Caulfield Racecourse/C60

Archived Posts from this Category

October 9, 2015

Agenda: Better Than Fawlty Towers!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[8] Comments

We congratulate council for producing an agenda that will set a new benchmark for incompetence, plain old bullshit, waffling generalisations, as well as fulfilling the ‘damage control’ agenda given the looming election. We literally could not stop laughing at some of the arrant nonsense produced by so called ‘professionals’.

A caveat! We are not suggesting that the following are worthy of permits. What we are focusing on is the quality, or rather the lack of quality so evident in the officers’ reports.

Item 9.1 – MRC application for the radio (timing) towers –ie the erection of 30+ antennaes and bases on the reserve – with some on crown land. Council officer recommendation is a ‘refusal’. We draw readers’ attention to the following quotes from the Ron Torres report –

It is acknowledged that other buildings and works including construction of a permanent infield electronic screen have been approved in the past. However, these are mostly at the northern end of the Crown Land where the bulk of the Race Course infrastructure is located. It is considered that the number, location and height of the purpose built poles are contrary to the purpose of the Public Park and Recreation Zone which seeks to ‘recognise areas for public recreation and open space’. It is considered the current application represents a ‘tipping point’ where the proposed works represent on over-emphasis of the use of the land as a racecourse. It is considered that the application does not adequately respect the balance of the use of the land as a public park area or the adjoining residential interface.

COMMENT: a 4 storey screen and now an outdoor ‘gourmet cinema’ with booze is NOT the ‘tipping point’, but this application is! And, a 4 storey screen plus a cinema also meets the criteria of a ‘public park’! And naturally a falling down fence along Queen’s Avenue that was supposed to be removed eons ago does wonders for the ‘residential interface’!

The proposed works do not contribute positively to local urban character and sense of place

COMMENT: urban? Really scraping the bottom of the excuses barrel on this one! That’s why Telstra towers and others are given permits everywhere – even on top of the town hall! These surely fit in with the ‘urban character’ and ‘open space’ of the municipality!

The works do not ensure the highest possible standards of built form and architecture

COMMENT: please explain! What are the ‘highest’ architectural standards for a radio tower?!!!!!!!!

Seven (7) of the purpose built poles are proposed to be installed along the eastern boundary, having direct views to the residential properties along Queens Avenue.

COMMENT: A road separates the poles and houses plus the poles are not directly on the fence. Hence, if this were an application for a three storey building and 40 units, we guarantee that we wouldn’t have such concerns when a road intervenes between properties. Please note that the poles will have ‘direct views’ – a euphemism perhaps for ‘overlooking’ for the possums/birds?

The proposed works do not reflect the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community (in particular; to retain public open space that is free from visual clutter)

COMMENT: what were the ‘aspirations and cultural identity of the community’ when C60 was rubber stamped? When a permit was given for a 4 storey screen on crown land? When an outdoor cinema got the green light? We also assume that council’s penchant for felling countless trees is really to reduce the ‘visual clutter’ within our parklands.

CONCLUSION: It is going to be absolutely fascinating to listen to the inevitable squirming that comes out of the mouths of most councillors on this one, especially when there is such limited ‘planning law’ to rely upon. Will Sounness vote ‘for’ on the basis of his usual stance – ie there are not sufficient ‘tools’ in the planning scheme to reject and it will go to VCAT anyway? Will Hyams and Lipshutz be consistent and vote ‘for’ since they keep claiming they have to apply ‘quasi-judicial’ planning law? Will any of these councillors have the guts to vote for a permit when the officer’s report says ‘no’?

And what of the Torres recommendation in itself? What to make of this refusal? In our view it does not stand a hope in hell of getting tossed out at VCAT – not because of VCAT’s generosity, nor even because of the power of the MRC and its political allies. The bottom line is that the officer’s report is simply woeful and sub-standard (as shown by the above airy-fairy quotes, lack of detailed reference to the planning scheme, etc’). This is not a planning application rejection. It is passing the buck to VCAT as has now become customary for Glen Eira.

++++++++

ITEM 9.2 – planning application for 3 storey, 14 units at 86 Truganini Road, Carnegie. Torres continues the political agenda with a recommendation for refusal. The site is zoned GRZ2. We again urge readers to consider the following:

However, the policy (housing diversity) also seeks that the growth encouraged by the policy is sensitive of the interfaces with existing residential development on adjoining sites and respects the scale of existing residential development on adjoining sites.

The proposal fails to comply with several ResCode standards relating to neighbourhood character, street setbacks, site coverage, side and rear setbacks, north facing windows, design detail and front fences. The non-compliance with these standards is indicative of a design that is not site responsive and is an overdevelopment of the site.

Σ Maximum overall building height of 9.45 metres

Σ Site coverage of 60.9% per cent

Visual dominance of the development within the existing streetscape.

14 Apartments in total (12 x 2 bedroom apartments & 2 x 3 bedroom apartments)

Σ Basement car parking comprising of 28 car spaces in 14 stackers

Σ Reduction of 1 visitor car space

If the proposal is to proceed the street tree would need to be removed and replaced at cost to the permit holder. This is due to the location of the proposed crossover.

Visual dominance of the development within the existing streetscape.

We’ve refrained from commenting on each of the above, except to remind readers that:

There is no ‘preferred character’ statement for housing diversity in Glen Eira as we’ve shown from countless VCAT decisions. All there is the statement of ‘emerging character’ and in Trugannini Road, the ‘existing streetscape’ is already dominated by 3 storey developments.
How many applications have exceeded site coverage, front setbacks and other ResCode guidelines, yet still managed to get their permits? Remember Lipshutz and the ‘unimportant’ encroachment of Hawthorn Road setbacks for his ‘how to vote card’ mate?
Clearly a typo – ie 28 car spaces provided when all that is required is 18! Does anybody bother to proof read such material before it enters the public domain?
What makes this report the most laughable can be found in the list provided below. It illustrates what has been happening in Truganini in recent years. Yet, in the same breath we get the nonsense about ‘visual dominance’ and ‘existing streetscape’. Most of the following were granted car parking waivers! Those applications without any date assigned as still to be decided.

86 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car park comprising of up to fourteen (14) dwellings and a reduction of visitor car parking requirements on land affected by the Special Building Overlay

90 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – The construction of a three (3) storey building above basement car parking comprising of thirteen (13) dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (Notice of refusal issued – 17/4/2015)

93-97 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three-storey building comprising twenty-eight (28) dwellings with a basement car park and reduction of the dwelling (visitor) car parking requirement on land affected by the Special Building Overlay – Amending the endorsed plans to include changes to dwelling layouts, changes to windows and building setbacks and the addition of a front terrace on the second floor level. (amended permit issued – 22/12/2014)

98-100 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a 3-4 storey building comprising 28 dwellings with 2 levels of basement car parking on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (amended permit issued – 25/11/2014)

115 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a three (3) storey building comprising six (6) dwellings (amended permit issued – 16/9/2015)

9 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four storey building comprising up to 20 dwellings above basement car park

44 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two (2) double storey attached dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay (planning permit issued – 30/4/2015)

21-25 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey residential building comprising forty-one (41) dwellings plus basement car parking and a reduction in the associated visitor car parking requirements on land partially affected by the Special Building Overlay (amended permit issued – 23/2/2015)

124 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of two (2) double-storey dwellings on land affected by the Special Building Overlay – Amended (planning permit issued – 12/8/2014)

21-25 Truganini Road CARNEGIE VIC 3163 – Construction of a four (4) storey residential building comprising forty-two (42) dwellings plus basement car parking and a reduction in the associated visitor car parking requirements on land partially affected by the Special Building Overlay (first council refusal – vcat decision to grant permit on 6/6/2014)

September 26, 2015

Public Questions & Caulfield Racecourse Trustees

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[10] Comments

At last council meeting one public question was declared ‘inappropriate’ and not read out. It related to the role of councillor representatives on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees. Before we publish the question and the answer, some history.

