpose and use. Town planner affirmed that even though a car park was drawn in the plans, council’s role was only to grant permission for the ‘shovel’ to go into the ground – not how this land was to be used. Argument degenerated into confusion, and semantics.
• One resident walked out half way through meeting
• Major criticisms of the plan included: building a car park on open space and the community’s land; the fact that council officers had ‘negotiated’ with the MRC and hence ‘conflict of interest’ questions arose again
• Magee insisted that the land belonged to the Commonwealth when numerous residents informed him that it belonged to the State as per Queen Victoria’s caveat.
• Magee also informed the meeting that the Town Planning officers would go away and write up their report and it would be available in the agenda items and council would then consider the recommendations. When asked if the public could address council, Magee’s response was ‘No’. One resident pointed out that residents do have the right to address councillors at council meetings upon the discretion of the Mayor! Cr. Forge said that she would be bringing this up with her fellow councillors.
• Other concerns were the ‘legality’ of the application – Magee and Town Planner did not know. Safety issues – ie the pedestrian tunnel to access the centre where people had to walk through dust and dung, as well as car traffic. 

The predominant mood of the meeting was anger, and dismay at the failure of council to be proactive in its advocacy for residents. Most present felt that the entire meeting was farcical and a fait accompli!!!!

If you were present and would like to add your comments on anything left out in the above, please do so.

A quietly arranged Notice by Glen Eira Council and MRC circulated only to adjacent properties of the Racecourse, invites people to a Planning Conference to discuss the plan to open up the middle of the Racecourse to the public.

When: Monday 15 November

Where:  Glen Eira Town Hall cnr Glen Eira & Hawthorn Roads

Time: 6.30 pm

Questions to ask are:

• How big is the proposed Public Access area in comparison to the Racecourse grounds?
• What facilities are being proposed for this area?
• What access facilities are being proposed?
• What access facilities are arranged for the disabled?
• What times the Public Access area will be available for public access?
• What does the MRC propose to do about horse training facilities at the Racecourse?
• How does horse training affect public access to the Public Area?
• How does horse stables and its environmental problems affect contact with general public as proposed?
• What precautions have been made in regards to health and safety issues if training is to be retained?
• How long is the training of horses to be retained at the Caulfield Racecourse?
• Are there plans to increase the Public Access area on the Crown Land after horse training is removed?

Readers, these questions are also relevant to be asked of ALL candidates at the current State election.

The Caulfield Racecourse is a asset worth over $2 billion dollars  that is of State wide and National significance, and of international fame. It was earmarked by the Crown Grant of 1858 by Queen Victoria, and confirmed by King George VI in 1949.  The Grant is very specific as to its three uses “for a Race Course Public Recreation Ground and Public Park at Caulfield in the Parish of Prahran”.

This arrived today via email –

Yours faithfully

Mary 0428 128 594