Caulfield Racecourse/C60

Archived Posts from this Category

February 24, 2015

The MRC ‘Cinema’

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

Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff declared an ‘indirect interest’ and left the chamber.

Moved to accept ‘as printed’ by Pilling. Seconded by Okotel

PILLING: Thought that the conditions imposed by the officers addressed the ‘concerns’ of objectors such as ‘timing, the sound’ plus that the screen is ‘well away from residential areas’. Admitted that this is a ‘different usage’ but with all the ‘checks and balances’ he is ‘supportive of this recommendation’.

OKOTEL: said that there is ‘no designation’ for use of the land so council has to consider the application under ‘planning grounds’ . With the imposed conditions she thought it ‘appropriate’ since the cinema will only happen when ‘other uses are not occuring’. The screen is ‘350 metres away from the nearest house’ and that is ‘quite a considerable distance’ and hence ‘wouldn’t affect the amenity of the neighbours’. The liquor license is ‘available already’ and there won’t be any ‘additional’ licenses.

SOUNNESS: said that he was ‘speaking against the motion’ only because he felt that ‘there should be someone speaking against it’. The racecourse is a ‘site that is somewhat vexed’. Said that the reports and decisions that have ‘come down’ suggest that the operational aspects of the racecourse show that it isn’t ‘always a clean operation’ . He ‘supports’ the motion and the chance of use. Although the conditions ‘seem to be quite useful’ he doubts whether council has got the ‘capacity’ to ensure compliance. Was ‘sure’ that there were answer to such questions about who operates the land.

DELAHUNTY: asked Torres the question about the state of the lease.

TORRES: said he understood that ‘there is no current lease’

DELAHUNTY: would vote in favour but thought that the conditions were ‘perplexing’ since ‘they can’t be met under the current arrangements’. Said that in chairing the planning conference it was ‘interesting to hear the different interpretations of language’ from residents versus the MRC. Said that the department has ‘sent a letter to the MRC suggesting that’ it’s in favour of the permit if the Trust agrees to it. The MRC therefore has ‘interpreted this as under existing use’ and current lease, but there is no current lease. She will vote in favour because she is all for ‘more people using their land’ even though there will be ‘some profit taking’. She hoped that since the conditions can’t be met it ‘forces the parties back to the table’ to negotiate.

OKOTEL: asked whether the conditions imposed would be ‘enforceable’

TORRES: said that for any planning permit that ‘conditions are enforceable’ and that not only by council but that ‘any member of the public can apply’ to VCAT.

LOBO: said he was ‘surprised that the MRC is getting everything’. It’s supposed to be for public park as well as racecourse and ‘we are running short’ of sporting fields. Another ‘sicking point’ was that there is provision for 150 car spaces but ‘they are expecting 500 people’. So are they expecting families or ‘lovers’ to come?

MAGEE: said he doesn’t have any ‘problem with the screen being there’ and the community using the racecourse. He does have a ‘problem with the Auditor General’s report’. One of the recommendations was for a plan to be produced for the racecourse and when the plan is produced ‘it may not be consistent with’ the cinema. This cinema might not be ‘consistent’ with the wishes of the Trustees or the committee of management if it is formed. Said that the condition about Trustee approval means that ‘it must have unanimous approval’ and ‘not a majority of the trustees’ because there is no ‘trust, just a group of trustees’. Said that the Auditor General’s report was ‘scathing’ and he is ‘surprised they haven’t all resigned’. He would have resigned straight off. Said that the Auditor General’s report was ‘instigated’ in part by himself since he had written to the Auditor General. This ‘could be a community asset although there will be some profit taking’ from Crown Land. He has no problem with the MRC because they only do ‘what the trustees allow them to do’. ‘They are a good citizen’ and that ‘they run the racecourse very, very well’. They’ve been ‘allowed to do the wrong thing’ for 150 years. Hoped that things change this year.

DELAHUNTY: wanted Magee to confirm that she hadn’t been misunderstood about whether the conditions were enforceable if the lease negotiations fell apart. Magee confirmed that there was no misunderstanding. Reiterated that the new lease had to be a unanimous decision by all the trustees.

PILLING: acknowledged concerns about governance but this is a planning decision and that the Auditor general’s report was a ‘separate matter’. His decision is ‘purely on planning and he thought there were ‘merits’ to the proposal in ‘allowing community people in there’.

MOTION PUT: LOBO WAS THE ONLY COUNCILLOR TO VOTE AGAINST.

COMMENT

This discussion raises far more questions than providing answers. Here are some:

Since when does the Trustee’s decision have to be unanimous? At the last trustee meeting, the vote was clearly split. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/news-flash-the-mrc-god-given-right-to-rule/
Or is this a condition that the department has now imposed on the ‘negotiations’? If so, then why can’t the public be informed as to what is actually going on and what the parameters of the negotiations entail? Further, why is it taking so long to achieve a lease?
Contradictions are apparent once again. When it came to the McKinnon Bowls Club renting out their third green the argument was that public land not be used for commercial profit. Delahunty was adamant on this. Not a mention this time around. So the question becomes – why is this different?
Magee’s applauding of the MRC as ‘good citizens’ leaves us speechless!

February 20, 2015

Agenda: MRC ‘Quaddy’ & Bent St

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

The Melbourne Racing Club has scored the ‘quaddy’ with our new Manager of Strategic Planning signing off on their latest application for an ‘outdoor cinema’ from dusk until 1am throughout the year! In approximately one page as a bit of ‘useful’ commentary, Council has again agreed to all of the MRC demands. That makes it the perfect quaddy in our books – ‘yes’ to an incorporated and development plan that bore no resemblance to each other; ‘yes’ to a paltry open space contribution and no development contribution;’ yes’ to the 4 storey high racing screen, and now ‘yes’ to an ‘outdoor cinema’. No mention of who will police drunkenness; no mention of how many of these ‘events’ can be held? Are we speaking of once a month? Once a fortnight? Once a week? Or every single night throughout November to March, and then some more throughout the year whenever the MRC decides it might be a good idea?

Adding insult to injury is the fact that EPA legislation for ‘noise’ from “residential” areas has a time limit up to 11pm. Music production (which we can assume to accompany any soundtrack), also has a time limit of up to 11pm! S0 exactly how does Council grant a permit until 1am and for staff to leave (without noise presumably) by 1.30am.

The Bent St application has also got the nod for a 3 and part 4 storey development with 31 dwellings. 17 properties notified and 25 objections. McKinnon is now given the new nom de plume of an ‘activity centre’ (page 33). There is NO MCKINNON ACTIVITY CENTRE!

The paragraph which concerns us greatly and which is included as part of the conditions reads:

The second floor setback a minimum of 9.0m from the eastern boundary with any consequential changes absorbed within the approved building envelope. A balcony may encroach a maximum of 1.6m into this setback.

It is our contention that such a condition illustrates fully the myriad of shortcomings of the current planning scheme and also serves as a convenient scapegoat for this administration and councillors.

The property is located in GRZ1. As such ResCode setbacks apply. When council secretly introduced the New Residential Zones, it chose not to seek greater setbacks than ResCode for GRZ1. So now we have the ludicrous situation where planning officers recommend setbacks which go against their very own planning scheme. It will be no surprise that if this goes to VCAT the member sits back, laughs, and says – ‘but that’s not what the planning scheme states’! and of course, VCAT will again be the convenient scapegoat!

February 12, 2015

Why Is This Acceptable – #2

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[13] Comments

We’ve received the following letter of complaint that was sent to Council. As with most things connected with the racecourse and the MRC, residential amenity appears to be the last thing to worry either the Melbourne Racing Club, or for that matter, Council.

We have been asked to remove the sender’s name.

Dear sir,

I have been driven to write to you about the continual flouting of local law by the Melbourne Racing Club at Caulfield Racecourse with respect to illegal noise levels. These are illegal by virtue of the excessive volume that penetrates inside residential dwellings yet some distance from the racecourse itself – never mind those in the immediate vicinity (according to a resident of Fitzgibbon Crescent, for example. Name can be supplied upon request).

Although there are many examples on a relatively regular basis, today the racecourse rented out its premises to the “I dream all day” music event (rave/festival). The incessant bass pounded all day penetrating our home and garden. We were unable to relax the whole day. The children were unable to sleep. Now, don’t misunderstand, I LOVE electronic dance music, and attend the odd festival myself – but these are not held in a residential suburb. When I went to inspect the source of the noise, the walls of the racecourse along Station Street, cladded with corrugated iron, were reverberating from the amazing volume of sound.The noise level was entirely inappropriate for the residential surrounds of the racecourse (surrounded as it is on all sides by family homes), and was undoubtedly beyond any legal limit. It penetrated throughout my home far away in Eskdale Road. It went on and on all day with no respite.

Other events that the racecourse holds for its own profit at the expense of residents resulting in shattered neighbourhood amenity include funfairs with blaring music in the Western car-park adjacent to Kambrook road despite the residential nature of the area. That noise also goes all day and overwhelms us inside our dwellings as well as outside in our gardens.

While investigating these issues, it is vital that you ensure that the racecourse also respects local law regarding sound levels with respect to the incessant droning of the race commentators every Saturday. Residents have a right to peaceful amenity without the incessant droning of the commentator over the PA system at unacceptable levels. After all, if it is legal and acceptable for the racecourse to broadcast its ‘soundtrack’ such that it is heard clearly in surrounding dwellings, then it is just as legal for surrounding dwellings to broadcast their own soundtrack at the same levels which will be clearly heard at the racecourse! Not something decent residents do, but that doesn’t seem to matter a jot to the racing club which treats residents with contempt.

I respectfully request that you take the matter further with the Melbourne Racing Club, and please keep me informed of any developments in this area.

Yours

xxxxxxxxx

February 5, 2015

Council Versus The Auditor General

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

On Tuesday night a public question was asked regarding what our councillor representatives on the Racecourse Reserve Trustees were doing to ensure that the Auditor General recommendations were being fully implemented. Council’s response to this question is quite literally astounding. What is even more astounding is that not one councillor had the courage to stand up and either query this response or, to disassociate him/herself from this nonsense.

The response is in direct conflict with the Auditor General’s report in all facets. Either the Auditor General does not know what he is talking about, or council does not have a clue as to its responsibilities to the community and to proper governance. Here are some quotes from the AG Report –

The management of the reserve was vested in a group of trustees who represented the government, the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and the local municipality—Glen Eira City Council. (page vii)

Under the Crown grant, 15 trustees are appointed by the Governor in Council to manage the reserve—six each representing government and the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) and three representing Glen Eira City Council. (page ix)

More recently, the government and Glen Eira council trustee representatives have recognised that governance standards in line with contemporary practice should be introduced. (page xii)

The land was permanently reserved in the 19th century for three purposes—a racecourse, public recreation ground and public park. Management of the reserve is vested in 15 trustees—six government nominees, six Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) nominees and three council nominees representing the local municipality, Glen Eira City Council. (page 1)

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. (page 26)

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. (page 28)

Each and every one of these Auditor General statements establishes that Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff are REPRESENTATIVES of Glen Eira Council and therefore the local community. They are ‘directed’ by Council in the interests of the local community.

Yet, the response to the public question denies this obligation, and flies in the face of not only the Auditor General’s report, but community views and expectations. If Hyams, Lipshutz, and Esakoff do NOT represent the community via council, then they should be sacked immediately or have the good grace to resign forthwith.

Here is the question and the official Council ‘response’ – it cannot be deemed an ‘answer’!

“In September the Victorian Auditor General published the report on the Management and Oversight of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. I attach copy 3B of page 38 “Access and signage issues at the reserve” and I ask you to note that there are 22 out of 24 indicators of inadequate access. Please tell me what instructions our councillor members of the C.R.R.T., Cr Esakoff, Cr Hyams and Cr Lipshutz are being given at council to overcome this undesirable situation as the VAG in Clause 6 Page 39 recommended the need to “upgrade public access and improve signage at all entry access points and within the reserve to a standard that improves safety and encourages increased community use.”

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:

“Although three councillors are trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, they serve as trustees in their own rights, not as representatives or delegates of Council, and therefore, Council does not instruct them.”

January 28, 2015

MRC & ‘Cinema’

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

The right decision has ultimately been made. But this still begs the question of:

why was this application allocated to a Delegated Planning Committee (ie only officers) to begin with? Surely given past history and community objections, it should have gone immediately to a planning conference and formal Council decision?
Will Lipshutz, Esakoff & Hyams declare a conflict of interest?
Will the Officer report neatly sidestep the alcohol and parking issues?

We wait with bated breath!

January 15, 2015

More From The MRC!

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

MRC lodges plan for outdoor cinema at Caulfield Racecourse

Andrea Kellett
January 15, 2015 12:00AM

The Melbourne Racing Club has asked Glen Eira Council for permission to run the summer cinema at Caulfield Racecourse.

It would be located between the racecourse administration building and the racetrack and cater for up to 500 people a session.

Consultants have lodged a planning permit application and details include:

— A mobile 7m high by 11m movie screen on the back of a flat deck truck which would be parked in position each screening night;

— Guests to view movies from the lawns between dusk and 1am;

— Parking to be provided in the Guineas carpark;

— Food and beverages to be available to buy and users to bring or buy picnic meals.

The consultants’ report describes the outdoor cinema as a “unique entertainment experience”.

Melbourne has a number of outdoor cinemas, among them the Moonlight cinema at the Royal Botanic Gardens, December — March; and Ben & Jerry’s open air Cinemas at St Kilda’s South Beach Reserve, November-December.

The MRC wants a permit to run its outdoor cinema between November and March, with an option to use the land for an outdoor cinema throughout the year.

MRC spokesman Jake Norton said ticket prices had not yet been decided.

“No. The concept, if the application is successful, would not be rolled out until next summer. Given that timing, as well as the fact that the application has yet to be approved, practical plans around ticketing, event logistics, dates and times, the product itself, content, associated food and beverage offering etc are still some way off,’’ Mr Norton said.

Glen Eira Council granted the MRC a permit for a permanent $3 million super screen at Caulfield Racecourse last year.

That screen displays race day activities including live video feeds, race replays, race day information and sponsor information.

++++++

COMMENT

The following sentences are taken directly from the formal application. We urge readers to carefully note the hyperbole, the spin, and what this could mean for residents. Most importantly, we have to again question what has happened to the so called ‘agreement’ between Council and the MRC and the role of the Minister and the Department in this entire episode. The standout issues as far as we can see are –

Public Transport does not operate till and after 1am weekdays
Does extending the area for a liquor license fly in the face of the alcohol ban and how would the local constabulary view this attempt?
Is Crown Land again being used for private commercial gain – especially when the MRC claims to be a ‘non-profit’ organisation?
Have the Trustees signed off on this latest effort? Did they give permission for the application to the Department?
Will the centre potentially be used for car parking?
And will council once again cave in – either on the night, or at VCAT?

Here are the quotes:

Access to and parking at the racecourse is available with minimal impact to the community

The proposed outdoor cinema makes use of an entertainment facility that would otherwise lie idle during the proposed hours of operation.

Melbourne Racing Club is the custodian of a range of land holdings associated with and including the Caulfield Racecourse. The land holdings are a combination of freehold and Crown Land. The site which is the subject of this application is known as 31 Station Street and is contained within Crown Land referred to as Allotment A as Caulfield, Parish of Prahran.

The (Glen Eira) MESS notes at clause 21.01-2 that Caulfield Racecourse and Monash University are facilities of metropolitan significance and both are of major importance to the local economy. Further, Clause 21.02-1 Key influences – Advantages and Opportunities, recognises Caulfield Racecourse as a landmark and regional facility that contributes to the attraction and ‘liveability’ of the municipality.

Clause 21.06-2 identifies the objectives and strategies in relation to Business within the municipality, including:

To encourage more local employment and attract more local spending in partnership with business
Encourage new and innovative retail and commercial activities to establish in the municipality having regard to the hierarchy of centres as well as opportunities to developer appropriate freestanding sites for suitable retail or commercial use.

It is submitted that the proposal will achieve the following key imperatives of the SPPF by:

Encouraging a sue that meets the communiy’s needs for entertainment and providing a net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.

With the event proposed at the northern end of the subject site, patrons are within walking sitance of the Caulfield Railway Station interchange (with train, tram and bus services available). The Guineas car park which adjoins the proposed event location will also be available to patrons who choose to drive.

…..any overflow parking requirements can be provided by Melbourne Racing Club’s numerous other car parks.

December 9, 2014

On The Nose

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

+++++++++

A few points on the following image:

1. If the MRC claims that the recent Union Picnic was a Major Event, then where was their traffic management plan? Where were the street closures? Where were the information sheets distributed to residents?

2. Did Council know? Were they informed? Did they give tacit approval? Or was it a case of only officers knowing and councillors kept in the dark?

December 4, 2014

A Resident’s View

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[11] Comments

What is troubling racing at Caulfield? Why is a prominent trainer like Rick Hore-Lacy packing up his swag and walking? Rick is a brilliant trainer, and a real gentleman. He is still a young man; surely he doesn’t desperately need the $585,361. Wither thou goest Mr. Hore-Lacy?

Rick’ loss to Caulfield will leave an immense hole in training that will be very hard, nigh impossible, to fill.

The question remains — what exactly is for sale? Land Victoria indicates 20 Booran Road, Caulfield East, is a large allotment immediately south of the land given to the Crown in exchange for the infamous “triangle”, which was part of Queen Victoria’s Crown Grant, but which is now set aside for the MRC’s high-density commercial development on the corner of Station Street and Normandy Road – directly over the road from the Caulfield Railway Station. (Worth a damn lot more than Rick’s stable complex).

The Victorian Land’s Department also seems to think his stables are within the land controlled by the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees. It’s my opinion that the land to the east of Kambrook and Booran Roads is freehold, and includes what was originally an extended Bond Street.

You can see the Land’s Victoria map:

However 20 Booran Road it is further south than indicated on the Government’s map. It can be positioned by a sign on the fence indicating that it is a “Community Stable Complex — 20 Booran Road”. Furthermore there are seven letterboxes in the fence, so exactly what did Rick Hore-Lacy’s “Australia-wide firm of valuers” value? It can’t be his goodwill, because that would have only a negligible value after he departs.

It seems Rick Hore-Lacy’s departure is yet another sign that we are watching the slow, painful death of racing at Caulfield. The MRC is now too embarrassed to publish crowd numbers, even for the Caulfield Cup. Please don’t go Rick, Caulfield needs you.

A rich and magnificent 150 year history of racing and sharing with the public is slowly being desecrated by an incompetent and avaricious Racing Club, while the inept Trustees waffle about the 65 hectares of “public recreation ground and public park” which they, in theory only, hold in trust for all members of the public.

December 3, 2014

Questions, Questions, Questions!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
[15] Comments

What is really going on at the Racecourse and what is Council and the Trustees doing about anything? There are countless questions that need asking and answering. Here’s some of them –

Is this Crown land or freehold land?
If Crown land then what are the Trustees doing?
Valued at only $585+?
Is this a ‘lease’ or a ‘sale’?
What’s happened to getting rid of training?

And questions on another issue involve the Santa events at the centre. We have been informed that it appears as if those involved in running the show have set up caravans on site and are using these as accommodation for the duration of the event which goes for a month at least. Council’s Local Law states –

Section 310

Pitching a tent, erecting any temporary or permanent shelter or placing and occupying a caravan, campervan or shipping container on any, Council Land, public or private land for the purpose of camping or living. This law does not apply to the erection (with the land owner’s consent) of a temporary shelter to facilitate the preparation of meals associated with a religious practice or festival for a period not exceeding twenty-one days.

We therefore ask:

Have the operators been granted a permit by Council?
Has Council even been informed that this is happening?
Does Council even care!

December 1, 2014

The MRC Juggernaut Continues & Council Does Nothing – Again!

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

We’ve received the following images from a resident. Once again they raise serious questions about the pathetic ‘Agreement’ that was signed off by Council. We maintain, that you can have all the ‘agreements’ you like, but unless they are enforced, then they are not worth the paper they are written on.

The photos below reveal how this ‘agreement’ has been ignored once more – by both Council and the MRC and by implication the Trustees.

The centre of the racecourse is only to be used for MAJOR RACE DAYS OR EVENT DAYS. We do not believe that today’s event fits into these descriptors.
We are very concerned about ‘safety’ when cars are parked so close to barbecues and the euphemistically called ‘playground’.
Residents were not provided with any warning – again traffic problems
Was a traffic management plan submitted to Council and was this approved by Council?
As one reader commented a little while ago on the previous post – the noise emanating from the course can be heard 300 metres away!
And while we’re at it – we remind readers that the fences that were supposed to be gone years ago are still standing – which leads us again to that old question of WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU COUNCIL?

PS: It is also worth pointing out that the case for the yellow brick roads right around and through the course was that the MRC and Council argued that it is necessary for ‘disability’ access. Bunkum, hogwash, and double this. The photos show that concrete was required so that cars could be parked and work vehicles could traverse the area. Disability would come very, very low on the list of priorities. More spin, more deception, and more pathetic governance.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Glen Eira Debates