Esakoff, Lipshutz & Hyams were appointed by the Liberal Government as councillor reps on the trustees. There were 8 councillor nominees but magically these three got the nod.
All three had formed part of the Special Committee deciding on the Caulfield Village proposal.
A petition containing 64 signatures was tabled at council in February 2013, asking that the Minister review the appointments.
The petition was rejected (a first in Glen Eira). Those voting against acceptance of the petition were Pilling, Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff, Sounness & Okotel
Lobo raised the issue of conflict of interest since Lipshutz, Hyams, & Esakoff were directly involved in the petition. None declared a conflict of interest.

In the discussion that took place, both Hyams and Lipshutz declared their role as trustees to be one of working, representing, and advancing the cause of their constituents. Here is what they said –

HYAMS: thought that the petition was ‘pathetic’ and didn’t want to ‘set a precedent’ where ‘we’re rehashing council decisions because some people don’t like it’ and that would lead to petitions on all council decisions.Said that the government appointed the 3 councillors ‘who came first in their wards’. Read out the numbers of first preference votes for each of the three councillors that people ‘are happy to have those councillors representing them’ and ’64 people come along and think they are more important’ and this ‘shows at the very least an exaggerated sense of their own importance’. Went on to say that it was ‘very sad’ that people can be ‘so spiteful’ and that he knows what’s ‘behind it’ and the ‘people behind it’ and it doesn’t ‘surprise’ him at all.

LIPSHUTZ: said the petition was ‘ridiculous’ but that ‘when any member of this council’ is appointed that they’re appointed as ‘representatives of council’ and ‘we in fact act on behalf of the community’. Spoke about the Leader article and Magee and ‘what he tried to achieve’ and that was following council policy and he’s (Lipshutz) asked for the same things since ‘2005’. This wasn’t ‘something new’ it was what ‘council has approved’. Council doesn’t want training at the racecourse which is what Magee was advocating and it’s what council wants too. The petition is ‘ridiculous’ and just ‘shows the small minded people’…’we’re councillors and we’re here for the benefit of the community’. People mightn’t like every decision but the choice is ‘vote us out’. Voters had ‘confidence’ about all 9 councillors and even though they’ve got different views on things ‘we are a councillor group as one’ and as trustees they ‘will be there to support the community’

So to the inadmissible public question –

If councillors on the Board of trustees for the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust do not represent the council, or the citizens of Glen Eira, who do they represent?

Response: On the basis of your own statement in part 3 of your Public Question Part 3 is deemed inappropriate pursuant to Clause 12 (b) of Council’s ‘Guidelines for Public Question Time’ and clause 232(2)(j)(ii) of the Local Law which states: “does not relate to the business of Council or otherwise relates to a Councillor or staff member other than in their Council capacity;”

CONCLUSION

Either councillor trustees do not know what their role is, or they will say anything that will further their spurious arguments – even if this contradicts the ‘advice’ provided by Newton in both 2003 and in 2006 – ie Council is not “represented” on the Trust. The duty of a trustee is to the Trust. A trustee, who is also a Councillor, is under a legal obligation to make Trust decisions
in the best interests of the Trust.
How valid such Newton advice is, needs to be challenged, as it has been by the Auditor General –

The make-up of the trust enables MRC, Glen Eira City Council and state government views to be considered as part of its decision-making processes. Until recently, however, members of the local community had no direct means of engaging with trustees on matters of importance to them. They had to rely on council representatives to present their views.

Within the trust, there have been differing views about how these competing uses can be reconciled. More recently, this has created tensions between trustees representing the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and those representing the government and Glen Eira City Council.

How many more times will this council denigrate and refuse to answer genuine public questions? Please note that the role of the trustees is to serve the public interest. That means the residents of Glen Eira. If the local community cannot have any faith that Lipshutz, Esakoff and Hyams are in fact truly representing their best interests, then they should not be trustees.

September 11, 2015

Financial Review & The MRC

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[16] Comments

Secret plans to develop Caulfield and Sandown race courses

by Duncan Hughes

Confidential plans for multi-billion dollar residential, commercial and retail property developments at Caulfield and Sandown race courses are being considered by the Victorian State Government.

The ‘master plans’, which have been commissioned by the Melbourne Racing Club, one of the nation’s most powerful sporting bodies, are expected to involve joint ventures with development and property companies to design, build and run the projects.

But the plans are likely to become another flashpoint between the MRC, state government and some councils about the impact of high density developments on local communities and public amenities.

Sandown Park, about 30 kilometres south-east of Melbourne, is a 112-hectare horse and car racing track located in a major growth and transport hub that is fully-owned by the MRC, a not-for-profit organisation.

The park is in the electorate of Premier Daniel Andrews.

The MRC also owns more than 152,000 square metres of land surrounding the Caulfield Race Track, 13 kilometres south-east of central Melbourne, in addition to leased stable and training areas within the race course.

It is already undertaking a controversial $1 billion development opposite the entrance to the racecourse and close to a railway station that has been rezoned from a car park to 1200 apartments, 10,000 square metres of office space and 15,000 square metres of retail space.

“We are aiming to develop a plan for land-use, upgrades and development for the next 15-20 years,” said Josh Blanksby, general manager of the MRC, about the redevelopment plans.

Mr Blanksby said the racing club was looking at the “best ways to utilise its strong assets”, which in addition to hosting meetings was expanding into other forms of entertainment, gaming and property development.

He said no decision has been made.

State government officials have been briefed about the proposals devised by Hassall, a global consultancy and architecture group.

But the MRC, which leases the Crown Land occupied by Caulfield Race Course, is under fire from the local Glen Eira Council and landlord, Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust, for failing to consult.

“It is totally inappropriate that the tenant is proposing a master plan for what is probably one of the biggest development sites of prime inner-Melbourne land,” said Jim Magee, a former racecourse trustee and current mayor of Glen Eira, the local council for the area surrounding the course.

Mr Blanksby said the council was approached but declined to comment.

The trust, which is chaired by Greg Sword, former national president of the Australian Labor Party, has launched a separate ‘master plan’ into the use of the 54-hectare site that is legally meant to be divided between public recreation, a public park and the racecourse.

“The balance is a little skewed,” Mr Sword told a local community last week about the MRC’s influence over the use of the site.

The business of running racing clubs has been rapidly evolving in recent years from hosting race days into a multi-billion entertainment, gaming, land development and hotel business.

In the past four years MRC’s revenues from course admissions have remained static around $1.5 million as gaming revenue more than doubled to $34 million and telecasting rights rose 20 per cent to more than $9 million.

Victoria’s Attorney-General and Racing Minister Martin Pakula is among those reviewing the plans. Developments involving Caulfield Racecourse will also need the approval of the board of trustees, which has six council appointed members, six MRC members and three independents.

It is 12 months this week since the state’s auditor-general recommended full disclosure of the MRC’s benefits from the course, criticised the state government’s oversight and recommended improved disclosure of finances, performance and management of ‘perceived conflicts of interest’ in the course’s management.
Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/secret-plans-to-develop-caulfield-and-sandown-race-courses-20150911-gjkcac#ixzz3lQ9uUhtG

September 9, 2015

Another Clayton’s ‘Consultation’?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[12] Comments

About 50 to 60 people showed up for the Caulfield Racecourse Trustee Community Consultation evening. In short, it was a total farce and far from being the open and ‘progressive’ change that many residents hoped for. Here’s why –

The Melbourne Racing Club has already completed their own Master Plan for the racecourse and it is now sitting on the Minister’s desk, waiting for his rubber stamp. Hence, as Greg Sword later admitted, the Trustee’s version of a Land Management Plan may be a waste of time and money if the MRC trustees happen not to endorse it – or presumably, if the Minister decides to accept the MRC version.
After originally deciding not to split the audience into groups for the butcher paper exercise so common to trendy ‘consultations’, and to allow questions, it was decided on a straw vote, and after some ‘uncomfortable’ queries, to split into groups – with a fair amount of public disagreement. There was however a compromise of a ten minute Q and A with far from satisfactory answers. For example: Mr Patrick in his opening slides had stated that it ‘was a given’ that the fences and training would remain but later stated he would ‘consult’ with the MRC on these matters!
Most disappointing was that all questions of governance, risk management were deemed as ‘irrelevant’ to the evening. Hardly, we say since the Auditor General’s report specified these issues as central to determining the future of public use of the racecourse land.
Readers will also be interested to know that the Trustee decision to award the contract to Patricks was not done via a formal meeting, but via email – hence no need for minutes, and transparency! We must also assume that Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff were also privy to these emails but not a peep out of any of them!

Greg Sword’s final comments are of great concern. He several times stated that the Trustees basically have no control over the MRC. It would seem that the Auditor General has different ideas about the role and function of the Trustees, who are charged with the management of the reserve. The department has oversight of the trustees. Here are some extracts from the Auditor General’s report that clearly show the role of the trustees –

sections 17B and 17D (of the Crown Land Reserves Act) provide the trustees, with the approval of the minister, with the power to grant licences/leases, enter into tenancy arrangements, and to reach agreement to operate services and facilities

The Crown grant, clause 21, states ‘that no improvements shall be effected on the site by the said Club without first obtaining the approval of the trustees’. However, there is no documentary evidence that certain works undertaken in recent years were approved by the trustees

Section 13 of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 provides the trustees with the power to make regulations for the care, protection and management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve with the approval of the Governor in Council. The Crown grant also allows trustees to create regulations over the reserve.

Finally, we reiterate, that if the Trustees were really that keen to receive input from the COMMUNITY, then why was it only sports clubs (via council), schools, and aged care facilities who were ‘invited’ to attend? Surely a decent advertisement in the Leader would not have gone astray? And since council is spruiking for the Trustees via their letters to sporting groups, it also would not have been amiss for council to place an announcement on their website – especially when council can write to sporting groups and state-

Caulfield Racecourse is Crown Land reserved for recreation and is the only significant opportunity to provide more sports grounds in Glen Eira. It is assumed that any Club which intends to seek any increase in ground allocations at any time in the future will take part. A few years ago Council produced a concept plan of how sports grounds could be established on the Crown Land in the centre of the racecourse. The concept plan appears on page 10 of Council’s ‘Community Sport – Management of Grounds Policy’. The page is attached for your convenience.

Sadly both Council and the Trustees would appear to have a very limited definition of ‘community’.

September 2, 2015

Hansard & Southwick

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Miscellaneous
[7] Comments

Caulfield Racecourse Reserve

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water. The action I seek is that the minister undertake an urgent review of the trust of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve and the Melbourne Racing Club.

As we know, some 12 months ago there was an Auditor-General’s report on the review of the mechanics of the trust of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. Unfortunately since that Auditor-General’s report came out there has been little activity. The trust has hardly met and the Melbourne Racing Club has continued on, and it is my understanding that a lease is still not in place in terms of the mechanics of the facility.

This is really important for the future of what is the largest open space in my electorate. It is an under-utilised space where there should be more sporting activity, which I have called for on numerous occasions. We have the lowest amount of open space anywhere in the city of Glen Eira. This is a great opportunity for the minister to work with me and others to ensure that we get a result. The Glen Eira council has been calling for some action for some time. I know that racing is fundamental to Caulfield and that we need to ensure there is a permanent site where racing has a home, but there is uncertainty with the lease and a lack of action, and this is a missed opportunity. The centre of the racecourse is hardly frequented or used by the people of Caulfield, and we really need some action.

I suggest that there be a complete review of the trust and that the minister look at working together with me as the local member to see what we can do to ensure that the Auditor-General’s report is implemented, that there is transparency going forward, that ultimately the people of Caulfield get the best possible facility and the best use of open space and that the future of racing is guaranteed.

Response

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Minister for Industry)—…..I thank the member for Caulfield for raising an issue about the Melbourne Racing Club and the trust arrangements that are in place for Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. He is correct in pointing out that the Auditor-General raised serious concerns in relation to the way that the structure of that trust was established and the potential for and real conflicts of interest that exist. I have had representation from the member for Caulfield and the member for Bentleigh, who is a former trust member, about some of those issues.

We have appointed new board members in order to get the trust up and functioning again. The trust and the Melbourne Racing Club are currently doing strategic land use plans for the park. That of course does not address the main issue. We have looked at a range of options for what we could do regarding the governance arrangement, and legislative changes are required. As I have indicated to the member for Caulfield, I am keen to work with him as the local member and also a representative from the opposition and people from outside on trying to get a long-term solution and a new governance arrangement for Caulfield.

Members raised a range of issues for a number of ministers, and I will pass those on to those ministers.

September 1, 2015

Racecourse, Governance & Council

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

The latest announcement on the Caulfield Racecourse raises a myriad of questions:

If the MRC is so very committed to comprehensive ‘public consultation’ then why is there no widespread advertising of this? A tiny paragraph was all that was in today’s Caulfield Leader and there is nothing up on Council’s website. In the past, Council has notified readers of Trustee Meetings. This time – nothing!
The announcement states that the Trustees have appointed Patrick Pty Ltd. Thus, has there been a Trustee meeting to ratify this appointment? If so, where are the minutes?
Was this appointment tendered?
What are Patrick’s terms of reference? Who determined these?
Who is paying John Patrick – the MRC, or the Trustees? How much are they paying?
Is it sheer coincidence that the consultant just happens to be the same consultant who has worked extensively for Glen Eira City Council? (ie Caulfield Park pavilion, Centenary Park pavilion, Booran Road Reservoir, etc)
What role, if any, will council have in the final decision making? Does a Land Management Plan require formal council approval as any development application might?
Exactly what does “inner landscape portion” mean? And what is the SIZE of this ‘inner’ section? Does it assume the current size, where fences have persisted in their relentless encroachment onto public land?
Will the mushrooming fences in the centre now be removed?
Is the removal of training now a forgotten item?
Is the creation of sporting fields in the centre dead and buried? Was it ever feasible and likely? Will we see one token soccer pitch and that’s it?
What does ‘Strategic Land Management Plan’, really mean? Are we talking buildings? Does this cover freehold as well as crown land?
Is it the MRC’s intent to finally ‘solve’ the ‘park issue’ at the top of Glen Eira Road by turning it into a multi level car park? Will this ‘plan’ indicate this?
Is Monash Uni and Stonnington involved in this plan? If not, why not, given the intensity of proposed residential development in the area?

A year has now passed since the Auditor General delivered his report. The creation of the Land Management Plan was one of his recommendations. What of the others? What is happening regarding:

Lease negotiations
Governance
Resolving conflicts of interest
Regular Trustee meetings that adhere to governance practices
Why has no parliamentarian (apart from Sue Pennicuik) raised these issues in parliament?
Why have our council representatives also been silent?
Given the failure to implement the vast majority of the Auditor General’s recommendations, why has the Minister not dissolved the trustees and appointed a Committee of Management?
Why has the Department continually rubber stamped the MRC applications in agreeing to a 4 storey screen on crown land, a cinema and now 31 antennaes that will be over 15 metres high but deemed as not ‘visually obtrusive’?
And why oh why have our councillor reps (Lipshutz, Hyams & Esakoff) been utterly silent on what is going on when it is council, on behalf of the MRC and John Patrick, who emailed sporting groups about the ‘consultation’. If Council knows and is acting as the ‘middle man’, then why haven’t our illustrious reps spoken out and informed their constituents of what they know. A fair question might also be – have they even bothered to inform their fellow councillors? Do all councillors know what is going on with the ‘consultation’ and council’s role?
All of which leads to the even broader question of what proportion of resident and sporting group ‘suggestions’ will be taken up by the MRC? And what recourse do residents have if the hired help (Patrick) comes up with a ‘design’ that continues to exclude and ignore the ‘public park’ aspect of the racecourse but continues to allow the MRC to reap millions from Crown land?

August 27, 2015

Movement At The Station – But Where To?

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

Our thanks to an alert reader for notifying us of the following. For the full statement, please see: http://www.crrt.org.au/Notices/Upcomingmeetings.aspx

August 11, 2015

MRC – ‘Born To Rule’ – #2

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[12] Comments

ITEM 9.7 – MRC

(ESAKOFF, LIPSHUTZ & SOUNNESS WERE APOLOGIES FOR THIS MEETING)

Delhunty moved an alternate motion that included: that the MRC has entered into a lease with the Alliance group involved with the level crossing removal project where “commuters’ will be allowed to ‘park for free’. This is a ‘sub lease arrangement’ and is ‘valued at approximately $90,000 -$100,000’ for 2 months. Motion also said that council write to the Trust to ensure that ‘they are aware’ of the arrangement. Also copies go to Minister for Environment & Climate Change, Lisa Neville, Auditor-General and members of parliament. Seconded by Magee.

DELAHUNTY: said that the report was first off about access arrangements for the public and what has been happening. Not a lot has been happening but there are ‘other current arrangments’ including a ‘commercial’ deal that has ‘been struck between the Alliance’ and the MRC ‘that values the Guineas car park, conservatively’ for $90,000 for 60 days. That’s just over $1,400 per day. In the ‘stalled’ lease negotiations between the Trust and the MRC ‘their offer and their apparent independent valuation’ is ‘offering the community 30 cents a day’. From this disparity, we ‘can see how absolutely outrageous’ the MRC’s offer on the lease is. ‘It shows what contempt they hold the community in’. ‘We won’t put up with it’ when the MRC itself values the land far more highly. Thus in the private arrangement the MRC ‘are making now what would cover’ their current lease. Even the 95,000 for the lease is a ‘poor outcome’ for the community when there is a valuation which says they should be paying closer to a million dollars for the lease of the land. Said that the starting point for any negotiations should be ‘what they have valued’ the car park land as. She is ‘hopeful’ that in passing this information on to ‘ those negotiating’ the lease that there will be ‘a better outcome for the community’.

MAGEE: started off by saying that the MRC ‘doesn’t seem able to put their hands on the agreement’ of 2011 and he suggests that ‘they look in the same filing cabinet’ where they can’t find the documents for the leases for the ‘northern stables’ and Aquinita Lodge. Ratepayers and taxpayers of Victoria are ‘paying in excess of a billion dollars’ for the grade separation but the MRC is ‘making a profit out of it’. They think that ‘you need us’ so we are ‘happy to sub-let Crown Land which you own’ and make you pay for the land that you own’. When the price they are paying for t’that small car park’ is ‘extrapolated’ across the 50 hectares of land then the ‘one million dollars is insignificant’ because it becomes more like ’40 or 50 million dollars’. Said that the MRC ‘are not what they portray’ themselves to be – they aren’t community minded nor a ‘friend of Glen Eira’. They have the ‘absolute need to profiteer’ and to ‘charge’ the taxpayers of Victoria to ‘park on their land’. ‘This is not only appalling. This is sickening’. Said that the ‘minister should be aware of this. The minister should be commenting on this’. If the MRC are ‘allowed to sublet’ the Guineas car park, then they can ‘sublet any part’ of the racecourse. Question is ‘what are they allowed to do’. Said there is ‘no lease in place’ and that it is an ‘ongoing, day by day’ process. Plus ‘anyone who sits back and accepts this’ is equally in contempt with the MRC.

OKOTEL: endorsed the motion and ‘queried how genuine’ the MRC are about ‘talking with council’. From the ‘invitation’ in the letter printed in the agenda, council has ‘sought’ a meeting with the MRC but it is ‘disappointing that they don’t seem to be able to make the time’. Said that there is no time set aside ‘as yet’. Thus, whilst the tone of the letter suggests they are ‘willing to have an open discussion’ that’s not happening but it’s important for council to ‘continue to advocate strongly’. ‘Despite’ the letters they get ‘very little progress is being made’.

HYAMS: asked for an amendment that when ‘further information’ is received that a report be tabled. This amendment was accepted by the mover of the motion and seconder.

DELAHUNTY: what needs to be finalised is the lease but negotiations ‘have broken down’ because there is ‘an incredible discrepancy between valuations’. The MRC has for the last 20 years paid about $90,000pa. They think it’s valued at $100 per year and the ‘council obviously thinks much higher’. The lease to the alliance shows that the MRC doesn’t value the land at $100 per year but much more and they are ‘trying to take the trust and the community for fools and we won’t stand for it here’. Their subletting will ‘help move the lease’ negotiations forward because it shows their own valuation of the land.

MOTION PUT and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

August 11, 2015

MRC – ‘Born To Rule’

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments

The Melbourne Racing Club is at it again – acting as if it is their god given right to do whatever they want on public land, whenever they want, and without any concern for nearby residents. This time they want a ‘timing system’ which involves the erection of 31 radio towers (height 13 metres) scattered across the racecourse and costing, they claim, $570,000. Naturally, the Department (as land manager) has given its approval (see uploaded letter here).

Throughout the application there is not a single word about environmental impacts nor potential safety concerns for residents – nor for that matter horses! Instead there is repetition upon repetition claiming ‘non-significant impact on the visual amenity of the area’. One paragraph in particular caught our attention –

3 antennas are proposed within the centre of the reserve and will be located directly adjacent to the track and existing infrastructure. The location of these antennas will ensure that the visual impact is minimal and the use of the public open space area remains unaffected.

Yes, 13 metre high poles of steel are certainly compatible with visual amenity and ball sports that council is advocating. Another nail in the coffin for more public open space if this goes ahead!

Here is what the poles will look like and where it is proposed they will go!

PS: please note that the heights will exceed 13 metres, since this calculation does not take into account the footings upon which the poles will rest.

August 7, 2015

Council Clowns!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[6] Comments

The following two pages appear in the agenda items for Tuesday night’s council meeting. They pinpoint very clearly the sheer incompetence of this administration and its councillors – plus the ongoing ‘born to rule’ mentality of the MRC. Many issues need to be investigated and fully reported on – namely:

What has Council done in the past 4 years to ensure that the Clayton’s ‘agreement’ is in fact bona fide and worth the paper it is written on?
Council in 2011 published an ‘agreement’ signed only by Newton. Why wasn’t this countersigned by the MRC or Trustees? What actions, if any, did council undertake to ensure this occurred?
What representations, if any, has council and/or councillors made to MPs following the Auditor-General’s report?
Were councillors told prior to Newton signing the non-existent ‘agreement’ that this still required the MRC’s signature?
What further ‘information’ is likely to ‘come to hand’?
What is the nature of the ‘discussions’ that have taken place between Council (and whoever was involved) and the MRC in the past 2 years? Why has there not been a single report tabled in regard to such meetings?
We have been informed that the MRC is currently creating a Master Plan for the centre of the Racecourse? What involvement has council had with this? If none, then why not? If yes, then why the ‘secrecy’?

CONCLUSIONS

We can only conclude from all this that:

there is NO AGREEMENT!
that residents have been dudded
that administration and councillors have allowed this situation to drag on to the detriment of all.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates