Caulfield Racecourse/C60

Archived Posts from this Category

May 23, 2014

Flip-Flopping & Musical Chairs!

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

The continued ‘musical chairs’ between Esakoff, Hyams and Lipshutz on the issue of conflicts of interest show no sign of abating. What was a new step on Tuesday night is that both Hyams and Esakoff did not declare a conflict in relation to the MRC giant screen application under the clauses they had previously used (78B), but instead declared a ‘personal interest’ under Section 79B. The minutes record the following:

Cr Hyams applied for a Conflicting personal interest under s79B of the Local Government Act stating that there is no Conflict of Interest as such but as he is a member of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust which has also needed to look at this issue.

Cr Esakoff applied for a Conflicting personal interest under s79B of the Local Government Act as she is a member of the Trust that has looked at this issue.

8.48PM Cr Hyams and Cr Esakoff left the Chamber.

In the interests of complete accuracy, here is what Section 79B of the Local Government Act States. We draw readers’ attention to clause 2 and 5.

Conflicting personal interest

    (1)     This section does not apply to a Councillor or member of a special committee who has a conflict of interest in the matter.

    (2)     If a Councillor or a member of a special committee considers that he or she has a personal interest in relation to a matter that is in conflict with his or her public duty in relation to the matter, the Councillor or member may, immediately before the matter is considered at the relevant meeting, apply to the Council or special committee to be exempted from voting on the matter.

    (3)     If a Councillor or member of a special committee makes an application under subsection (2), he or she must give reasons in support of the application.

    (4)     A Council or special committee may consent to an application made under subsection (2) and must not unreasonably withhold consent.

    (5)     If a Council or special committee consents to an application under subsection (4), sections 79(6), 79(7), 79(8) and 79(9) apply as if the personal interest that is the subject of an application under subsection (2) were a conflict of interest specified under this Act.

Lipshutz remained in the chamber, seconded the motion, spoke to it and voted! His ‘explanation’ and comments were –

LIPSHUTZ: began by declaring that he doesn’t have a conflict of interest in this item ‘because I am not a member of the MRC’ and that ‘when I look at this (application) it is appropriate‘. Since one of the purposes of the racecourse is ‘racing’ and the screen isn’t any ‘bigger than the one in NSW’ and that racing brings in a ‘lot of revenue for the State’ and ‘I think it’s important’. Said that this doesn’t mean that it’s ‘more important than the other two purposes’ (ie park). This is ‘appropriate’ and won’t have any ‘impact on houses nearby’ and isn’t an ‘amenity issue’. He saw ‘no reason to refuse it’.

All in all quite staggering we say. How one councillor continually adjudges that his position is different to two other councillors in the identical situation is mind boggling. And of course, this application has never rested on the premise as to whether anyone is a member of the MRC. That is a nonsense, since it is the Trust which has legal oversight of the MRC. Even more disturbing is that not one single councillor has challenged Lipshutz in his refusal to leave the chamber, or possibly to leave councillor assemblies. So much for adhering to the principles of ‘conflict of interest’.

 

May 21, 2014

Defending The Indefensible!

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

Lipshutz moved some amendments (balconies to be 8 square metres; on site visitor parking increase to make up for lost car spots – ie 130 spots; peak hours for paid parking; screening allowed for ‘alternate methods’). Sounness seconded.

LIPSHUTZ: called this a ‘vexed issue’ and that Council has been accused of being ‘treacherous but the reality’ is that the government has given the development the ‘go ahead’ and therefore ‘Council has an obligation’ to do things properly. Said that ‘we can refuse’ the plans but all that would mean is that the developer will go to VCAT and they ‘will get what they want’. Went on to say that all councillors had looked very carefully at the plans and that they had seen some ‘defects’ and are now correcting these defects. Said that C60 is ‘going to go ahead’ and that it’s going to be a ‘very high class village’ and that this is ‘unstoppable’. Council now has to deal with this ‘appropriately’ and the conditions put ‘satisfy this’. Claimed that he has always been ‘concerned’ about car parking and traffic. Since there will be a loss of car spots then council is ‘increasing’ the number of car parking spots ‘up to 130’. Mentioned that the Tabaret’s permit is for 127 off site car parking spots and that has to be maintained and ‘how the developer does that’ is his problem. On balconies he was ‘concerned’ that they get a ‘high quality development in this area’ so ground floor balconies should all be at least 8 square metres because he doesn’t like the situation where people buy and they have ‘very small balconies’. Went on to explain that there are 373 dwellings above the ground floor ones and these balconies on average are over 7 square metres but only ‘22% are greater than 8 square metres’. Council is trying to make sure that these dwellings are ‘in accord’ those on the ground floor and ‘so when you have this people have open space’ and people can ‘walk around and enjoy some of the gardens and balconies’. The developer will have to ‘relocate’ parking machines and pay for this. Overlooking is another issue and ‘fixed glazing’ is one method, ‘there may be other methods’ and if council is satisfied then ‘we have to go ahead with that’.

Kept saying that this is only ‘the first stage’ since over the next 10 to 15 years more development plans will be coming in. Admitted that the issue of ‘social housing’ isn’t part of the plans for this stage but it will be in future stages and if not then council ‘will have something to say about that’. Concluded by saying that he thought that with the amendments they had ‘improved’ the plans.

SOUNNESS: called the history of the development a ‘strange beast’ and ‘contentious’ and claimed there is ‘little capacity’ for councillors to do much within the ‘framework’ of the legislation. So given the ‘current form’ of the application ‘there is only so much that Council can do’. Said that car parking was ‘one of those features’ that had been ‘taken away’ from council to look at. This also applies to ‘active open public space’ and the relationship to the racecourse has ‘also been removed from consideration’. Said that all this is ‘complicated, confusing’ and ‘vexed’. Claimed that ‘grounds to say ‘no’ to it are very limited’ and therefore ‘saying ‘yes’ to it is where we’re at’. He thought that if there has to be higher density then ‘where better to do it’ than ‘next to a train station’ and in a place ‘that’s already been affected by urban development’. He would rather see it here than in undeveloped land in the ‘peripherary of Melbourne’.This also applies to infrastructure so ‘I would rather see it here than elsewhere’. The Residential Zones only came in with ‘so much protection’ because of developments like this. This is part of a Glen Eira, Melbourne and ‘Green’s story’. Thought that the development ‘ticks a lot of boxes’. Said that he ‘wasn’t entirely happy with it, but it’s suitable enough’.

DELAHUNTY: said that even though something had to be built there, she thought that the ‘premises’ were wrong and that she’s got 3 major objections to the plan. First was the ‘lack of social housing’ which was included in the planning panel report and in the Incorporated Plan and she was ‘disappointed’ that it isn’t in this part of the Residential Precinct. It shouldn’t be ‘an after thought’ and it belongs here. Second was the ‘shortfall in the car parking’ and the amendment won’t fix it because people who know the area know that ‘there’s an enormous demand’ for car parking there. There is still too much of a ‘shortfall in my mind’. Thirdly the plan ‘falls down’ in the ‘provision of open space’. Said that the panel rested its recommendations on the fact that there was open space in the centre of the racecourse and Council’s Open Space Strategy found that there wasn’t enough accessible open space via the racecourse centre. So if the panel recommended rezoning based ‘on this premise’ and if the premise is wrong then the whole plan falls down.

MAGEE: agreed with Delahunty on social housing. Said that hearing that the Incorporated Plan is now going to ‘be looked at through fresh eyes’ and when the MRC sold it off to a developer and that developer looks at the Incorporated Plan and decides that this isn’t ‘what I want to build here’ so this leads to a ‘situation’ where council ‘thought’ one thing and another thing is happening. Said that since this will take 10 to 15 years and these councillors won’t be there it’s important that future councils keep tonight’s ideas in place. Said that in planning terms for the city this ‘is a race to the bottom’ and won’t benefit Caulfield or ‘amenity’ of Caulfield. Won’t help people trying to ‘commute to an from the city’ and if ‘we don’t do the job properly now then parking’ will be decided ‘in ten year’s time’ . Said ‘there’s questioning’ about rail, the superstop tram stop and whether this will even be built. Said that Caulfield could have ‘another 7 or 8 thousand people’ living here and how does everyone survive in ten years time and ‘how do we make a decision today’ when they don’t even have the ‘foresight to see exactly what’s going to happen’? The Incorporated Plan has changed so taking away commercial areas means ‘more units’ therefore ‘more people’ and ‘more stress on car parking’.

When there are events on at the racecourse then car parking is impossible and that’s ‘why roads are closed off’. The ‘perfect storm’ will be when people are living there already, and there’s races and Monash and then people will ‘look at us and say how did you get this so wrong’? Lipshutz’s amendments are ‘commendable’ but he has ‘still got some severe concerns’ about it. Said that if the motion is defeated then he’s got an alternate motion to put up.

LOBO: after listening to both sides he thought that it was ‘unfortunate’ that when the Special Committee made their decision on the C60 they now ‘have to keep that decision going’. Said that if he would have been in the position of deciding he would have sent it back and asked them to come up with something else. Said it wasn’t the ‘right development’ because there will be a ‘lot of traffic problems’ and because of the railway the ‘chaos will be unimaginable’. Ended up by saying that ‘I am not happy with this at all’.

HYAMS: agreed that this has a long history and goes back to the C60 and that it’s ‘important to remember’ that this involved a ‘long consultation process’ and an ‘independent panel’. When the Panel reported back ‘we ameliorated the original proposal’ and with the panel’s report ‘we ameliorated it a bit further’ so ‘given the outside constraints’ Hyams claimed that they did the ‘best we could have done’. ‘It clearly is an appropriate site for a large development’. Said that ‘a lot of work has gone into this’ and praised the planners. Said that this is the ‘first’ and the ‘less intense’ of all the precincts and with drainage and traffic plans council is looking both at bits and the entire 3 precincts. Even though there have been changes such as less office space, the ‘building envelopes comply with the incorporated plan’ and Council even got ‘independent legal advice’ on this. Said that he didn’t think anyone would be advantaged by ‘forcing’ the developer to ‘build offices’ and then ‘no-one is going to use them’. Stated that council used ResCode as a ‘guide’ even though they weren’t ‘applicable’. Even though council’s traffic department was ‘comfortable’ with 73 car parking spaces on site, and even though he has ‘respect for our traffic engineers’ he doesn’t ‘always agree with them’ and this is where he thought they were being a bit ‘conservative’ about what was needed. So councillors are now asking for 130 which equals the spaces lost on Station Street. Since there won’t be any residential parking permits issued this means that ‘eventually’ there will be Residential Parking Permits for ‘surrounding streets’ so the residents ‘won’t have the option of clogging up nearby streets’. Said that the Transport Plan ‘is not acceptable to us’ or Vic Roads but this latest version is now ‘acceptable’ to everyone. Summarised what else was required such as Waste Management and Construction Plans as well as amended Section 173 Agreement. Admitted that ‘this won’t please everyone’ but it’s a ‘huge site’ near shops and transport so ‘we need to strike a balance between protecting neighbourhood amenity’ and accepting ‘appropriate development’.

ESAKOFF: said that she was ‘satisfied’ with the conditions placed on overlooking and setbacks since they are ‘ResCode compliant’ but didn’t agree that private open space ‘on the ground should be less than 8 square metres’ and agreed that private open space for balconies above was good. Thought that the Integrated Transport Plan ‘must be addressed now’ . Agreed that ‘parking will be an issue’ but it’s an ‘issue throughout all of Glen Eira’ and that ‘replacement of some of these lost spaces is imperative’.

OKOTEL: although the original decision was made in 2011 these current plans have raised concerns by residents and councillors but Lipshutz’s amendments do ‘address those concerns’. The motion will ‘strike the right balance to ensure that’ the development will be ‘satisfactory for the residents’ and for use of ‘future infrastructure in the area’ and it will ensure that there won’t be ‘interruption to traffic flow in the area’.

PILLING: supported Lipshutz’s amendments and thought there was ‘much merit in the application‘ especially in light of Plan Melbourne. Said it was ‘about a sustainable city’ and seeing that people have more ‘accessible public transport’. Pilling did note that there still ‘would be reduction in car parking’ from what’s ‘there now’ but that’s ‘in keeping with our policies, with State Government policies’ in that for such areas the priorities ‘won’t be cars‘. Said again that this ‘reflects’ state and council policies and how they are all trying to create a ‘sustainable city’. Thought that ‘the grounds for refusal are fairly weak’. This is only stage one and social housing will be ‘pushed’ for later since this is only ‘early days’. The racecourse ‘was considered’ but not tied in ‘legally’ to a condition here so the grounds for refusal are ‘relatively weak’. Said that councillors and the planning department had ‘spent a lot of time on it’.

LIPSHUTZ: quoted Bismark about politics being the art of the possible and community would like to still rage and fight the battle over C60 but ‘that’s come and gone’ and the ‘reality’ now is the development plan.Councillors have to look at this and ‘see how best we can deal with it’. Claimed that ‘everyone here’ has really considered this carefully and ‘given a great deal of thought’ including from the officers. His motion was the ‘product of a lot of people’. Claimed that they asked officers to ‘consider’ what a refusal would mean but that the grounds for refusal were ‘weak’ and ‘in my view would have been knocked out very quickly’ at VCAT. But if it still goes to VCAT as a result of the conditions put on it then Council can then go to VCAT and say ‘here are our reasons why’ and ‘we could have a proper argument’ and ‘that’s a far better way’. Not about VCAT though but about ‘community’ and they’ve ‘looked very carefully’ about all such concerns as parking, screening, open space, traffic. It’s not ‘perfect’ but it ‘ensures’ the best for residents. Again, it’s only the ‘first stage’ and they will keep ‘looking at it again’ at each stage. In terms of traffic there will be road redesign and this will ‘improve things’ to ‘some extent’ and there will definitely be ‘more traffic, more parking’ problems but people who will ‘live there will live there knowing these are the restrictions’. Council has ‘ensured’ that there is no overlooking and that there is ‘open space’ . In his view ‘it is a bonus to Caulfield, not a detriment’.

MOTION PUT AND CARRIED

COMMENTS

  • Not one word mentioned about permeability, PUBLIC open space, site coverage, sunlight. Questions on these aspects were asked at the Planning Conference. The answer was that officers were ‘investigating’ and had not finished their analysis. Yet not one single word in either the report, nor any of the councillor comments touches on these aspects. What makes it even more outrageous, is that for the other applications on the agenda (ie Neerim Rd – 16 units) Esakoff was very concerned about the number of units which would not have access to natural light. What all this means is that people living in Activity Centres and potentially high density commercial zones have greater protection of their amenity than will those residents who end up in the Caulfield Village!
  • How many more times will that old scapegoat of VCAT be pulled out of the hat by Lipshutz and his ilk? What this red herring totally ignores is: (1) Lipshutz, Esakoff, Hyams and Pilling had the option way back to reject both the rezoning as PDZ and the C60. The clandestine machinations in setting up the Special Committee when there was no need for one was deliberate with the purpose of facilitating what is now a fait accompli!
  • Not one single word by any councillor or the report talks about Design as such or even the Planning Scheme for that matter? Residents are supposed to grovel in sheer gratitude that ResCode has been applied, even though it is not applicable! Why then couldn’t other aspects of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme also be applied such as site coverage, permeability, etc. In the end, all we have to go on is that self proclaimed expert on everything (Lipshutz) that the Caulfield Village will be ‘high quality’.
  • Council’s ‘legal advice’ is simply that – advice. It is not fool proof, nor is it set in concrete. It could have been challenged as other councils have challenged Ministers and VCAT. But of course to do this would mean that the old argument of ‘the Minister will call it in’ or ‘VCAT will make it worse’ would go out the window.

Finally it is worth noting that for all the Lipshutz talk about the amount of effort that councillors put into this decision, we have to wonder:

  • Did every councillor bother to read every submission? Were these submissions (apart from VicRoads) treated with the respect they deserved given the time and effort that people put into them?
  • When were they handed the submissions? For example, we know that councillors were not privy to any documents until the Planning Department deigned to provide councillors with something. As late as April councillors had not clapped eyes on anything to do with the plans is the rumour.
  • If these councillors put in hours of toil in discussing, arguing, arriving at consensus on the biggest residential development in the history of the municipality THEN WHY IS THERE NOTHING IN THE RECORDS OF ASSEMBLY leading up TO LAST NIGHT’S MEETING? One could be forgiven for thinking that something of such a scale should have been discussed over and over and over again at assemblies. It either wasn’t, or the other possible alternative is that the minutes of the Records of Assemblies are nothing more than figments of someone’s imagination!

We pass on our sincere condolences to all those residents currently living in North Caulfield for the sheer destruction of their amenity that this project will cause and the unmitigated chaos that they will have to endure for the next 15 years. That is the legacy that will be left by Newton and his gang.

 

May 20, 2014

Arrogance, Disrespect & Betrayal

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

Tonight’s council meeting could arguably be said to represent the nadir of councillor/community relations. At the start of the meeting Esakoff began to give her ‘report’ on the MAV State Conference. She actually started to disclose not only some motions which Glen Eira council had put forward, but how they voted! A first – but always after the fact and never as a tabled document for a full Council Resolution but discussed and decided in secret assembly meetings.

Following about a minute of her report, approximately 50 to 60 residents carrying placards entered the chamber and once assembled started chanting ‘Save the Conservatory’. The chants continued for about 4 to 5 minutes. THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE TIME ESAKOFF CONTINUED SPEAKING AS IF NOTHING WAS HAPPENING. NO COUNCILLOR UTTERED A WORD ALTHOUGH AT ONE POINT PILLING DID ‘CONFER’ WITH BURKE. Whilst many may regard disrupting a council meeting as inappropriate, in our view, what is even more inappropriate is that Esakoff’s actions speak volumes. Not only is this totally ignoring ratepayers and refusing to even acknowledge their presence, but it embodies the ‘us and them’ mentality which is the hallmark of this council and its attitudes and treatment of residents. The latter simply do not exist. Their opinions, aspirations, and even presence in chamber, does not matter! This is more than rudeness. It says very, very clearly ‘get stuffed’ to residents and we will continue along in the same autocratic and anti-community fashion.

The complete betrayal by the ever growing ‘gang’ was in relation to the C60 Development plans. It was voted in by 6 to 3 with some pathetic little cosmetic amendments put up by Lipshutz – ie peak hour times were now 8.00am; more visitor car parking which still doesn’t cover the loss of existing car parking spots. Trivial, insignificant, and just tinkering. The arguments presented were woeful in their inconsistency and in their self-serving. We will report on this in detail in the next day or so. Suffice to say that those who voted to accept the Development Plans were (and this shouldn’t be a surprise) –

LIPSHUTZ, ESAKOFF, HYAMS, PILLING, OKOTEL AND SOUNNESS.

Voting against were – LOBO, MAGEE AND DELAHUNTY

The big screen was voted in unanimously (Okotel had left the meeting at this stage). More fun and games were evident by the fact that both Hyams and Esakoff left the chamber, but not by declaring a conflict of interest – but this time a ‘personal interest’ as Trustees. Lipshutz not only stayed in chamber – he seconded the motion and voted!

 

May 19, 2014

Development Plan

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

The recommendation from Akehurst for the “Approval of Development Plan and Whole of Land Plans subject to Conditions’ highlights the insanity of the current planning system and in particular, this council’s approach to planning. First off, there is the recommendation that Council approve the development plans and then down the track approve further crucial amendments related to traffic management, drainage, Environmental Sustainability, construction, Section 173 agreements, etc. etc. In other words, give the green light to the developer and we will worry down the track as to the fine detail.

Residents are of course expected to swallow the guff that this development and council’s entire approach has been in accordance with the stated Community Plan objection of – manag(ing) the rate and extent of change to the built environment consistent with state and local planning policies to achieve a diversity of housing as sympathetic as possible to neighbourhood character.

Akehurst’s analysis (explanation/justification?) of the development plan runs to precisely 11 pages of mostly generalities.  And of these 11 pages many simply repeat themselves. The absence of detail is staggering. Not once is any mention made of:

  • Flow on traffic effects
  • Non peak periods are now regarded as being from 8.30am onwards.
  • No reporting on council’s own traffic analysis – in fact we doubt that they even bothered to undertake any such thing!
  • Real detail of amended Section 173 agreement, and so much more…….

Below we feature extracts taken directly from this report. The only concessions to residents are the imposition of increased balcony sizes (which are allowed to encroach on setbacks thanks to an earlier Amendment), and the requirement for screening. Readers should also note that when it suits, ResCode is called in as the ‘standard’, but when it doesn’t suit, ResCode is conveniently forgotten!

The development’s side setback to 3 Bond Street (to the north) and side and rear setbacks to 70 Kambrook Road (to the south) are required by virtue of the Incorporated Plan, to comply with ResCode. The development has provided the required setbacks and transitioning of building heights to these adjoining residential properties in accordance with ResCode requirements.

Amenity Impacts

Submitters have raised concerns with respect to potential overlooking from balconies and windows of the proposed dwellings. A review of the development plans indicates that a number of the proposed dwellings will have overlooking opportunities into the adjoining residential properties north at 3 Bond Street, to the west at 40, 42, 44, 46 and 54 Kambrook Road and to the south at 70 Kambrook Road. A condition forms part of the recommendation requiring windows and balconies to be screened in accordance with ResCode requirements. ResCode does not apply in the Priority Development Zone but has been used as a guide.

However, over half (250) of the proposed apartment dwellings are considered to have inadequate outdoor open space areas in the form of balconies. These balconies range from 3.5m2 to 7m2. It is noted that a majority of the apartments are comparatively spacious and range from 50m2 up to 108m2 in size. Given the size of the proposed apartments all future residents should be provided with a minimum balcony area of 8m2 in compliance with Rescode. Again, it is acknowledged that Rescode does not apply but is used as a guide. This can be readily achieved as balconies are an allowable encroachment for the specified setbacks.

It is noted that there is no requirement for visitor car parking consistent with Amendment C60.

Street Tree Planting

Council’s Parks Services Department has raised no concern with respect to the removal of existing street trees along Kambrook Road and Bond Street and the replacement trees proposed. Conditions form part of Appendix 1 requiring protection measures around the street trees to be retained.

Council’s Sustainability Department is satisfied with the Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) features proposed within the development. There are two items which need to be addressed before the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) can beapproved. A condition has been included in Appendix 1 outlining these requirements.

A number of submitters have raised concerns that these development details are not in accordance with the Caulfield Mixed Use Area Incorporated Plan. Council has obtained independent legal advice which concluded that the dwelling numbers and retail and office floor areas set out in the Caulfield Mixed Use Area Incorporated Plan relate to a ‘tested development scenario’ and, unlike the height and setback provisions (which are fixed), do not restrict the development to a particular mix of residential or office development. The developer has indicated that there is currently no demand for office floor space within the area. However, should this change in the future then they would seek to incorporate office floor space into the development.

Both concept plan options show some significant increases in the road widths for both Normanby Road and the new Boulevard. These changes are required in order to accommodate greater number of road lanes for traffic as well as bicycle and pedestrian paths. As a consequence the developer will lose approximately 600m2 of otherwise developable land comprising up to 6 storey development. The developer is aware of this loss of development opportunity and is strongly opposed. It should be noted that this loss of land is substantially driven by VicRoads, Public Transport Victoria and Yarra Trams. The proposed double tram length ‘super stop’ is considered by the developer to be unreasonably opportunistic.

In order to ensure that the new Boulevard meets the objectives of the Incorporated Plan (which is to create a street that supports retail shop fronts) conditions are recommended within Appendix 1 which will allow for car parking to occur on the eastern and western lanes of Boulevard during non-peak periods. The additional road lanes will be made available to address the peak traffic periods. 

The principle used is that these additional lanes of traffic and intersection changes are needed as a result of the traffic likely to be generated by the Caulfield Village development alone.

Council’s Engineering Assets Department has viewed the Drainage Management Plan and has advised that additional information is required. A condition forms part of Appendix 1 which requires the submission of an amended Drainage Management Plan incorporating this additional information. In addition, a condition will require the submission of a Site Management Plan to ensure that stormwater runoff is appropriately managed (Appendix 1).

Section 173 Agreement

The existing Section 173 Agreement will need to be amended to incorporate the works required to Normanby Road (as outlined in the concept plan options) and possibly the Station Street new Boulevard intersection and Smith Street’s intersection with the Boulevard on Normanby Road. This forms a condition within Appendix 1.

A minimum of 73 off-street car spaces are to be provided across the entire Caulfield Village development site in order to accommodate existing visitors to the area.

Event Parking

The submitted Car Park Management Plan indicates that the existing demands associated with events at Caulfield Racecourse can be accommodated within the Racecourse. The on-site areas include the centre of the track, Guineas car park and Kambrook Road car park.

On this basis, the centre of the track, Guineas car park and Kambrook Road car park must all be available for public parking at “major events” (i.e. no marquees, no caravan displays etc. can be provided within the car parking areas).

Additionally, the on-site parking shall be cost free to encourage on-site parking (rather than in local streets further afield).

Loss of on-street and off-street spaces

Noting that as many as 192 on-street spaces would be lost in the streets abutting the development, some off-setting allocation must be provided within the proposed developments (across the entire site) to accommodate visitors to the area. The parking losses associated with the new pedestrian refuge in Kambrook Road (5 spaces), access points and road closure in Bond Street (20 spaces), access points in Smith Street (5 spaces) and intersection upgrade associated with Normanby Road (22 spaces) can be accepted.

It is acknowledged that Station Street experiences low – medium parking demands on non-event days. There are 190 on-street spaces in Station Street. Removing 130 of these spaces as proposed would result in 60 onstreet spaces remaining. Adopting the ‘medium’ parking demand (which is up to 70% occupancy), there may be a demand of up to 133 parking spaces in Station Street on a non-event day. It is therefore considered appropriate that 133 (demand) – 60 (proposed supply) = 73 spaces (shortfall) be provided within the development. Therefore, it is recommended that a further 73 offstreet spaces be provided across the proposed development sites to accommodate existing visitors to the area.

The on-street spaces in Station Street are managed via parking machines. The estimated loss of 130 on-street spaces in Station Street will correspond to a reduction in parking revenue (approx. $50,000 p.a). Any relocation /reprogramming of parking machines will need to be funded by the applicant.

PS: here’s one of the traffic proposals

Pages from May20-2014-AGENDA

 

May 16, 2014

News Flash: Trustees

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

An alert reader has notified us of a Statement from the CCR Trustees. Please note several things that we regard as essential:

  • missing totally is any discussion on governance/conflicts of interest issues
  • ironic that only now is an ‘independent’ review of the valuation taking place, plus much much more that we invite residents to comment upon.
  • whatever the reason (ie Jon Faine, Magee, 7.30 Report) there is finally some ‘movement at the station’. That we applaud but still a long, long, long way to go.

Notices

The purpose of this Statement is to set out the current position in relation to negotiations between the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustee (CRRT) and the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC).

Background

The MRC held a lease over parts of the course including the Grandstand complex, including the Administration office site, Tabaret building site, Eastern car park site for a period of 21years concluding on 22 October 2012.

In addition, the MRC have a lease for the Neerim Road & Western stables for a 21 year period concluding on 15 March 2019 & 27 April 2029 respectively.

The rental received by the Trust under these previously agreed leases (Grandstand and Stables) amounts to $83,946[1] per annum. Additionally, there is a ‘Deed of Maintenance and Development’ between the Trust and the MRC which commits the MRC to do maintenance work on behalf of the Trust to the value of $280,000[2] in the 2012/13 year. The Deed of Maintenance and Development was agreed to in February 1997 and concludes on 16 February 2018.

In late 2011, the Trustee established a ‘Working Group’ to put together a proposal for the Trust in relation to the renegotiation of leases at Caulfield. The ‘Working Group’ comprised three members, one from each of the Trusts constituent parts: MRC, Glen Eira Council and Government appointments.

The starting point for the working group was to establish an understanding of the requirements of Government Policy, and the view of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries. We also sought guidance from the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office [VGSO] and the Valuer General – Victoria [VG-V].

Advice received from the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office, recommended the Trustee seek a restructure of the existing arrangements. The Trustee came to the view that all leases should be brought into line and that there needed to be a Licence agreed between the Trustee and the MRC in respect of the use of Crown Land, by MRC, not covered under the Lease.

In February 2012 the Trustee also commissioned Charter Keck Cramer [CKC] to prepare a preliminary valuation that was consistent with current government policy. That is, where crown land was being used for commercial activity, a retail rental was to be applied and where there was non-exclusive use, a community rate should apply. This estimated ground rental valuation put the rental (Grandstand and Stables) at $822,000 per annum.

In late 2012, the Trustee and the MRC came to the view that negotiations could not be concluded in time to arrange a new lease prior to the expiration of the existing lease. Agreement was reached, with the Minister’s approval, to put in place a 12 month interim lease on existing conditions to give additional time for negotiations.

Accordingly, an interim lease of 12 months was granted on 23 January 2013 concluding on 22 January 2014

On 4 April 2013 a comprehensive proposal setting out the terms the Trustee sought from the MRC for a new lease was put to a meeting of the Trustee for approval. The meeting voted by majority to endorse the proposal.

On 7 May 2013 a letter from the Chairman was sent to the MRC setting out the Trust’s proposal for the renewal of the lease.
The club did not respond formally, but in meetings between the Chairman of the Trust and the MRC Chairman, the Club advised that it would not agree to the proposal; that this would be a significant and deleterious precedent for all racecourses in Victoria and that this was a matter the Government needed to resolve.

On 19 June 2013 the Trust by majority resolution commissioned CKC to complete a full valuation on the same basis, that is, to be consistent with Government policy on the lease of Crown Land and to include these terms in the valuation.

The final valuation put the rental at $1,054,000 per annum. In September 2013 the Trustee wrote to the MRC advising the valuation and providing the MRC with a copy of the CKC final valuation.

The MRC responded to Trustees on 23 December 2013. At the same time they commissioned their own document prepared by m3property strategists that put the market ground rental at $100 per annum.

Current position

On 17 December 2013 the Trustee proposed to the MRC the matter be settled by arbitration through the Valuer General – Victoria.

As the current lease was about to expire (22 April 2014) and the Trustee was concerned at the possible impacts, the trustee wrote to the Minister & the MRC on 25 March 2014 proposing the following course:

That the Minister approve the Trust entering into a short term lease (6 months) on condition that if agreement is not reached, the matter be determined by the VG -V and both parties will be bound by the VG- V determination.

The MRC responded on 28 March 2014 declining to go to arbitration, but indicated it would be prepared to have the matter determined by the Minister for Environment & Climate Change on advice from the Valuer General – Victoria.

The Chairman responded on 31 March 2014 indicating that there may be some governance issues with this approach, but if the VG-V determination was made available to both the Trust and the MRC prior to the Minister making a final determination, the Trust would take advice from the Minister and the Department of Primary Industries [DEPI] on this matter.

The Trustee separately wrote to the VG- V requesting an independent review of the CKC valuation.

Representatives had a meeting with the Minister for Environment & Climate Change senior adviser Mr Matthew Berry on 8 April 2014. At that meeting the Trust was advised the Minister’s view was to approve a 3 month lease on existing conditions in order to provide a further opportunity for the Trust and MRC to continue discussions, but that both parties were to make a submission to the VG-V to enable the VG -V to make a determination.

The Trust subsequently received a letter from the Minister for Environment & Climate Change on 14 April 2014 setting out the Minister’s position.

The Chairman responded to the Minister by letter on 29 April 2014.

Currently, the Trust is now working with the Valuer- General Victoria towards a Determination and there are meetings arranged with the MRC to discuss the overall governance arrangements and the conditions under which the MRC will have access to Crown Land that is not covered under the proposed leased areas.


Greg Sword
Chairman
Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust

[1] Annual rental in 2013
[2] Amount of $183,000 in 1996 indexed annually by CPI

 

Meetings

The last meeting of the Trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve [CRR] was held on Tuesday, 18 February 2014.

Download the agenda.

Trustee meetings are not open to the General Public; however the Trustees have resolved that any Glen Eira resident wishing to address a specific Agenda Item as listed by the Trustees, must first submit their request in writing to the Chairman in advance of the CRR Trustees meeting.  The Trustees will then consider the request and, if appropriate, invite the resident to attend for that specific agenda item only.

Correspondence should be addressed to:

The Chairman
Caulfield Racecourse Reserve
Level 1
25 Flinders Lane
Melbourne
VIC 3000

Or emailed to: CRRTrustees@bigpond.com

The date of the second meeting of 2014 of Trustees of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve [CRR] is yet to be finalised, however it is anticipated this will be held in August 2014.


PS – WE’VE DONE A LITTLE MORE HOMEWORK AND DIRECT READERS’ ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:

At the VEAC Select committee investigation of 2008, the MRC submission included these statements:

The leasing process is managed by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and leases are subject to Governor in Council approval and involve rental payments to the Trustees on commercial terms.

 Porkie No 1. it would seem! Next there was the MRC’s attempt to portray itself as the local community’s saviour in its benevolence in excising some of its land to the general public. Here’s what was stated –

In 1922 however, the Minister for Lands made fourteen acres of the Reserve available for nonracing use. It is this area – Glenhuntly Park – which remains a public park to this day. In the 1960s, for operational reasons Glenhuntly Park was excised from the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. It remains Crown Land and is maintained by the City of Glen Eira. The allocation of this specific section of the Reserve for parkland in 1922 was commended by the Caulfield Citizens’ Defence League and was said to satisfy their concerns that until then the Reserve was only used for Racing.

Porkie No.2 perhaps since this is only half the truth! The land was NOT given up freely as the above would suggest and only came about after months and months of community protest. The following extracts are taken directly from The Argus of the time (1922) and paint an entirely different version of events. It also shows how very little has changed in the decades since!

The Argus – Page 16:Wednesday 1st March, 1922

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE.

Members of the CaulfieldCitizens’ Defence League protested to the Minister for Lands (Mr.Oman) yesterday that the Caulfield racecourse was not being used for the purpose for which it reserved. Although   it was intended that the area should be used for recreation, horse racing had now practically a monopoly. They asked that the iron fence enclosing the reserve be re moved, and the area improved in the same   way as the Fitzroy gardens. Mr. Oman promised to meet the league on the ground, and discuss the matter with them. He wanted to see the interests of the general public safeguarded.      

The Argue – Page 14 – Saturday 28th October 1922

CAULFIELD RACECOURSE.

In a decision of the Minister for Lands (Air. Oman) on the demand , for greater public use of the Caulfield racecourse reserve an area of 14 acres will be made available to the gcneral public.

“Mr. Omans decision provides for-an area of 10 acres to be permanently reserved on the Neerim road side for use -as a public park and gardens.  The high fence at present enclosing-this area will be removed and re-erected on a line to be defined by the Minister, adjoining the racecourse. The new outer- fence adjoining the public road will be sufficient only to protect the hedges and ornamental shrubs. The-cost of this work will be borne by the race course trustees from the grant given by the Victoria Amateur Turf Club for the maintenance of the ground. An area of approximately four acres on the south of the new park area will be made available for recreation purposes.

It is also stipulated that additional openings be made in the fence, enclosing the racecourse to give access to the ground. These gates are to be made available to the public in accordance with the terms of the Crown grant. _ – The gates on the inner side of the stands are to be open daily from 10 o’clock in the morning until 6 o’clock at night, with the exception of 15 days of the year on which racing is held and charges made for admittance. The Victoria Amateur Turf Club will increase its contribution for the maintenance of the Reserve from 600 (pound) to 1000 (pound).

Mr. Oman is confident that the new arrangement will give satisfaction to the Caulfield Citizens’ Defence -League, which asked for greater public facilities in the reserve and to the Victoria Amateur Turf Club, owners, trainers, and others who desired the retention of the reserve for horse racing.

 

May 16, 2014

The ‘Sell-Out’ Is Complete!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
Comments Off on The ‘Sell-Out’ Is Complete! 

The Agenda for next Tuesday night’s Council Meeting is out and, as predicted, the Caulfield Village Development Plans, plus the screen, plus the sale of land to the MRC have all been given the green light with some incomprehensible, vague conditions which are practically all ‘cosmetic’. One thing that residents should note is that after all the promises of ‘certainty’ the plans have now changed again. Instead of 20,000 sq metres of office space, there will not be one square inch of office space. Our forecast: another 20,000 square metres of residential cubby holes down the track!  And of course the argument remains that all of this is still in accordance with an Incorporated Plan which residents never got to comment on at the Panel Hearing for the C60! We will be reporting on Ron Torres’ recommendations in detail once we’ve had the chance to absorb the document fully. (PS: Correction – this should read Jeff Akehurst)

Several other items are worthy of comment:

LOCAL LAWS COMMITTEE

Meeting was held on the 9th April 2014, where the minutes of the last meeting was accepted. This previous meeting was held on the 6th May 2013. So this committee which is so concerned about Tree Registers, Meeting Procedures, Organised Sport, hasn’t met for nearly a fully year. What an absolute joke! And what has this current meeting achieved? We quote:

Classified Tree Register

The latest draft of the Tree Protection Local Law and associated documents were discussed. A number of minor amendments were suggested. It was agreed that the amended draft be provided to Council for further consideration.

Action – Corporate Counsel to amend.

Meeting Procedure amendments

The latest draft of clauses 225, 232, 238 of the Local Law were considered and a number of amendments were suggested. It was agreed that the amended draft be provided to Council for further consideration.

Action – Corporate Counsel to amend.

There’s also another item raised by Lipshutz which we assume could relate to the Friends of Caulfield Park and their attempts to advertise their Bandstand Concerts which Council in part paid for via a community grant. Here’s this item – make of this what you will!

Cr Lipshutz raised the issue of the placement of “A” frame advertising boards in Caulfield Park. There was a discussion on the current permit requirements and rationale for such permits.

 

May 15, 2014

Another Month Of ‘Major Events’?

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

DINOSAUR ADVENTURES is Coming to Melbourne, 6/21-7/20

May 10
9:05 AM 2014

DINOSAUR ADVENTURES is Coming to Melbourne, 6/21-7/20

Did you hear a roar? A stomp? The Dinosaurs are coming!

We are pleased to announce that Dinosaur Adventures, the Number 1 Attraction at this year’s Sydney Royal Easter Show is set to open in Melbourne.

These life-size creatures will be taking over Caulfield Racecourse this June and July.

Dinosaur Adventures is an exhibition that is captivating young and old alike. Explore a prehistoric world full of life-size moving dinosaurs and be amazed and thrilled as the greatest creatures ever to walk the earth return and come alive right before your eyes.

Marvel at the story of their 200 million year domination of life on earth. Watch them move. Hear the roar. From the ripple of their skin to the glint in their eye, you will think that the dinosaurs really are back!

Apart from this amazing animatronics show, you will be able to become a Paleontologist for the day. Children will be provided their ‘experts digger outfit’ and chip away at their very own fossil. Plus there will be many more dinosaur activities to take part in including dinosaur sand art, dinosaur library, fossil displays, dinosaur inflatable activity land, dinosaur sand pit, photographic souvenirs inside a life sized dinosaur egg and so much more.

Pegged as a must-see these School Holidays, Dinosaur Adventures is set to bring all the wonder and excitement of the prehistoric world of dinosaurs back. Get ready to be thrilled as you see Triassic period comes to life!

Open from 21 June to 21 July, Dinosaur Adventures will deliver a realistic animatronics show like no other that will capture the imagination of children & parents everywhere.

“We are extremely excited about bringing Dinosaur Adventures to Caulfield Racecourse. The Exhibition was seen by over 250,000 people in just 16 days in Sydney, and we can’t wait to bring it to Melbourne. This is an inspiring show for the young and those just wanting to learn more about dinosaurs. We are very happy that we can deliver such a realistic animatronics show, that can represent what the dinosaurs where all about, ” commented Keith Brown, Dinosaur Adventures Director.

The event includes:

· Explore a prehistoric world full of life-size moving dinosaurs.

· Be amazed and thrilled as the greatest creatures ever to walk the earth come alive before your eyes.

· Meet Fred and Barney from The Flintstones

· Fossil displays

· Become a Paleontologist

· Dinosaur sand pit

· Dinosaur egg photos

· Camp fire story telling

· In a heated Big Top

Melbourne get ready to feel the Dino-Roar Saturday 21 June – Sunday 20 July 2014!

General Admission $27. Under 3’s free

www.dinosauradventures.com.au

 

May 6, 2014

Media Release

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

Government kick-starts independent and fully funded planning authority

Tuesday, 06 May 2014

The Victorian Coalition Government today committed $62.8 million to drive a greater range of jobs and investment opportunities supporting the city’s continued livability and prosperity, Minister for Planning Matthew Guy said today.

“The Coalition Government has provided $51.6 million to the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) over four years to implement Plan Melbourne,” Mr Guy said.

“Plan Melbourne supports the Coalition Government’s commitment to building a stronger Victorian economy by working with development industry to create more jobs right across the State.

“This funding is an important boost for jobs and productivity, by helping the growth and development of significant employment hubs across the metropolitan area and driving the expansion of the central city.

“It will kick start the major employment clusters at Monash, Latrobe, Sunshine and Fishermans Bend, urban renewal a framework for expanding the central city and a metropolitan-wide open space strategy, to promote growth and investment, further increasing their attraction as great mixed use places for businesses, workers and new residents.

“These job centres are a fundamental principle of Plan Melbourne, our new plan for the city, and they mean more jobs and services in Melbourne’s middle and outer suburbs,” Mr Guy said.

Planning will also commence for urban renewal areas at Cremorne and Collingwood and along railway corridors from Huntingdale to Dandenong, Brunswick to Batman, and North Richmond to Victoria Park.

A further $11.2 million will be provided over four years to deliver key short term actions from Plan Melbourne including:

  • supporting Local Government delivery of major urban renewal sites;
  • a local pocket park fund; and
  • a 20-minute neighbourhood fund.

This funding will be available to the MPA and other government delivery bodies.

“Unlocking land opportunities across Victoria and expanding our central city and urban renewal areas will not only deliver more jobs, more housing and transport options, it will be a major boost for the State’s productivity and economic growth over the next 50 years,” Mr Guy said.

The funding to deliver Plan Melbourne initiatives and a more streamlined planning system will be provided through a new levy on planning permit application fees for projects worth more than $1 million.

The levy will be at a rate of $1.30 for each $1,000 of the estimated development cost. It will apply in addition to the permit application fee, which will still be paid to the local council as currently occurs.

The levy will raise an estimated $17.1 million per year and will take effect from 1 July 2015. It is estimated that approximately 6 per cent of all planning permits will be charged the levy.

Projects below $1 million in value will not be subject to the levy and designed to ensure that permit application costs remain competitive against other States, while delivering increased certainty for Victoria’s development and construction industry.

Mr Guy said that the increased costs of the levy would be more than offset by a more efficient planning system.

“Developers face millions in land holding costs every week across Victoria. A fully funded MPA will reduce overall development costs over time by bringing land to market earlier,” Mr Guy said.

“Properly funding the implementation of Plan Melbourne will ensure we maintain our globally recognised livability, while becoming Australia’s most efficient and attractive location for financial and business services, the knowledge economy, tourism attraction, freight, logistics and manufacturing.”

+++++++++

 

May 1, 2014

Come One, Come All!

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

Next Wednesday, the 7th May, will see the Planning Conference for the Big Screen at Caulfield Racecourse take place.

TIME: 6.30pm

CHAIR: Cr Jim Magee

VENUE: Town Hall

We can only hope that this time:

  • doors will not be locked
  • that clear directions are provided to residents so they can find the exact location
  • that enough plans are provided to go around
  • that the MRC deigns to appear and answer questions, and
  • that in future Council consider that 6.30pm is NOT the best time for such meetings if their objective is to truly engage with residents!

+++++++++++++

PS: and if any further evidence was needed to prove how Glen Eira City Council operates in contrast to its neighbours, we provide the following:

Residents and councillors reject State Government call for greater housing density in Boroondara

  • Greg Gliddon
  • Progress Leader
  • May 01, 2014 10:36AM
0
Boroondara residents and councillors have rejected a call from Planning Minister Matthew

Boroondara residents and councillors have rejected a call from Planning Minister Matthew Guy for an increase to the proportion of residential growth zones in the municipality. Source: News Limited

ANGRY residents and councillors have rejected last-minute planning zone changes that would see more neighbourhoods opened up to 13.5m-high residential developments.

More than 600 residents packed into the Camberwell Town Hall this week to hear councillors unanimously reject a planning scheme amendment that would see a greater proportion of residential areas allocated the Residential Growth Zone.

It was originally planned for 0.8 per cent of areas to be given the zone, under amendment C190. Planning Minister Matthew Guy asked for this to be increased to 2.5 per cent, under amendment C199.

A total of 123 residents wanted to speak at the special planning committee meeting, of which 52 were heard. The meeting stretched into the early hours of Tuesday morning.

Cr Jim Parke described the proposed changes as “utter nonsense”.

“What was put forward (originally) is a great outcome for Boroondara and council had every right to expect they would be approved by the minister,” Cr Parke said.

“Not for one moment did council tend to alter the protection of our city. It goes to show with the depth of feeling here tonight, that should also be conveyed to our local state members.”

Boroondara Residents Association President Jack Roach said there had been an unnecessary delay in approving the C190 amendment, which many people had found “unacceptable and detrimental” to the region.

“We request the minister approve C190 without delay,” he said.

‘There are 700 people here tonight who do not like this growth. These added bits are an insult to us all and the minister has to be told the people are not happy with this.”

The Leader asked Mr Guy’s office for a response to the meeting and details of when he plans to finalise planning scheme amendment C190.

A spokesman for Mr Guy said “An independent advisory committee is considering the merits of this issue and will give a recommendation back to the minister.”

++++++++++

And from Council Minutes 29/4 –

It has become apparent overtime, the Gallery feel we should have the opportunity to be able to speak as we are a democratic country. Instead we’re being gagged. Afterall we the ratepayers are paying the Councillors wages. So a motion should and needs to be passed on the above. During a meeting with the Mayor (Neil Pilling) last month he said he would agree to the idea of the Gallery being able to voice questions with certain restrictions. EG: time restraints. If the Councillors are discussing a particular subject the Gallery should be able to interject and ask a question by raising their hand, which is allowable in VCAT. What’s the point of attending Council Meetings monthly when we the ratepayers can’t voice our opinions.

The Mayor read Council’s response. He said:
“Over recent years Council has considered the issue of meeting procedures including the provision for a public question time.
Council, by a majority decision, decided not to change the current format.”

 

April 25, 2014

Agenda Items #1

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

Included in the agenda items for Tuesday night’s Council Meeting, there is a letter from the Valuer General’s office in response to Council’s missive. The letter provides an affirmative response to Magee’s motion that the Valuer General become involved in the Trustee/MRC lease negotiations. All well and good and certainly a step forward. However the letter basically concentrates only on the current lease negotiations and remains quite taciturn (and evasive?) on the request to REVIEW ALL LEASES.  Whether this is intentional, or merely an oversight, we leave readers to decide for themselves.

Duration of the ‘new’ lease and the implications it has for the removal of training is yet another element that does not feature but which is vital if the Reserve is to fulfill its function as a racecourse, public park and recreation area.

We also wonder what has happened to the rest of the Magee resolution of March 18th – ie to involve the Auditor General re the landswap and hence the potential conflict of interest issues. Has Council had any response(s) to this component of the resolution? Why isn’t this mentioned in the report?Pages from APRIL29-2014-AGENDA

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »