Caulfield Racecourse/C60


C60 is one element (albeit a big one) of Council’s desire for
development in “strategic” parts of the municipality. For reasons
that have not been made public, some Council Officers have been
pushing very hard for Glen Eira to be seen to be leading all other
municipalities in encouraging development, provided its in the areas
they nominate.

The expiry of Development Contributions Overlays has meant that in
Glen Eira no contributions are sought from developers to contribute
to the cost of infrastructure (and public subsidy) needed to
underwrite their profits. The scale of the shortfall is staggering,
based on academic research, but is the natural consequence of
encouraging development at a rate faster than there is the
political will to fund infrastructure. The costs for processing
Applications for Planning Permits for large developments far
exceed the fees paid by applicant. The community is subsidizing
them in multiple ways. They really should be nicer to us on this
ground alone.

Planning law (the Planning And Environment Act for example) is
pathetically weak. Putatively Council should abide by it (insist
developments have a Planning Permit where one is required for
example), but Council is not legally obliged to do as its Planning
Scheme says. Anything that might restrict development can be
categorized as a “guideline” and is not binding.

In my opinion there should be a periodic audit of the Planning
Scheme by somebody independent of Council. The recent publication
of Council’s own Review of the local components of the Planning
Scheme show why when its examined critically.

I don’t believe Council has the skills to manage large-scale
development, and under the circumstances, yes, it is extremely
likely there will be problems for which no solutions are offered,
due to the need for the developer to maximize their profit. As
one developer said to me, “Its all about money”.

That pursuit of money is why we see so few 3-bedroom apartments,
why most of the units constructed are rented to young people without
families, why once-vibrant shopping centres are losing their range
of services (with food outlets almost universally replacing other
activities), why open space is considered not necessary in Urban
Villages, why statistics around demographics and transport patterns
are not sought or required during the planning process, why any
standards that might restrict development are so casually waived.

But God help you should you try to subdive your block to build a
second house at the back in a Minimal Change Area. Expect the full
wrath of Council.

We have at least 2 more years of the current regime. While we have
no direct say in development in *our* municipality, we can at least
maintain some political pressure on the nefarious parties involved.
Council has lots of policies, including unofficial policies about
which policies they have no intention of complying with. I hesitate
to say the community deserves better, because significant chunks of
the community have remained silent, perhaps grateful that Council
intends to protect their amenity at the expense of somebody else.

I got involved in Town Planning matters in Glen Eira because I saw
things happening to other people that I wouldn’t want happen to me.
Council’s enthusiasm for development has resulted in Council losing
an ethical dimension to their decision-making, and a similar
malaise has affected VCAT’s Planning and Environment List and the
Minister against Planning’s Department. “Power tends to corrupt
and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Its time to curb their
power.

The following comment was received from one of our readers. We believe it deserves to be put up as a separate post. To read the other comments on the Racecourse/East Caulfield Village, follow this link – https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/rage-at-racecourse/#comments

PLEASE NOTE: If you would like to see your comments as a post, then please let us know. Glen Eira Debates welcomes the opportunity to publicise residents’ views and seeks to engender genuine debate on important issues.

The Planning Panel Report on Amendment C60 dealing with rezoning issue for Caulfield Village will be voted on shortly by the Glen Eira Council. There is yet to be the Officer’s Report on the Planning Panel Recommendations. However, it is a forgone conclusion that Officers will recommend to accept it They will argue that Council has no choice but to follow State Government’s legislative planning arrangements and Planning Panel suggestions. Also, they cannot reject an Amendment approved by the Council.

Caulfield Village development is the biggest issue in Glen Eira, much bigger and much more important than GESAC ever was. There are so many reasons for it, not least of which is the associated Caulfield Racecourse issue. All of the troubling issues are a result of the lack of Public and Public Realm considerations. The critical problems are:
• Unwanted high rise development;
• Traffic congestion;
• Insufficient parking;
• Unnecessary training on Crown Land;
• Public barrier fence and inaccessibility to Public use of Public Crown Land;
• Increased use of betting and pokies facilities on Crown Land;

And the resultant effects include:
• Likely increase of unwanted and unruly social behaviour;
• Likely increased environmental degradation of the Racecourse Crown Land and due to Caulfield Village high rise development;
• Likely non-equitable and low economic return on the greedy grab of monies made by MRC and VATC of its immoral and exclusive use of Crown Land since at least 1948

The outcry and action by disaffected and angry residents is yet to be fully expressed as the issue unfolds further. Whether Caulfield Village and Racecourse will become a political hot, hot potato is still uncertain, because it will depend on if, and how, those issues will be dealt with in the first instance by the Council. But if this issue is not resolved before the State election of November all politicians, local, state or federal will eventually be drawn into the quagmire of anger, first at the Council decision on Amendment C60, Planning Scheme changes, Municipal Strategic Statement modifications and various Ministerial responses to upcoming Council decisions.

The Victorian State election may then be fought on that issue with a number of MPs being challenged on those unresolved Public issues. It is not clear at this stage which Party and which candidates in the State election will pick-up this issue and run with it. It is certain though that the fight for the seat of Caulfield will become embroiled in that issue. So who is there at this stage? Helen Shardey is retiring and David Southwick is the Liberal Party candidate for Caulfield. We will not know until all other candidates are known who else will enter the fray for the seat of Caulfield.

Then there is the Upper House Southern Metropolitan Region, which covers Caulfield with five MPs vying for re-election. They are: ALP John Lenders Treasurer and Jennifer Huppert, LP David Davis and Andrea Coote, and Green Sue Penniciuk. Jennifer Huppert is a resident of Caulfield and has her office there. She became an MP as a result of Evan Thornley’s resignation from Parliament. Thornley’s election to Parliament was marginal and based on preferences. Hence Jennifer Huppert ‘re-election ‘in her own right is rather tenuous. She may not be elected if there is a backlash against the Victorian Government’s unwanted decisions regarding Caulfield Village and Racecourse.

Fundamentally it depends on how well the residents organise themselves to oppose Melbourne Racing Club developments of the Caulfield Village and Caulfield Racecourse. Large group political action may result in the State Government to react to mollify residents’ grievances. However, if it is just a bunch of rowdy individuals their concerns will be ignored by all politicians at local, state or federal levels.

Finally, this development is only the first step! Given council’s pro-development stance, and its refusal to address crucial issues through its planning schemes, then Glen Eira can expect the onslaught of inappropriate development to continue throughout the municipality. This isn’t only about people living close to Monash and the Racecourse – it will embroil all residents, regardless of whichever suburb they currently reside in. The community needs to voice and demonstrate its opposition to developments they do not want in an organized and coherent way on all fronts – local, state, and federal.

Front page of today’s Caulfield Leader by Jenny Ling:

Call to reject Caulfield East plan

OUTRAGED residents are urging the council and State Government to reject a 147-page report recommending the Melbourne Racing Club’s Caulfield Village plan should go ahead.  

The report comes after six days of public hearings before an independent panel in May about the multi-million dollar high-rise development in Caulfield East.  

The plan calls for up to 1200 units and 35,000sq m of commercial, offices and shops around Caulfield Racecourse. Three buildings would be up to 15 storeys. The report found:  

TRAFFIC congestion in the area is not dissimilar to many in metropolitan Melbourne  

THE MRC can sufficiently accommodate demand for parking  

THE MRC and the council need to ensure infrastructure associated with the development is provided for; and  

THE council pursue improved on and off-street parking with the MRC for events at the racecourse.  

The report says: ‘‘The panel is satisfied that considerable strategic work has been undertaken for this site . . . the subject land should be redeveloped’’. But resident Peter Brohier said it was ‘‘a gross missed opportunity’’. ‘‘I would urge the council and State Government not to follow the panel’s recommendations,’’ Mr Brohier said. ‘‘It will not maximise the area’s economic potential for all stakeholders.’’  

Resident Lee Perring said she was disappointed with the report.  ‘‘Living in the area and seeing the parking . . . it’s going to cause unmitigated hell,’’ she said.  

Mayor Steven Tang said he was pleased the panel had noted key concerns with parking and traffic.  

Council officers will now prepare another report recommending it be adopted with or without changes – or be abandoned completely.  

AND HERE’S WHAT THEY ALL SAID:

BRIAN DISCOMBE, MRC -“Caulfield Village will provide long term sustainability for the club and provide a wide range of options for living , employment, shopping and relaxation. It will bring significant investment into Caulfield.”

STEVEN TANG, MAYOR – “The development could contribute positively to the Glen Eira community but still presents a number of challenges. Car parking, traffic and open space provision represent significant hurdles for the development.”

DUNCAN ELLIOTT, VIC ROADS – “The development has the potential to allow the community to better access public transport services which support activity within the precinct and become a convenient source of parking for communters and university students.”

PETER BROHIER, RESIDENT – “It’s time the council and State Government accepted that panel findings within guidelines may not best serve the public interest. In this case they will not maximise the area’s economic potential for all stakeholders.”

AND A LETTER TO THE EDITOR –

Tail Wagging the Dog
 
Glen Eira Council’s recent Rosstown Ward meeting about level crossings was diabolical. The Department of Transport representative confirmed there was no money and no substantive plan for grade separations for the Carnegie/Murumeena/Glen Huntly areas.
Mayor Steven Tang tacitly acknowledged that council policies (aided by VCAT) were responsible for the mess, but had no money to fix the situation. In response to critical comments he reaffirmed the council’s intention to promote development without the infrastructure to support dense living.
And senior council officers believe Carnegie should be more like New York. You have been warned.
Richard Smith

 

The Caulfield (Village) Racecourse Panel Report is a lengthy document of 147 pages. It makes for incredible reading. The undoubted highlights are:

  • Removal of much third party (and hence resident) objection rights
  • High density development of at least 8 storeys
  • Traffic congestion
  • Loss of public open space
  • Impact on retailing and businesses throughout neighbouring commercial centres
  • The abject failure of Council to adequately prepare and present on behalf of residents

Rather than include an extremely lengthy post here, we have uploaded a copy of selected quotes from the Report. The quotes are organised under specific categories such as ‘purpose’, ‘density’, ‘open space’, etc., so readers may go directly to the issues that interest them.

We have also BOLDED many sections that we believe are vital in grasping the overall impact that this report is likely to have on the community. We have already commented on the fact that the MRC and Monash were represented by Senior Cousels, and consultant ‘experts’ in stark contrast to council’s meagre performance. This failure to present a plausible case is also bolded where appropriate.

Finally, the document will be permanently available by clicking the link on the left hand side of the webpage, under the title ‘C60 Planning Report’ or the following: https://gleneira.blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/c60-panel-report-revised-1.doc

 We urge all readers to go through this carefully and to express their views.

From Sunday’s Age newspaper:

Anger as racing club plan gets nod 

Mark Russell

August 15, 2010

A CONTROVERSIAL $750 million residential, retail and business village proposed for land next to Caulfield Racecourse is a step closer after a government-appointed panel of independent planning experts ruled in its favour, despite fears it would create traffic chaos.

The three-member panel backed Melbourne Racing Club’s plans to redevelop land north of the racecourse, sparking claims they ignored residents’ concerns about congestion, loss of parking space on race days and the height of buildings, three of which would be up to 15 storeys.

The proposal includes up to 1200 units to house 2000 people, 20,000 square metres of office space and 15,000 square metres of retail space. Under the plans, about 1400 off-street car spaces used by racegoers would be lost.

But the club says the high-density residential development between Station Street and Normanby Road near the railway station fits neatly with the state government’s planning blueprint, Melbourne 2030. It claims the village will generate 3500 jobs during the seven-to-eight year construction period.

But residents fear it will create traffic chaos and further squeeze public transport services, given the government’s decision to fast-track the $350 million Monash University campus expansion on the other side of the rail line.

Malvern East Group’s Mathew Knight said residents were worried racegoers would park in nearby streets if the Caulfield development went ahead. But the panel was satisfied the racing club would be able to accommodate demand for parking.

The centre of the racecourse will continue to be used for parking on race days and for events.

Mr Knight said most residents felt the panel, which held six days of public hearings, had ignored their concerns, including their opposition to the MRC plan to use Crown land. The club has offered to swap three lots of freehold land totalling 7229 square metres for 5865 square metres of Crown land (the Tabaret car park). Part of the swap includes the creation of a park on Booran Road.

Glen Eira Council spokesman Paul Burke said if any swap went ahead, a more appropriate area of land should be made available for public use. He said a report was being prepared for the council, whose decision would then go to Planning Minister Justin Madden.

Prior to a full analysis of the Panel Report, we felt that it was important that the community be made fully aware of Council’s performance in this matter.

Panel reports for different municipalities have extolled the level and depth of collaboration between objectors and councils. For example, in April, 2010, the Panel reporting for a Banyule City Amendment stated:

“most objecting submitters explicitly commented on the constructive and helpful approach adopted by Council in this matter” (Page 1).

This definitely was not the case in Glen Eira. Submitters/objectors were given short shrift by both the Panel and the City of Glen Eira.

As to the actual Panel hearing, residents should also take careful note of the following:

1. Council was represented by Terry Montebello, Solicitor

“Expert” witnesses called for council:  

Kent Dodgshun, Urban Designer, GE Council

Terry Hardingham, Traffic Engineer of O’Brien Traffic.

2.Melbourne Racing Club represented by Stuart Morris, SC; with Mr Adrian Finanzio, Barrister

Witnesses called by the MRC: –

Steve Hunt, Traffic Engineer of Cardno Grogan Richard;

Andrew Biacsi, Town Planner, of Contour Consultants;

Mark Sheppard, Urban Designer, of David Lock Associates;

Justin Ganley, Retail Analyst, of Deep End Services;

Reg Jebb, Retail Consultant

3.    Monash University represented by Michelle Quigley, SC with Ms Marita Foley, Barrister

Witnesses called by Monash University

Mr Lloyd Elliot, Town Planner of Urbis

Mr Russell Fairlie, Traffic Engineer of Ratio Consultants.

Apart from legislation, and (outdated) policy documents, the other ‘evidence’ most relied upon was:

Market Assessment for the Caulfield Mixed Use Area – MRC

Village Retail Impact Assessment (April 2010) – MRC

Open Space Strategy (1998) – Council

In short, Council retained a solicitor, whilst the MRC and Monash invested in SC’s, barristers, indepth consultants’ reports, and a barrage of ‘expert witnesses’. The community is free to draw its own conclusion as to how well council prepared, presented, and represented their constituents. They are also free to speculate as to the reasons why this occurred, and what hidden agendas are at play.

Our next posts will explore the Report in full detail.

Melbourne 2030 has become the convenient scapegoat for the ongoing failure of Glen Eira Council to adequately plan for the future. Everything is laid at the feet of the Brumby government, thus absolving councillors and senior executives of any role in the current fiasco that represents Glen Eira planning. The recent Caulfield Village Panel Report makes this clear in spades – but more of that in the following days.

What is important right now is to ask the basic question: does Glen Eira actually need the Caulfield Village to fulfil the Melbourne 2030 vision and its other legal obligations? Or have we already far exceeded all population prognostications? The table below gives a clear indication that Glen Eira and, in particular the surrounds of the Racecourse, have well and truly exceeded target population figures. Yet, with council’s tacit consent, the region is still ‘developing’!

The major problem with the report and the Amendment C60 which triggered the report, is that:

• Neither the panel, nor the Council, considered the impact(s) on surrounding Glen Eira suburbs
• Neither the panel, nor the Council, considered the implications for traffic in the wider region
• Glen Eira has failed to carry out a Structure Plan for the whole Phoenix Precinct (includes Monash Caulfield Campus part and Caulfield Racecourse) with an integrated plan and an integrated transport plan as required by Melbourne 2030 guidelines, and the recently adopted Integrated Transport Act.
• ‘Evidence’ in the form of ‘expert’ testimony, for the most part was commissioned by the MRC, which cleverly restricted everything to Caulfield Village area (not all of the Major Activity Centre area). Council relied on policies, masterplan and ‘research’ a decade old.

But the major sticking point remains the argument that Glen Eira has to endorse such projects in order to cater for its yet to be realised population explosion. Nothing could be further from the truth. The following table has been constructed using ABS population statistics. They reveal a totally different picture and call into question not only the failure to present to the public such statistics, but reveal how we have all been hoodwinked by a Council that either does not do its homework well enough, or is at the beck and call of developers.

In particular, readers should note from the table below:

• The staggering proposed increase in Caulfield East population
• The fact that we have well exceeded expectations
• The already huge impact on surrounding Glen Eira suburbs.

  Glen Eira Vision 2020(1991 census) Glen Eira Actual Caulfield Eastactual 6 Glen Eira suburbs around Caulfield East 2 Stonnington suburbs around Caulfield East
Population 1996 117,037 112,737 1,206 58,696 27,890
Population 2006 117,060 122,069 1,174 63,679 29,138
Population Current 2009   136,354 1,242 66,905 30,395
Population 2016 Projected 117,479 160,671 3,642 77,659 30,528
% Change 1996 to 2016 0.38 % 42.5 % 302 % 32.3 % 9.46 %

From council’s website (including link to full report).

Amendment C60 – Melbourne Racing Club Re-development Panel Report released Printer Friendly
Council has received the Panel Report on Amendment C60 which seeks to rezone the land that is generally bounded by Station Street, Kambrook Road, Bond Street, Heywood Street and Normanby Road, Caulfield.

The amendment proposes to:

Rezone the land from a part Residential 1 Zone and part Mixed Use Zone to a Priority Development Zone – Schedule 2 (PDZ2).
Introduce Schedule 2 to the Priority Development Zone – Caulfield Mixed Use Area, into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
Apply the Road Closure Overlay (RXO) to close part of Smith Street, Bond Street, a laneway west of Bond Street and a laneway south of Heywood Street.
Amend Clause 22.06 Phoenix Precinct Policy to reflect the development vision of the Incorporated Plan.
Amend the Schedule to Clause 81.01 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme to include the Caulfield Mixed Use Area Incorporated Plan, July 2008 as an Incorporated Document.

An officer report will be prepared for a decision in due course. This report will discuss the Panel’s conclusions and recommendations. The officer report may make one of the following recommendations to Council:

That the amendment be adopted by Council with changes proposed in the Panel Report.
That the amendment be adopted by Council with changes that differ to the Panel’s recommendations.
That the amendment be adopted by Council with no changes.
That the amendment be abandoned by Council.

Dear Friend/s of Caulfield Racecourse Recreation Reserve,

 As you may be aware we have had two enduring legal battles and have come up against very competent opposition in each case. At the first VCAT Appeal our representatives were declared vexatious for all their hard work unfortunately. However, we must take pride in our joint efforts at the Panel  Hearing at the C60 which was held incredibly  in the Caulfield Park Pavilion and the Melbourne Racing Club Committee  Room. 

 ALTHOUGH, AS A GROUP OF RESIDENTS I BELIEVE WE PRESENTED OUR CASE  VERY WELL AND PROFESSIONALLY IN MANY CASES AND NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME /RESULT IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE GLEN EIRA COUNCIL ONLY APPOINTED A SOLICITOR PART -TIME  and  two experts AND THE OPPOSITION APPOINTED A QUEENS COUNCIL and FOUR EXPERTS.  

 In the plan the MRC hopes to build on Crown Land at the Station and their QC asked to pay our council money rather than provide money for the compensation of loss of “Open Space’ WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE SET ASIDE IN ALL CASES OF DEVELOPMENT.  This one is for a 15storey building, 12 storey building, 15,000 square metres of retail and housing for about 2,000 persons… it grew as the panel hearing proceeded!! 

 I hope the panel studies the facts and now more factors enter into it.  During the time of the procedure the garage in Station Street was sold for a good price. I wish the engineers well !

 Now to the point of this email…  Now more than ever we must campaign TO HAVE THE RACECOURSE RETURNED TO THE “SITE  FOR A RACECOURSE PUBLIC RECREATION GROUND AND PUBLIC PARK”  these words are directly from the title document in which “ Queen Elizabeth ll forbids any transfer or dealing with any part of the land.”

 In the planned development all of the members car parks will be built on so we can alert members to this fact at a demonstration in Smith Street (which is to be re-routed) on Saturday31 July at 12.30.  We are to aim for television coverage in view of elections.

 Slogans could  be “SAVE THE TRIANGLE”     “MORE GREEN SPACE”    “PROPER RACECOURSE  ACCESS” “MORE PLAYING FIELDS”

 Make a sign, come along bring your friends and relations we must have at least fifty attend for effect.

 Yours faithfully

 Mary    (0428-128-594 enquiries and support)

« Previous Page