The full c60 Planning Report has been uploaded. Simply click on the link below –

https://gleneira.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/c60-panel-report-revised-1.doc

2 Responses to “PLANNING REPORT C60”

  1. AFM Says:

    The stink is not horse manure

    The sham planning process (Age, 13/11/10) practised by the Victorian Labour Government includes circumventing the planning process by doing secret deals which favour developers over the public. The case in point is the inappropriate and ever burgeoning Caulfield Village development proposed by the Melbourne Racing Club. The site of this overdevelopment is the Caulfield Racecourse Members Carparks 1 and 2 (MRC free hold land) and the triangle of now former Crown Land (currently used as a carpark) bordered by Station and Smith Streets and Normanby Road, Caulfield North. This 5867 m2 triangle is in a prime location and represents approximately 30% of the proposed Caulfield Village site.

    On 8th December, 2009, the Labour Government’s Land (Revocation of Reservations and Other Matters) Act 2009, which removed the restricted Crown Land status of the triangle, was passed and the Act become operative on 1 July, 2010. Subsequent to passing the Act, a Ministerial Directive from the Department of Sustainability and Environment authorised the transfer of the now former Crown Land, together with control over the surrounding public roads, to the MRC for generous terms. This unpublicized sale by stealth to the MRC was contrary to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Land Development (Sept. 2008) and opposed by Glen Eira and Stonnington Councils.

    The above occurred prior to the “independent and objective” review of the Caulfield Village proposal by a Planning Panel on 18-28 May, 2010. Clearly, the planning consultation process was circumvented. The sale was not conditional on the development being approved after the planning process had run it’s due course.

    In exchange for the Crown Land, the MRC
    1. paid $4.8m – the former Service Station and High Performance Car Engine Service Centre buildings and property located at 2 Station Street is a third the size of the former Crown Land Triangle and was sold at public auction in July for $4.5m (despite the added costs of demolition works and potential soil toxicity issues), and
    2. swapped 3 parcels of land
    a. 954 m2 of MRC freehold land which is to be integrated into the Racecourse Reservation and hence will remain in the control of the Melbourne Racing Club (since the Reservation Trustees have handed daily control of the Reservation to the Melbourne Racing Club).
    b. 691 m2 of MRC freehold land, currently used for stabling, which will remain in MRC control for approximately 10 years. (A horse a year?)
    c. 5584 m2 of neglected MRC freehold land which the MRC is to landscape as a public park then hand over to Glen Eira Council (an unwilling recipient). This land is smaller and of much lesser commercial value than the former Crown Land Triangle. Access is limited to the busy intersection of Kambrook, Booran and Glen Eira Roads and there is no provision for parking – provision of parking will diminish the size of the park. As such Glen Eira Council has deemed it to be of little value, and not practical for community use, yet will be responsible for ongoing park maintenance.

    It is hard to see how the above complies with the DSE Land Exchange criteria of “greater public value” or that the Victorian public will gain an area of equal or greater social, cultural or historic significance.

    Little is known of any performance standards or failure to perform provisions being included in the sale/land swap agreement. Given the well known poor performance of both the Trustees and the Melbourne Racing Club in managing and maintaining the Caulfield Racecourse as a race course, public recreation ground and public park it is extremely concerning that such standards and provisions are not known. How will the government ensure that the Trustees and/or the Melbourne Racing Club fulfil these legal responsibilities and the commitments?

    What is known is that as a result of the sale Victorian’s will receive a large residential/commercial and retail development which is out of context with it’s environment, that is difficult to access and is short on of parking. They will also receive a substandard park. The MRC, which obtained freehold land from funds raised from activities on minimal rent public land will become awash with funds (a minimum half billion). What Victorian’s could have received is not known as the widespread community consultation process recommended by the Select Committee on Public Land Development (2008) did not occur.

    In the words of a fellow objector “the stink is not from horse manure”.

  2. AFM Says:

    The Caulfield Glen Eira Leader (21/12/2010) includes an article on Glen Eira Council’s decision to delay voting on the C60 Amendment, the MRC sponsored Caulfield Village Development. For a newspaper which claims have the experience and resources to exceptionally and truly connect to what’s going on in a community (refer to the Leader Newspapers website), the GE Leaders coverage of the C60 Amendment has been remarkably absent; when not absent it is poorly researched and frequently incorrect. The 21/12/2010 article is a classic example of this.

    Minimal research (reviewing this wordpress site, contacting an objector or even reading the C60 Planning Panel Report) would have revealed the increased building heights and all the concerns about this inappropriate development. Reading the article I suspect that research was limited to receiving a phone call from Brian Discombe, the MRC Development Manager.

    The online leader enables readers to comment on the article. I suggest all readers access the online leader and indicate their dissatisfaction with the Leaders coverage of the C60 amendment and the inaccuracies included in the 21/12/2010 article.

Leave a Reply. You can also SUBSCRIBE to this blog by checking the box found under comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s