Mathew Guy

Jack Roach of Boroondara Residents Action Group (BRAG) writes that neither our federal nor our state governments can fund the infrastructure required to supply a doubled Melbourne population. The growth lobby, which includes the Labor opposition, is placing pressure on Mathew Guy to reduce residents' rights. The real problem is, of course, the unwise decision to grow Melbourne's population.

From an article originally at BRAG Headings have been inserted in this republishing by the editor of candobetter.net.

"Plan Melbourne" has been criticized by the planning expert, Professor

Australia's population growth well above all other OECD countries

Roz Hansen, hand picked by the government to draw up and provide advice on the strategy. We criticized her appointment because she was one of this city's planners who were advocating unlocking the potential in the existing residential areas for massive development as a response to the record rate of our population growth which, on a population basis, is well above all other OECD countries.

In an article by Jason Dowling in the Sunday Age (26/1) Roz Hanson says that "The elephant in the room is how do we fund the public transport and community services for 8 million people in 2050"?

Roz still doesn't get it, the question that needs to be answered should be "If you double the population of Melbourne you need to double the infrastructure but can our governments (both Federal & state) do it"? Of course they cannot because they just can't get that much tax out of us. Right now they can't even fund the necessary infrastructure upgrades to meet current needs let alone the future needs of record immigration.

Population push squeezing all of us

As a response to the continuing government policies pushing to increase our population, developers have been increasingly moving into our existing residential areas to build apartments and squeeze more and more into the suburbs. The residents reacted and through organizations like BRAG and Planning Backlash they lobbied the government for protection from such rapacious development.

The government responded by announcing the "Reformed Residential Zones" which require new developments to meet neighbourhood characteristics and mandatory height limits.The developers and the building lobbyists screamed that these new zones would lock them out of the residential suburbs and Radley de Silva from the Master Builders Assoc said that some councils were trying to lock up their suburbs. Actually he is right. We suspect this is a shot at the Glen Eira and Boroondara Councils but other councils are putting up plans to follow their lead by putting around 70% to 80% of their residential areas in the most protected zone - the neighbourhood residential zone.

Growth lobby squeezing Minister to squeeze democracy

The Planning Institute of Australia, the Master Builders, HIA, the developers and investors etc. are now applying pressure on the government to modify the new zones. The Labor Party have said if they are re-elected they will bring back Melbourne 2030. That would not be very clever would it ?

We at BRAG have many times made it clear that the elephant in the room is the increasing population numbers due mainly to the record and ever increasing rate if immigration, and those who come to this country on visas as a back door way of gaining residency. If it continues, the population of Melbourne will more than double within the next 35 years - yes, more than double to well over 8 million.

Moderate immigration to reduce population growth

In our view it's the rate of population growth through immigration that needs to be modified.
This does not mean that we should shut up shop altogether for, if we cut back on the immigration quotas to something like the numbers we used to accept ( around 70,000/80,000 p.a instead of the 225,000 p.a.in 2013 - and stll rising) we would still be in accord with what other countries do and meet our international obligations. We could even increase the numbers of refugees we accept.

Currently we are growing at about 1.82% p.a. compared with the world average of 1.1% so if we did cut back we would still match the other OECD countries or maybe even be a bit above.

Makes sense to us.

The Important Politics of Public Shopping Strips vs Private Shopping Malls

The subject matter of other comments involved the retention of shopping strips over private malls. This is very important because it involves the retention of public land - where people have the right to demonstrate, film and give out information. In contrast, the privatisation of commercial land into malls permits the developer-owners to exercise complex restraints over what retailers and customers may do. These rules generally rule out democratic activity beyond shopping. These malls are also beyond local council laws in terms of democratic input available to citizens who rent, shop or frequent shopping strips. What this means is that the 'market place' where much political communication has taken place since humans first formed villages and towns, is being lost. #n3581_fn1" id="n3581_txt1">[1] #n3581_fn2" id="n3581_txt2">[2]

Planning fails democracy 101

One participant who admitted she had only skimmed the hefty document “Plan Melbourne” protested the lack of democratic principles in it. Mathew Guy defended his work on the basis that Plan Melbourne protected about half of Melbourne's residential areas whereas before they had not had such protection. He was vehement that he had limited developers’ activities in the interests of residents. The participant remained unconvinced saying she would go home and read the document thoroughly – such are the tasks now for Melbourne residents who feel any responsibility about the future of their city. As far as most were concerned, they were there because they felt that the public were largely left out of the planning process although it affects them in ways that are often quite devastating. They have formed community groups because they are very unhappy with this.

VCAT: a State Government tool

One participant raised the issue of VCAT’s role in development and planning.

Minister Guy distanced himself from any sense of control over VCAT, emphasizing where he and they had disagreed, saying "I expect no Christmas cards from VCAT".

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal(VCAT)is a State entity and the State Govt has total control over VCAT beyond even what most know.

VCAT, a very active arm of State Govt in promoting overdevelopment, is staffed by Members with no security of tenure. If Members fail to promote the State Govt line on Planning Policy about "managing population growth" (read Rapid Population Growth 60% from NOM must be accommodated by densification and destruction of amenity) then the Member's appointment is not renewed. As a local councillor on another occasion was heard to observe, "It is the perfect system." That is, it is the perfect system for promoting overdevelopment because VCAT very deliberately, repeatedly overrides the local democracy of Council on neigbourhood amenity. And woe betide the VCAT Member who fails to get the message.

The whole thrust of the MPS and the New Zones too is to "Cut Red Tape." There is a whole Victorian Government and Federal Productivity Commission project named as such - explicitly to define areas for open slather for developers. The vast legacy of VCAT decision precedents which have to date been so pro-development "by happenstance", is now to be implemented in concrete on the New Zones and the new MPS. As if Minister Guy and his predecessors had nothing to do with it because of the separation of powers.

Matthew Guy very confusing on facts

When Mathew Guy finally took SPA Victoria President, Jill Quirk's question, about his erroneous pronouncement that 85 per cent of Melbourne's population growth was from natural increase, Mr Guy stated that he had said that 85% of population growth would be in Melbourne. He added then that natural increase was about half Melbourne's population growth. Ms Quirk had to disagree again, informing him that only 40 per cent was due to natural increase, whereas 60 per cent is due to overseas migration. Mr Guy agreed. After the meeting, candobetter's attention was drawn to the fact that the ratio 60/40 was stated in the draft of the “Plan Melbourne” (“Melbourne, let’s talk About the future” ) document but that this fact has been omitted from the final document. Perhaps the government thought that Victorians would not notice. It seems likely that the government prefers to conceal the fact that high population growth is inflicted on the people of Melbourne through high immigration. Further, that the Victorian government is more than happy to have as much of this growth as possible regardless of the shortfalls in infrastructure services and the displeasure of citizens who see their amenity disappearing, as the city sprawls outwards and the density of established suburbs increases.

Ms. Quirk went on to say that Victoria's population would reach about 20m by the end of the century –on the same scale as the entire population of Australia today if recent growth continues.

Mr Guy countered that State government did not really have much control over this.

Ms Quirk drew Mr Guy's attention to the fact that he had been reported recently in the news saying MP for Wills, Kelvin Thompson was ridiculous to say that immigration should be less.

Mr. Guy's response was to say that by saying that Mr. Thomson had had six years to convince his government of his point of view on population and had failed to do so.

Ms Quirk said that she did not think Mr Guy could blame Thomson for the situation we are now in.

State is engineering frightening and undemocratic population growth in Melbourne

In relation to the State Government's ability to control immigration, Ms Quirk pointed out that the Victorian government runs a website called http://www.liveinvictoria.gov.au, which promotes population growth.

Mr Guy's response was, "Yes, I'm aware of that."

Discussing within groups after the event came to the conclusion that the effect of Mr Guy's erroneous pronouncement that 85 per cent of pop growth was due to natural increase, if left uncountered, would have been to have made Victoria's frightening rate of population increase seem inevitable.

What, we wondered, was the purpose of this meeting organised by Matthew Guy? Presumably it was to tick the box of 'consultation'. In fact, Planning Melbourne will no longer take comments on the substance of the actual document, only on its implementation.

The participant's objection to the apparent absence of democracy in "Plan Melbourne" has been well demonstrated.

Victoria's state government is effectively a dictatorship. The extreme population growth accompanying this abrogation of democracy is contributing to homelessness, unaffordability, debt, environmental destruction, increasing gaps between rich and poor, and relatedly to increasing drug abuse, gambling, relationship break up and violence.

NOTES

This talk was formally entitled, in the invitations, as "Community group briefing". It took place on Friday 25 October, 2013, from 3.00pm to 4.00pm in the Sir Redmond Barry Room at 46, 55 Collins Street, Melbourne.

#n3581_fn1" id="n3581_fn1">[1] #n3581_txt1">↑ Art critic, Mark Holsworth, writes that 'Historically no city in Victoria was designed with a square because the then Governor Gipps didn’t like them because they encourage democracy. Melbourne City Square was only built in 1980 (when democracy was no longer a threat)..." Source: http://melbourneartcritic.wordpress.com/tag/governor-gipps/

#n3581_fn2" id="n3581_fn2">[2] #n3581_txt2">↑ A very good article on the covert and creeping privatisation of public land can be found here: http://thenextwavefutures.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/privatising-public-space-1/

Reading this letter to the Wheeler center about a shocking spin exercise delivered by professional development spruikers, with Roz Hansen (who is also involved in fielding public submissions), one is reminded of the film, We need to talk about Kevin, a film about a totally underestimated problem with utterly dire consequences. In fact, Melbourne really needs to talk about the corruption of democracy via Melbourne planning and development organisations, their contempt for citizens, their infiltration of law-making in parliament, and the gross unsustainability of the philosophy and projects they seek to unilaterally impose - Candobetter Ed.

Letter to the Wheeler Center after “We Need to Talk” The Wheeler Centre Books Writing and Ideas – Series on “Ideas for Melbourne” Part 1 “The City of the Future” Wednesday 13 February 2013.

Subtitles are by Candobetter.net editor

The booklet said re ‘The City of The Future:’ session: “In 30 years, Melbourne’s CBD will have another 220,000 new residents. A ‘second CBD’ has been proposed for Melbourne’s west, along with a third runway for Tullamarine Airport – and more green wedge land for housing. Can a big Melbourne remain beautiful – let alone liveable or sustainable? Can we have it all, or do tough choices lie ahead?” The panel consisted of Roz Hansen who is the Chair of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy of Melbourne Committee; Alan Davies; and David Nichols (University of Melbourne?). Jane Rawson was the interviewer.

Vivienne Ortega and Julianne Bell attended this Wheeler Centre evening event.

Here are our comments about the event:

We need to talk about what is happening to our democracy

We considered this exercise a piece of political spin, full of contradictions, and generalities. There were no speakers on the panel debating or contesting statements made by panel members; all 3 were in furious agreement with each other. There was no community involvement and no audience interaction. Few questions were allowed at the end of the session. We considered that it was simply a lecture by growth-lobbyists. We were just being lectured to as to how a “Future Melbourne” could accommodate a rapidly growing population!

Roz Hansen - Ethics and Fairness in question

Firstly, it appeared to us extremely inappropriate that Roz Hansen would be speaking at a public forum with obvious references to the Metropolitan Planning Strategy of Melbourne (MPSM) when she was Chair of the Ministerial Committee which is still receiving public submissions on the MPSM. In our view she was giving us the spin on Government policies which ensures growth for developers, the real estate industry and the road lobby. While Ms Hansen said that she wanted “community dialogue” and to hear what we think, she made it clear that said some topics were "non-negotiable" or off limits. It appeared that one of the “non negotiables” was the topic of trains. She made it clear – and had done so at a community forum she attended with the Minister for Planning Matthew Guy on 21 November 2012 - that the “Future Melbourne” would have buses but not urban rail, apart from the underground Metro rail. It would of course have the East West Link tollway/freeway.

Hobson’s Choice promoted as Consumer Choice

The panel was of the opinion that, with population increase, people would “choose” apartments and high density living. We see this as Hobson’s choice, that is, no choice at all. Many people have not now, and will not have in the future, any other affordable alternatives to high density living. No mention was made of the inevitable increase of per capita greenhouse gas emissions, and the denial of facilities enabling residents to reduce consumption and energy, reuse and recycle.

Mythologising exercise

There was an assumption by the speakers that "empty-nesters" will want to buy apartments and units. We know it has found to be a myth that the retired and the elderly want to “downsize”. Many want to stay in houses with gardens and keep their rooms for family and guests. (We have been through this argument with Bernard Salt who took a more extreme line stating that widows should move out of their large houses in the leafy suburbs to provide accommodation for incoming family groups of migrants.) [See Should Jeannie Pratt and Elisabeth Murdoch downsize to high rises in Activity Centers to give young people more room?]

Urban Parks for food production; shopping mall walks for exercise

It was suggested by one of the university academics when the subject of “food security” was raised that urban parks could be turned over for food production and that residents could exercise by walking in shopping malls. Presumably people would be denied back gardens though this was not specifically discussed. In the context of food security it was suggested by one of the speakers that more "intensive farming" could take place in the outer urban growth areas. To us it meant more factory farming, which is cruel and unethical. (Many animal activists want to put an end to it.) We are of the view that our food bowls and green wedges should be protected. Roof top gardens and parks are not a viable alternative.

False perception of inevitability dishonestly imposed on public

It was assumed by the speakers that this "future" spelt out for Melbourne with a rapidly growing population – 6.4 million by 2050 - was inevitable. We say it is not inevitable as the high net overseas migration intake could be capped and reduced as it has been in the past. We consider that the terms “sustainability” and “growth” are oxymorons. Anthropogenic climate change can't be addressed with an economy based on population growth.

Spin cannot hide increasing congestion and no solutions in sight

The "20 minute city" – one of the principles of the MPMS - is to us a contradiction in terms. The proposed growth of Melbourne will inevitably cause more congestion. Infrastructure continually fails to keep abreast of population growth. Rather than more buses, we need more linked public transport and trains. If we cannot manage with congestion and traffic gridlock now why could we manage any better in the future?

Resounding Silence on development-threatened Green Wedges

We consider that our green-wedges are not for housing - they have a purpose as our "green lungs" and should be protected. This was not discussed.

We were of the view that trying to maintain Melbourne's status as a "liveable" city, and "sustainable", are contradictions if our population is "projected" to be 2 million more by 2050 - at a time of severe climate change warnings and increasing scarcities of natural resources.

Homelessness swept under carpet

The problem of “homelessness” was not discussed. It is related, in our view, to the power of developers, grabbing rooming houses for "developments", and forcing up the price of family homes over what is affordable by those on normal fixed wages.

The threat of racism arising from unwelcome mass immigration was not discussed.

Sneering, out-of-touch panellists artlessly contemptuous of public

We were offended by the supercilious rather sneering tone of panellists and comments made. One panellist referred to the “great unwashed” from the outer suburbs. The other male panellist commented that with population pressure new suburbs were becoming “trendy” and expressed surprise that even in Preston growing a moustache was now acceptable and one could get a café latte there. We thought this showed contempt for the audience.

There were few questions, no real vision or strategy for improving or enhancing our city, and there was no chance for the audience to challenge the panel’s opinions. The "Ideas for Melbourne" lacked balance and a contrary side of the debate.

Signed:

Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
Vivienne Ortega, Secretary, Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian and Tasmanian Branch)

28 February 2013

The consideration of the Planning Zones Review should have been referred to the Parliamentary Committee for Environment and Planning which has considerable resources to put the 2,000 submissions on the Parliamentary website and then record on Hansard the hearings of some of the submitters before the Parliamentary Committee.

Submission to Department of Planning and Community Services (DPCS) on Victoria’s New Planning Zones

Introduction: I am writing on behalf of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., a coalition of 80 community, environmental and heritage groups dedicated to protecting and maintaining sites of environmental and heritage significance.

Here is a statement made by Professor Michael Buxton of RMIT covering the significance and the impact on Melbourne of the new zone proposals. He gave permission for me to quote him. I am then making a suggestion as to the need for a Parliamentary Inquiry by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Planning in order for there to be proper consultation with the public.

Significance of Review of Planning Zones: The Victorian government’s proposed new planning zones are the most radical review of planning schemes in the history of Victorian planning. They will lead to fundamental changes in the way Melbourne operates, change the fabric of the city and its hinterland, and remove an extensive range of existing citizen rights. Every citizen will be affected.

The new zone proposals will
• Replace the three existing residential zones with three new residential zones
• Replace the Business 1, 2 and 5 zones with a new Commercial 1 zone, and the Business 3 and 4 zones with a new Commercial 2 zone
• Extensively alter the Green Wedge zone, rural Conservation zone, Green Wedge A zone, Farming zone, Rural Activity zone and Rural Living zone
• Change the existing Mixed Use zone, Township zone and Low Density Residential zone
• Change the existing Industrial 1, 2 and 3 zones.

The government recently released the report of the Advisory Committee into the Victorian planning system and its response to this report. Neither this report nor the government response advocated the changes to zones now proposed. No other justification or strategic context has been provided for the radical changes to the statutory planning system. Clearly, the government worked extensively on its changes to zones in a secret parallel process while the public was diverted to a public process which proposed only moderate change.

Impact of New Planning Zones: The major impacts will be the introduction of extensive commercial uses into residential areas, the destruction of Melbourne’s traditional strip retail centres, the dispersal of commercial activities to car based areas resulting in serious metropolitan wide traffic congestion, the de-facto removal of the urban growth boundary and the extension of a large number of urban related uses into green wedges. Resident rights of notification and objection will be seriously curtailed with many new uses allowed in these new zones without the need for permits.

In particular, the zones will:
• merge residential and commercial uses across urban zones, with an extension of commercial uses into residential areas and little difference between commercial and some industrial zones
• increase the price of commercial and rural land through the encouraging of land speculation
• lead to the growth of large numbers of out-of-centre car based commercial/retail developments including accommodation which will end the current functions of many strip retail centres and lead to substantial car use and increase road congestion across Melbourne
• increase the height of commercial/retail and mixed use developments.

The new zones constitute a largely deregulated land use planning system drawing from the reports and lobbying of market oriented bodies and development groups and growth focused government agencies. These zones, in effect, constitute unfair competition by attempting to allow a wide range of uses in many locations. Existing strip retail centres, for example, will have to compete against new retail development built on much cheaper land far from public transport; land traditionally used for agriculture and rural pursuits will become locations for urban related commercial development and accommodation facilities in unfair competition against higher priced urban land. The principle of unregulated markets also takes no account of their public economic, social and environmental impacts, for example, the impacts on congestion of dispersed commercial development and the associated costs in delays and road construction and maintenance.

The application of the zones and the use of schedules will be subject to ministerial approval. Councils may not be allowed to select zones they regard as appropriate to land in their municipalities.

The use of overlays and structure plans may not significantly reduce the impact of the zones. For example, the Heritage Overlay is increasingly ineffective in preventing development even under current zones, and the effects of structure plans depend on the content and the nature of their incorporation into planning schemes.

Melbourne will not be the same city if these new zones are approved even in a modified form.

Failure of the State Government to Consult Victorians Properly on New Planning Zones:

Here is my comment. This complex set of proposals concerning the new planning zones was sprung upon the public which was given only a month to comment. As commented above it appeared that the public was seriously misled as …“Clearly, the government worked extensively on its changes to zones in a secret parallel process while the public was diverted to a public process which proposed only moderate change.” A number of Councils held planning forums at which planning officers attempted to enlighten the public re detail of the changes. The public encountered difficulties when attempting to make submissions by the deadline last Friday when the DPCS computer crashed. The Planning Minister then gave the public an extension for a week. Our submissions will be referred to a small committee hand picked by the Minister. Members of the Committee cannot be said to be independent.

It is extraordinary that the Planning Minister did not refer the review which is of such great significance to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Environment and Planning. This has not had an inquiry for the past month or so. Public submissions (to this Standing Committee) are put on the Parliamentary website and presentations to the Committee recorded in Hansard. As far as I am aware most members of the public regard this process as open and transparent where people are given a “fair go”. Even if members of Parliament are split on Party lines they can write a group dissenting report. Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc recommends that a proper Parliamentary Inquiry be held into the new planning zones.

Julianne Bell
Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 3052

Community groups are making submissions on the Reformed Zones in Victoria. The government's zoning aims to increase commercial areas into residential areas in a serial manner and to intensify activity in the green wedges. The Department of Planning and Community Development has appointed a Ministerial Advisory Committee 'to review all submissions and provide advice back to the government', but the Chairman of the Committee is Geoff Underwood, who is prominent in the affairs of the Australian Population Institute (APop), which is officiated by professional developers and has the primary aim of promoting a huge population for Australia. What chances do robust submissions have with APop defining the parameters of planning in Victoria? See Planning Backlash submission inside.

The zones in question have as their stated objectives 'to better manage growth' and to 'simplify requirements' and to 'allow a broader range of activities to be considered' and 'to ensure that they still reflect the aspirations of all Victorians'.

Despite the latter objective, the zoning, if it remains as it is, will increase the intrusion of commercial areas into residential areas in a serial manner and intensify activity in the green wedges. The government has appointed the Ministerial Advisory Committee to consider all submissions, but the Chairman of the Committee has been prominent in the affairs of the Australian Population Institute from its beginning. APop is officiated by professional developers and has the aim of promoting a huge population for Australia. Along with billionaire, Richard Pratt and Steve Vizard, it played a major role in ex-Premier Steve Bracks's 2002 Melbourne Population Summit which began the current campaign to institute population growth as a norm for Australians and used sophisticated propaganda techniques to do this. See /node/594#comment-981and http://candobetter.net/node/149

The members of the committee are:

Geoff Underwood, Secretary to the Victorian Branch of APop http://www.apop.com.au/who.html

Chris Canavan, QC, represented Hotel Windsor Holdings in their bid to get an extension in time for redevelopment, which had been denied them by this [Baillieu] government.

Joanna Stanley, Communications Consultant with the particular specialty of "Advocacy and influence through media and stakeholder relations," but who is better known as the media spokesperson at Brunswick Residents Unite.

Liz Johnstone, Planner, Planning Institute of Australia and Manager, Planning Policy & Projects, Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Planning Backlash's submission

Below is Planning Backlash's submission to the 'Reformed zones for Victoria' Ministerial Advisory Committee. It begins by thanking the Minister for his good work, because of his apparent receptiveness to the need for democratic input, however it then requests very challenging, but absolutely necessary, real reforms.

"Suburban - Residential

We agree with the proposed changes to residential zones as finally we can have the protections against inappropriate development that we have been advocating for since Melbourne 2030 was brought in and forced onto us by the previous government, in spite of our objections. The Residential Zones are excellent and we thank the Minister of Planning for his courage bringing these in, no doubt against the wishes of the DPCD.

However there are a number of points requiring amendment and the Minister has heard us voicing our concerns and has said he is open to change and is waiting for the report of the Review Committee. Our agreement to the whole zone concept is dependent on these amendments, because if these are excluded, the advantages would be seriously compromised.

List of Amendments that we request

1. The Minister will scrap the ‘within 100 metre’ of a commercial zone to prevent commercial creep into residential zones. This can in effect double the business area and has unwanted implications.

2. The Activity Centres will be Principal and Major also central, and must have fixed boundaries, and not extending out 400 metres.

3. Neighbourhood Activity Centres will be just local shopping strips.

4. There will be no population targets.

5. There will be no reduction in residents right to object and appeal.

6. Maximum heights must apply to all buildings in the zone.

7. The only uses not requiring permits in residential zones will be those not requiring permits now. Everything else requires a permit and residents retain the right to object. Current prohibitions must be retained with no dilution of present conditions. Rather, enhance the zones to provide the tools to enable the protection of neighbourhood character.

8. The Council working with residents can say where and how big the residential zones will be and the Minister will approve and the DPCD will not interfere.

9. If the Council wants mandatory heights the Minister will give it and the DPCD will not interfere.

10. No offices and shops as of right in the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) or the General Residential Zone (GRZ).

11. No food and drink premises as of right in RGZ.

12. No medical centres as of right in RGZ, GRZ or Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ).

13. No place of worship as of right in any residential zones.

14. No changes in size of land where houses can be built without a permit.

15. No to nine metre building heights in NRZ areas as these areas are predominantly one and two storey houses, or in GRZ where it conflicts with the Neighbourhood Character.

16. Neighbourhood character must be considered and this could mean in areas of predominantly single story detached housing that ResCode is varied to suit neighbourhood character, allowing prohibition of boundary to boundary dwellings

17. Height limits must apply to all buildings and not just residential. "

NEW POPULATION BOOK HOLDS SOLUTIONS TO OVERPOPULATION & HABITAT DEPLETION: Sheila Newman has just published new theory in a new book, Demography, Territory & Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations (see link). Two chapters are on multi-species demography, the rest apply the theory to non-industrial societies and the author comes up with a completely new test for the collapse model of Easter Island, which will stun those who thought they knew all about it. Forensic biologist, Hans Brunner writes of it: "This book takes us to a completely new paradigm in multiple species population science. It shows how little we understand, and how much we need to know, of the sexual reactions when closed colonies with an orderly reproduction system are destroyed, be it people or animals."

The Government and opposition's population engineering continues to wreck havoc on democracy and land-tenure, affecting both private property and public lands, and impacting on established low-key local commerce. New proposed uses for the Green Wedge actually include saw-mills and display homes. The Flinders Community Association have begun issuing an information-packed alert for distribution to the local community detailing the damage that State Government changes to our Green Wedges can do to peoples' local natural, social and commercial environment, whilst removing their ability to defend what is theirs. Other communities may wish to take a similar democratic initiative before all our rights to self-government are swept away by unjust legislation to benefit developers. Note that these moves were begun by the previous Labor Government - which is hardly fighting them now. The incumbent government should be rolling back what Bracks and Brumby did, but instead, they are making things worse.MEETING IN FLINDERS COMMUNITY HALL 4 PM SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 15th 2012

Flinders Community Association warning

Minister Louise Asher of the State Government has already set in motion sweeping changes that threaten the National parks but further changes announced by Planning Minister Matthew Guy will also materially affect the character and ambience of the Mornington Peninsula and its towns and villages.

These changes, announced if fully implemented are far reaching and will affect all of us in some way.

This “one shoe fits all” approach to planning is considered by the FCA to be inappropriate – particularly after analysing how the changes would affect the Mornington Peninsula.

Some publicity has been given to aspects of the substantial changes announced by the Minister earlier this month. These have not involved prior consultation yet responses are sought from interested parties by September 21, this year.

The new approach to planning will impact on the future of the Green Wedge, on farming and on the Flinders township - while also putting pressure on the vital Urban Boundaries. In addition, commercial interests will be encouraged to invest in tourism ventures in the National Parks and Reserves.

Ironically, the stated objective of removing uncertainty about rules, policies and planning regulations to encourage greater investment will create further uncertainty, according to our shire planning department, which believes VCAT will be used more often for decision-making and we will have “planning by appeal”. In some cases landowners and developers will be given “as of right” permission to do anything they want without anyone knowing about it and leaving others with no right of appeal!

A couple of specific local examples would be that the hotel (opposed by all parties, local members and community groups) proposed a few years ago to be sited at the corner of Browns and Greens roads beside the Mornington Peninsula National Park would just be given the go-ahead without even needing to pretend it was in any way rural or interested in environmental studies. A development like T’Gallant, the restaurant, would not have to be heard over the number of customers it could service as the limit of 150 patrons is to be scrapped, as will the requirement of 40 hectares site minimum in the Green Wedge needed before building group accommodation. Medical centres, places of assembly and primary and secondary schools are all listed as acceptable for the Green Wedge etc. etc.

What the Amendment Proposes

- Green Wedge zone provisions are to be liberalized to increase the range of agricultural uses allowed without a permit. These include Primary produce sales (for produce grown on the land) and Rural Industry (other than an Abattoir and Sawmill and limited floor area to 200m2) but not within 100m of a dwelling in separate ownership and sale area less than 50 sq m.

Comment: Not requiring a permit means people have the 'as of right' means to do anything they want without having to advertise their intentions so it could mean developments could spring up before anyone knows anything about it and with no right of appeal. The damage would be irreversible. In the interest of conserving landscape and amenity, the siting and design of new buildings such as Rural store demands a permit process. Compliance supervision will need to increase to ensure retail activities sources product only from the property. Near-by urban Industrial zones can readily accommodate rural service industry.

- The list of Green Wedge zone uses subject to permit are to be widened to include Abattoir, Medical centre, Primary school, Sawmill, and Secondary school. Permits can be sought for many other uses including those previously prohibited such as Display home, and Service station, Place of assembly including Amusement parlor, Cinema, Drive-in-theatre, Library and Nightclub

Comment: These permits may not have to be advertised and can be purely at Council's discretion. There are no mandatory provisions that apply. These uses are essentially urban uses and should be located close to the urban population with access to the necessary utility services. Conflicts with farming activities producing smells, dust, noise, waste discharge etc are likely.

- Mandatory conditions are to be deleted relating to the establishment of Function Centre, Group Accommodation, R& D Centre and Research centre, Residential building, Restaurant in conjunction with agriculture etc.

Comment: Large cabin/camping parks, Function centres, and Restaurants etc and could be established on relatively small sites unrelated to agricultural activity. The main tourist routes could become lined with an uninterrupted ribbon of retail activities and restaurants.

Retention of conditions on lot size, area of use, number of patrons, and use “in conjunction with agriculture” etc is necessary to ensure that these uses do not become intrusive in the landscape. Conserving landscape and amenity is critical to maintaining the attraction of the Mornington Peninsula as a key recreation and tourist destination.

- Mandatory restriction on further subdivision in the Green Wedge zone is removed leaving management and control to Council policy.

Comment: Since 1975 the planning scheme has sought to limit the fragmentation of the farming areas from subdivision. Unless relatively strict controls over further subdivision are implemented, adequate sites for agriculture will be difficult to obtain and the further detriment to Peninsula landscapes from closer settlement will occur.

- Three new residential zones (Residential Growth, General Residential, Neighbourhood Residential) are to replace the current five Residential zones. - These will have more guidelines and multiple schedules. ResCode will stay in place as will control on building heights and some local policies (DDO).

Comment: The proposal to indicate growth/change expectations for residential zones could have merit but how will this translate to Flinders? Maintenance of existing village character is essential using existing DDO’s and policies but we will have to fight hard to ensure they remain in place. Growth should be limited to infill development within the Urban Growth Boundary.

- Shops, Offices, Cafés, Medical, Centres etc are to be allowed in these Residential zones without need for a permit within 100 metres of a Commercial zone on the same road frontage.

Comment: In Flinders, there is already an over-supply of retail floor space. The commercial frontage will be doubled under the Amendment. This 'as of right' process gives no opportunity for community review or participation in a permit process for any new development.

- Two new Commercial Zones C1 and C2 replace the 5 existing Business zones, encouraging combined business, retail and office activities. Areas in the existing Business zones 3 and 4 (used for offices, service industry and bulky household goods retailing) will now allow supermarkets and shops to establish.

Comment: Shopping functions will be spread over a wider area and may result in the death of shopping activity in many of the main business centres by encouraging new out of centre developments.

- Industrial zones are to be changed to remove limits on size of offices and allow supermarkets up to 2000sqm and some shops up to 500sqm.in area.

Comment: Industrial activities will be disadvantaged by intrusion of new shopping uses, which would be better placed in the established commercial activity centres.

What can you do?

It is vital we all understand the damage that can be done under these changes. This could irrevocably change the Peninsula as we know it – and its towns and villages. Surely this is the whole reason why tourists come here, to see something that's different not something they have just come from. Do we want the Peninsula to end up just like the Gold Coast in Queensland or the central coast of NSW? Do we want the Great Ocean Road and Wilsons Promontory to also fall under the developers hammer? Tourists want more than just a flash hotel to stay in, another fancy restaurant, another theme park. More and more they want to experience nature, history, the way things work like farming, wine making, cheese making, wildlife reserves.

If you are concerned …

If you are sufficiently concerned by all of this go to the FCA webpage at www.flindersvillage.com.auand click on the various links that give you the full detail of the Government's intentions. You can then send a submission (a letter) to the Government giving your opinions and reasons why to

Mr. P. Allen
Executive Director Planning Systems
Dept. of Planning and Community Development
GPO Box 2392
Melbourne. 3001

Meeting in Flinders

You can also come to an FCA meeting at the Flinders Community Hall at 4pm on Saturday September 15th where the FCA will be seeking approval to make a submission under the FCA banner. But, you should also send yours; the more the better.

Another thing you can do is spread the word. Only the voice of the community can persuade the Government to think twice.

Peter Hall
President.
August 2012

The Green Wedges Coalition explains how Planning Minister Matthew Guy wants to turn 6000ha of Melbourne's green wedges over to development. The Liberal Government has a majority of one in parliament and this green wedges destruction is a foregone conclusion if the Libs all vote to support Matthew. CDB Editor says: Ask your government representative what he or she intends to do to prevent this abrogation of democracy and this insult to our natural environment and the wildlife it shelters. Let us know their answer. If you read this after the voting, then ask your MP what he voted for. You can look it up on Hansard too. Addition: The “Logical Inclusions” (6000 ha excised from the green wedges, taking habitat wetlands etc.) was passed by Parliament on 14/8. The new threat to Green Wedges – may be even worse as it affects the non-growth councils like MPSC as well as the growth councils – is the proposed changes to the zones which would allow a lot of urban uses into the Green Wedges.

Mathew Guy MP plans 6000 ha grab of our Green Wedges

In the latest assault on Melbourne’s green wedges, Planning Minister Matthew Guy plans to take another 6000 ha from the green wedges to give Melbourne more urban sprawl and to concrete over more fertile farmland and environmentally significant wetlands, grasslands and woodlands. This is subject to a vote in Parliament which will bring huge unearned windfall profits to landholders, developers and their lobbyists, including Liberal party donors and fund-raisers: an estimated $500 million for one 103 ha property (see the Age Liberal-donors-win-big-from-rezoning; Coalition policy is for another Urban Growth Boundary Review (UGB) review is due in two years, about the time of the next election.

This latest Green Wedge land grab will create continuing uncertainty around the Urban Growth Boundary by proposing 14 areas to be excised from the green wedges for urban growth and recommending a further 16 areas for “possible future review.” This signals that Melbourne will go on sprawling for as long as the Coalition Government stays in office. A further 20 green wedge areas were ruled out for urban development.

Overwhelming majority of Victorians are against this

This latest green wedge land grab is particularly deplorable as it is not based on any demonstrated need for more development land. The Growth Areas Authority recently estimated that the Growth Corridor Plans (for the 43,600 ha of land rezoned in 2010) would provide 20 to 50 years’ land supply for the continued urban sprawl which most of us don’t want. Every representative survey conducted, from Manningham’s in 2002 to Kingston’s in 2011, finds overwhelming majorities want green wedges protected for environmental conservation, agriculture, parklands, landscape value and recreation.

Even Victoria's rotten environmental laws don't condone this

It appears to breach federal requirements that environmental strategies to protect endangered species including Southern Brown Bandicoot, Growling Grass Frog and Golden Sun Moth must be finalised first and that urban development plans must work around them. None of these environmental strategies have been finalised and the SBB strategy has been postponed for six months. Meanwhile land that spans a proposed bandicoot habitat corridor in Casey has been approved for excision from the green wedge. See VNPA media release.

What is Mathew Guy in parliament for if not to listen to the electorate? That is the question.

We are calling on Matthew Guy to listen to communities, abandon plans for illogical incursions and return to policies to protect the green wedges. This may disappoint the developers and property consultants, but will please everyone else.

Source: Much of this article (but not the headings) was based on a statement from Rosemary West, Joint Coordinator, Green Wedges Coalition. Predominant Source of this article: Green Wedges Coalition - a vision for Melbourne, 16 June, 2012, Media Release. Local details have been dropped off this article because some of them have changed.

"Any encroachment into our green spaces is irreversible. On the other hand, remaining faithful to the original intention of the green wedges, would give us all a more disciplined, sustainable, and welcoming city for the future." (Lady Hamer on 29 August 2012 as the Libs prepare to give bulldozers open slather on our green wedges, destroying wildlife and natural amenity.) Labor and the Liberals response is less than edifying and does not solve the problem. Basically both parties are in cahoots with the developers against the people of Melbourne.

Lady Hamer defends green wedges in absence of parliamentary backbone

Lady Hamer, widow of Rupert Hamer, a former Liberal premier who planned for Melbourne to retain the green areas (typically spreading from some major water courses radiating through Melbourne), has come out courageously against the Liberal Planning policy to horribly amputate, for more intensive development, thousands of hectares of Melbourne's green wedges, without community or electoral approval. It is great to see an elderly woman stand up and be heard, and to speak so convincingly and confidently on a moral and environmental issue. We should also not forget the many other women in Melbourne who have also spoken out on this issue, again and again. See "Anti-Growth Lobby: Women in politics: why don't more participate - or do they? (Melbourne, Australia)."

Lady Hamer said,

"Any encroachment into our green spaces is irreversible. On the other hand, remaining faithful to the original intention of the green wedges, would give us all a more disciplined, sustainable, and welcoming city for the future." Lady Hamer on 29 August 2012.

Mathew Guy's excuse is no excuse

The state's planning minister, Mathew Guy, protested that the former Bracks and Brumby Labor Government significantly expanded development boundaries into green wedge land.

Yes, and that was wrong, because it was undemocratic, based on covert population engineering through mass migration, and aggressively reduced peoples' rights and quality of life. But that only highlights the urgent need to reverse the goose stepping army of planners who are trampling our society. It does not justify Mathew Guy continuing the destruction that Jeff Kennett began and Labor continued.

People voted Brumby out (and would have voted Bracks out if he had not suddenly resigned) because of their absurdly high-handed related attitudes to the green wedges, mass immigration, and local democracy.

Brian Tee, ALP, rewrites history

Brian Tee (Shadow minister for planning) only added to the shameful obfuscation when he posted to the ALP site a laughable greenwash piece entitled,"Lady April Hamer and Bracks unite to save green wedge," (August 29,2012) following Lady Hamer's speech.

Truly, the tradition in Victoria of requiring the people to believe six impossible things before breakfast continues, proudly led by parliamentarians. The people of Melbourne are treated like complete fools. We need a giant Alice to weep on us and wash away the caucus.

Victoria is a Destruction Zone for the profit of the growth lobby!

Victoria is a destruction zone. The earth is continually churned by machines driven by greedy developers and financiers. People are becoming mentally and physically ill trying to stand up to the orkish tyrants.

At the heart of all this is the utterly undemocratic pursuit by governments of massive population growth through economic immigration. See http://www.liveinvictoria.com.au

This article commentates the parliamentary 'debate' on 14 August 2012 on this bill, including how these politicians avoid confronting the driver of overpopulation. We also cite speakers on the associated ills: "[T]he government is setting us up for privatisation of the permit system. That is the holy grail. [...]What we have here in Victoria is the product of a mad scientist experiment, turning a simple matter — something that is simple in cities around the world, planning and building codes — into a privatised, almost anything goes objective-based system that is fundamentally broken. We think this approach is fundamentally wrong. There is a simple and easy process for the minister to achieve the same objective within the existing provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987." (Greg Barber, Greens)

Ed. All emphases, headings, and links are by candobetter.net editors. Source of quotations is at the end of the article.

Introduction

At the end of this article there is advice on how to tackle this problem. Scroll down for an overview, via headings, of what the MPs, Greg Barber, Mr Tee, and Mathew Guy had to say in Parliament.

The article starts with Greg Barber's speech because it sums up the problems with the bill, although Barber actually spoke after Mr Guy (Minister for Planning) and Mr Brian Tee, ALP State shadow minister for Planning and Sustainable Growth, which you can read at the end of Mr Barber's words.

Although Mr Barber's speech cuts through the detail, and although he talks about the Greens policies for planning, no more than Mr Tee or Mr Guy, does he address the cause of the proposed legislation which threatens to further erode Victorians' rights and turn our city and suburbs into an expensive concrete hell. The cause is the continued inviting of too many immigrants, at the behest of the growth lobby. In fact, Mr Barber attacked Kelvin Thomson not so long ago for trying to represent Australians on this issue that dwarfs all others. (See, "Are the Greens a real alternative?") As long as Mr Barber, Mr Tee and Mr Guy say nothing about the government's open invitation and offers to sponsor immigrants to Victoria on their "Live in Victoria" site, they cannot pretend that they are not aiding and abetting the death of democracy in Victoria, for all their fine words.

Barber: Elected councillors will lose their powers; Residents lose local representation

Mr BARBER (Greens)(Northern Metropolitan) on the Planning and Environment Amendment (VicSmart Planning Assessment) Bill 2012.

"It is clear that as we have gone from a Labor government to a Liberal government things have gone from bad to worse. When you look at the way planning currently works here in Victoria you can see that much of Mr Tee’s argument was hollow.

Of course we are seeking many outcomes from the planning system, and it seems that this bill will not provide them. In a simplified format this bill is attempting to set up a different track along which planning permits will be considered and decided upon. This new track will be that council officers will receive a planning permit application and, without necessarily the need for advertising or considering objections, go ahead and approve the application. Council officers will not be doing that under delegation from councillors; they will be doing it under a direct delegation from the council’s CEO, so a new system of deciding planning permit applications is being set up under this act.

That is pretty much all this bill does. It certainly does not tell us which type of applications and of which nature will be put into this stream. The minister has put the cart before the horse in introducing this bill to the Parliament. No-one has any idea, and there is certainly nothing in the legislation, that tells us what sorts of applications would be put into this stream. That is what allows Mr Tee to paint various scary scenarios.

The government says, "Trust us on the details" but how can we?

We would simply have to take it on trust from the government, because that issue will be determined later through the planning scheme, which of course the minister controls without reference to Parliament.

A fact sheet was produced by the minister, which says that ‘straightforward’ applications would be dealt with in this way.

The VicSmart — A Simpler Planning Permit Process fact sheet[Download here as pdf or here as word doc] is on the Department of Planning and Community Development website and states:

VicSmart will apply to straightforward, low impact applications. These applications will be clearly set out in planning schemes so applicants and the community know in advance how these applications will be handled. The types of minor permit applications being considered for VicSmart make up approximately 10 per cent of all permit applications.

We are then given a list of possible VicSmart applications, which includes: realigning a common boundary between two lots; subdividing existing buildings to create separate titles; building or extending a fence within 3 metres of a street; constructing a service station on land in an industrial zone; carrying out development and heritage overlay which is already exempt from public notice and review; managing vegetation in urban areas; building in the land subject to inundation overlay or special building overly; altering road access where the road is or will be in a road zone category 1; and erecting small advertising signs more than 30 metres from land in a residential zone where the sign is not lit, electronic or animated.

It makes you wonder: if it is really down to those simple issues, why has the government not approached this in a different way and established the same process through other mechanisms?

We know that the previous Labor government was constantly removing the requirements for permits and was constantly in the process removing residents’ rights to object.

It did so many times through the planning scheme, and if this minister found himself thwarted through legislation, he could certainly go ahead and, at the stroke of a pen, make many of these applications, through changes to the planning scheme, no longer subject to advertising and review.

It is not like that is a new idea.

In fact for the 11 years of the Labor government we had a capital city zone right here in the central part of the city of Melbourne.

Harks back to the Windsor Hotel and other ALP planning nightmares

There were many large applications, including the one involving Windsor Hotel, affecting thousands of residents. Every one of those applications — which were not for pergolas and fences; in fact one of them was for a massive development of a heritage-listed hotel, being the Windsor — was, and I will quote from the capital city zone planning scheme: … exempt from the notice requirements of section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of section 82(1) of the act. That is a common enough provision in a range of zones and overlays and other schedules, but in relation to the capital city zone, if Mr Tee now really is as upset as he pretends to be about this removal of residents’ rights, why is it that over 11 years Labor never restored residents’ rights in the capital city zone? And why is it — and this is not a rhetorical question; I really want to know the answer — that only the Greens have committed to doing so? Why is it that during the entire process of the by-election for the Assembly seat of Melbourne, when we invited the Labor Party to endorse our policy, to give back rights to notice and appeal —

Victorians need rights in planning decisions; says Greens offered these at Melbourne By-Election

[...] But I would just say to opposition members that if you are not going to oppose Ted Baillieu’s policies and you have not got any policies of your own, could you at least endorse mine? And could you endorse here today, while we are on the subject of residents and neighbours — let us call them — having rights under planning decisions and in the capital city zone restoring to the 6500 voters who live in the CBD and in that zone the rights that you say this bill is taking away, which you say is a terrible thing, and you may be right.

Melbourne By-Election: ALP failed to put forward good planning alternatives

[...] But on the really big stuff Labor did not restore when it had the chance residents’ rights, and for that matter the rights of other types of neighbours in the city. Again, coming back to the Melbourne by-election, we invited Labor to endorse its policy, in fact the commitment the Labor Party made, to give live music venues some say over encroaching residential development. That is the so-called — and I am sure Mr O’Brien is going to get very excited about this — agent of change principle. The Labor Party committed to doing it but did not do it, and even during the Melbourne by-election where this was an important issue — we all remember seeing tens of thousands of people walking up Bourke Street in defence of live music — Labor declined the opportunity to endorse our commitment to what had been previously been its promise. That is a strange way to go about running an election.

Skyscrapers could go up next door to houses?

[...]the context is that you could be in the capital city zone and you could wake up one morning and find that you no longer have natural light because a 22-storey building has gone up next to you and you do not have — —

This is about Privatising the Permit System

[...]You never saw the yellow notice because you did not have a right to object — much less have your objection considered or have the opportunity to appeal a decision — so I think it is analogous, but members of the coalition government cannot see the contradiction. There is one more thing that is wrong with this bill, and that is that in setting up this second track the government is setting us up for privatisation of the permit system. That is the holy grail. Make no mistake: the reason this bill is here is because the development industry wants it to be here. They had been campaigning for it for as long as I have been involved in planning — 10 years, since I first became a councillor. This is the thing they have always asked for. Today we are arguing the merits of it, but they had been campaigning for it for 10 years to get to this point and now they have got it.

The Privatising of Planning Permits

What it ultimately allows for is the privatisation of planning permits in the same way that building permits, which used to be issued by councils and were sometimes even considered by councillors, were completely privatised.

Once you have taken this threshold step, which is that it is no longer a matter of the democratically elected local government of your area having control of the planning permit system because what councillors might say about it is now irrelevant and it is simply a statutory process being implemented by council officers under the head of power attached to the CEO, who got that from the act, not from a delegation of councillors, then what difference does it make?

Harks back to Mr Kennett's rule

Why not, as Mr Kennett did, send that whole process out to a competitive process and private assessors, because if these codes are as tight as Mr Guy seems to want us to believe they will be, they simply become mechanistic exercises in comparing an application to a code. Why not privatise them out? But that in itself is a contradiction, because as I said there are still two parallel tracks. Some small permit applications go through the traditional council permit, and some new types will go through the code assessment permit. It does not necessarily relate to the complexity or the codification — the codifiability, if you like — of these applications, because that is simply a matter of writing the rules.

We should be codifying more requirements of the planning scheme

The minister has the cart before the horse, and he has also taken a contradictory approach. We should absolutely be codifying more and more requirements of the planning scheme. It should be simple to know whether a particular type of development is possible or not. That would be good for developers and good for neighbours. What we have here in Victoria is the product of a mad scientist experiment, turning a simple matter — something that is simple in cities around the world, planning and building codes — into a privatised, almost anything goes objective-based system that is fundamentally broken. Labor kept it for 11½ years, barely tinkering with it, and now it makes lots of noises about the minister taking it the next step.

This Fundamentally wrong approach is also unnecessary

We think this approach is fundamentally wrong. There is a simple and easy process for the minister to achieve the same objective within the existing provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987."

Mr Guy argues for his party's new bill that Greens and ALP say is so awful

Mr Barber said quite a lot (which Candobetter.net editors have cut out) about the hypocrisy of the Labor opposition on planning, but Mr Guy also did, and extracts from his speech now follow.

Mr Guy protects the Growth Lobby by avoiding the population elephant in the room

Hon. M. J. GUY (Minister for Planning

"[...] What is worse? Is it the deprivation of home ownership or the expansion of an urban growth boundary? In my mind the deprivation of home ownership is far and away a prospect that is far worse and something that governments need to put their minds to addressing. In Melbourne our population is still growing very strongly and has been through the last few years to the extent where that growth of nearly 70 000 people per year is having huge impacts upon affordability, particularly when coupled with the previous Labor government’s land release policies. It is having massive impacts on affordability for people trying to get into the first home owner market."

CANDOBETTER Here Mr Guy is claiming that the objective of the new rules would be to help people buy affordable homes. He does not say that much of Victoria's real-estate and development goes to overseas buyers (who also easily obtain tax-payer-funded first home buyer subsidies) and that all this goes to raising the cost of home ownership as well as artificially keeping demand for houses up.

Note that no-one in parliament even touches on this!

Mr Guy continues by attacking the opposition. Of course the opposition has given him an enormous amount of ammunition, but this doesn't help Victorians:

MR GUY:

"[...] in 2010 the previous government expanded Melbourne’s urban growth boundary by 43 000 hectares, an area one-third of the size of Adelaide. No-one in the now Labor opposition, the then Labor government, opposed that 43 000-hectare expansion.

[...] It is absolutely, utterly unequivocal that if Labor had been re-elected in 2010, it would have pursued a strategy around logical inclusions. There was not a word of opposition from people on that committee such as Mr Tee, the now opposition planning spokesperson, who has been in hibernation for three months. The only written comments on the record that I have found from the Labor opposition in relation to logical inclusions — and this is not an unrelated issue — are from Labor’s deputy leader, James Merlino, the member for Monbulk in the Assembly, who has written to me. This correspondence is on the record and has been for some time. In this correspondence Mr Merlino sought a logical inclusion for the Waverley Golf Club [...]

In opposition Labor has no idea whether it supports the growth boundary expansion or opposes it. Labor’s shadow planning minister is out there opposing this policy, talking about the death of green wedges and his opposition to a policy that he supported just two years ago, yet Labor’s current deputy leader has written to me — and his correspondence is on the record — advocating on behalf of a golf club to get land included in the urban growth boundary as part of a logical inclusion[...]

Gutless parliamentarians under Brumby Government

[...] Those people who just two years ago did not have the guts to cross the floor and oppose their Premier, John Brumby, will now get up in this chamber and declare their opposition to outer urban growth when they expanded the outer urban growth area by 43 000 hectares. Let their hypocrisy be lost on no-one, because believe me it is not lost on the mainstream media or the population in those areas."

CANDOBETTER: It should not be forgotten that the Liberals, when in opposition, were just as gutless as the Labor parliamentarians about standing up to the developer dictatorship that Premier Brumby seemed to head up in Parliament. No-one stood up for Victorians then and it looks like no-one is standing up for us now.

MR TEE (ALP Shadow Minister for Planning and for "Sustainable Growth" [!])

Mr TEE (Eastern Metropolitan) — "I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Planning and Environment Amendment (VicSmart Planning Assessment) Bill
2012.

This legislation is frightening and is causing a great deal of concern in the Victorian community.

It provides a permit application, or a golden ticket, the holder of which can effectively bypass some of the most important planning provisions in the Victorian planning system.

If you hold a golden ticket and fall within the so-called VicSmart process, you do not have to talk to your neighbours or consult with the community to get your development up. You do not have to worry about the views of the local council or take into account, or indeed even notify, those who would be adversely affected by your application.

Best of all, if you have this golden ticket and you are part of the VicSmart system, the role of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has been effectively gutted. Holders of this golden ticket get a direct free ride to VCAT, but the role that VCAT plays in protecting everybody else — the local community, the local council — is completely neutered by this bill.

Not just pergolas: "literally no constraints"

The government ministers say, ‘This is all good and well; we’re just looking at pergolas.’ But we all know that this legislation is much broader in its scope; the sky is the limit. There are literally no constraints on the powers provided under this bill in terms of heights and setbacks. There are no constraints at all; it is open slather. It could be that the first you would know that a decision has been made under these provisions to put up a multistorey development is when you come home from work and find that your neighbour’s house has been bulldozed.

Mr Tee's "livability" euphemism for the overpopulation elephant in the room

[...] People have a right to expect their communities to be protected. We also know Melbourne’s livability is what attracts the best and the brightest from around the world to live here, invest here and make their contribution to our economy and to the ideas that generate the wealth in this century. This is not only an attack on our livability; it is an attack on our economic success.

[...] clause 3 provides that paragraphs (b) to (e) of section 60(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 will no longer apply. Section 60(1)(b) provides that when deciding on an application the responsible authority must consider the objects of planning in Victoria.

[...]

What are those objects? The first is: … to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land. That objective will not apply to a permit considered under the VicSmart provisions."

CANDOBETTER: Note that the above clause about 'fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land' was used and abused repeatedly by VCAT members as an excuse to ignore environmental and democratic concerns. The economic principles are, unfortunately, whatever the prevailing government decides to say they are when they get into government. As Greg Barber says earlier in this article, we do need more encoding. Leaving these matters up to VCAT members who tend to be growth-lobby reared is like leaving baby chickens to the care of foxes.

Ecological principles that the Bill abrogates

MR TEE [continues]:

"The next object is:

… to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity. That will no longer apply."

CANDOBETTER: The 'economic' principles always trumped this with the ALP which had a derelict performance on protection of our natural environment within the planning process. (See "How thick can a political skin get...")

Built, social and ammenity environment

MR TEE [continues]:

"The next object is: … to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria. It will no longer apply. The next object is: … to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value. That will no longer apply. The next object is: … to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community. That is another object that will no longer apply. The next object is: … to balance the present and future interest of all Victorians. That again will be gone."

CANDOBETTER: With regard to the protection of public utilities it is hard to see how the corporatisation and privatisation of resources undertaken by the former Labor government in Victoria can be held up as an example here, however, in this good cop, bad cop routine, where Labor Governments do bad things and then Liberal Governments do worse things, we can probably expect, as Mr Tee intimates, even more open slather.

Community and service providers lose rights to consultation

MR TEE [continues]:

"[...] It gets worse. The bill provides that section 60(1)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act will no longer apply to the consideration of a permit application under the VicSmart process. That section requires the decision-maker to consider objections and other submissions which have been received. That effectively means that the views of the community — that is, anybody has expressed a view about a development — are to be disregarded. They do not matter.

Another provision that is discarded by this bill is section 60(1)(d), which provides that the responsible authority must consider the decision and comments of a referral authority. The bill provides that the views of the power companies, VicRoads, WorkSafe and the water authorities are to be discarded. Their views are not to be considered when a permit application under these provisions is being considered.

Section 60(1)(e) also will no longer apply. That means that the decision-maker will not consider the environmental impact of the application. That section requires a decision-maker to consider the: … significant effects which the use or development may have on the environment or which … the environment may have on the use or development. Again, that provision will be gone, so there will be no requirement to consider the impact of the application on the environment.

Another issue relates to the role of local councils. The bill provides a role of local councils — that is, the role of the CEO of the local council will be to tick and flick any permit applications that come through the VicSmart process. The bill provides no role for the elected councillors — that is, those who are elected to protect their community and to make sure that the development that is undertaken is consistent with the look, feel and character of their community. All of that is discarded by this bill."

CANDOBETTER:Don't however get your hopes up that Mr Tee is some kind of hero, standing up for us all against the population growth that drives all this disenfranchisement, this destruction of our property and legal rights. Mr Tee, unfortunately, continues to barrack for high immigration.

MR TEE [continues]:

"We also know Melbourne’s livability is what attracts the best and the brightest from around the world to live here, invest here and make their contribution to our economy and to the ideas that generate the wealth in this century. This is not only an attack on our livability; it is an attack on our economic success."

CANDOBETTER:That is how he deals with the problem that he and everyone else in the parliament surely knows is causing the breakdown of Victorians' laws and rights.

What you can do

There is no point in just writing a protest letter to your local member of Parliament, but there is one effective kind of letter or email you can write to them. It is this: Write an email or a letter and send an electronic copy to http://candobetter.net to publish as a comment under this article or on our miscellaneous page. The email or letter to parliament should ask your parliamentarian what he or she is doing to prevent the continuing overpopulation of this city and state. Ask them what they have done to stop the government's permanent invitation to more and more immigrants via Live in Victoria.com.au? Ask what they have said in Parliament when the government was making laws to remove our rights to object to more development on the grounds that they were providing more opportunities for the homeless or to help affordabililty by releasing more land. Quote this article or provide the URL.

We will publish their answers and we will also record where they did not answer.
Send this article to people who may also want to stand up to this sham.

Representing Victorians on this issue better than we have been represented by the above debate is what you should be demanding of your politicians.

NOTES

Source:
PLANNING: SCHEME AMENDMENTS, Hansard, COUNCIL PROOF Tuesday, 14 August 2012

This advertisement from Kuala Lumpur shows how development companies are not only selling Australian houses in Asia but are offering Australian taxpayer-funded government grants to further entice Kuala-Lumpurans to buy here. These grants were intended to help young Australians get into the housing market but instead the developers are offering them to foreigners. The ad is for housing in the Whittlesea area of Victoria, but the reality is that the same thing is going on all over Australia.

How can politicians tell us we have a housing shortage? If we did, they could sell the houses here and not have to go to foreigners. Why is the government allowing this land way out of town to be built on at all and then sold to foreigners?

We are being taken for fools.

This ad has been sent to Matthew Guy, the Victorian Minister for Planning, and to a local federal mp. How about sending it to your MPs as well, if you feel it is wrong.

The advertisement says, "Hurry, get the AUD$13,000 Australian Government Grant." Foreign buyers can also save on stamp duty.

Whittlesea is just north of Mill Park, where wildlife activists and residents unsuccessfully tried to stop government slaughter of displaced kangaroos last year. To get to Plenty Road from the city you pass through some of the densest populations in the world, and then past endless suburbs, many of them only built within the last two to five years. Wildlife activists have deplored the fate of wildlife as the greedy developers and complicit state governments have turned a blind eye or aimed a gun. Residents have watched in horror as completely undemocratic decisions have been made to maim and mutilate the countryside, overpopulating it, rapidly increasing demand for services and resources, driving their prices beyond the reach of all but the well-off. At the same time, salaries are not increasing but job insecurity is increasing. Australians have little slack and nowhere to turn except to demand that their MPs start to represent them and stop this abuse of the system.

Whittlesea residents need to take out an ad in the Kuala Lumpur paper where this offensive ad for Whittlesea land and housing was run. The ad should politely inform Kuala Lumpurans of the situation and that Australians did not agree to have their taxes used to facilitate foreign investors making the situation worse for wildlife and for the homeless and the mortgage-burdened.

Contact your local MP and ask him/her what he is doing about this further pressure on the green wedges and on housing prices and this funelling of Australian taxes into foreign purses. Then write to candobetter.net as a comment to this article and tell us what your MP's answer was. We will publish it. Exert pressure. The situation is unacceptable. It is scandalous and has population impacts which may lead to ordinary Australians becoming destitute due to inflated power, land, and housing costs within the foreseeable future.

Federal Labor Member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson, has condemned reports in an article by Josh Gordon, "Push to cut planning appeals,"The Age, 29/11/11, that the Victorian Liberal Government is seriously considering proposals to further reduce the rights of residents to object to inappropriate developments in their neighbourhoods. (Mr Thomson's electorate of Wills, Victoria, Australia, has very high population and development density, with severe traffic congestion.)

The Victorian Minister for Planning, Mathew Guy, is considering industry proposals to reduce the standing of the public to object to commercially-motivated development of their built and natural environment, according to the Age article.

Master Builders Association of Victoria executive director Brian Welch has been quoted as believing that current rules are ''excessively democratic'' and that they encourage ''vexatious objectors.''

Mary Drost, of Planning Backlash and www.marvellousmelbourne.org has said that she would be opposed to any reduction in rights to objection. She later observed that the Master Builders complain that 7% of applications end up in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). "What this says to me is that 93% go straight through. They have nothing to complain about as far as I can see."

The Victorian Treasury department has called for an overhaul of the land-planning framework to reduce conflicting policy objectives between government departments, which it sees as providing excessive scope for appeals.

''The land planning framework should be overhauled to reduce the scope for appeals due to conflicting policy objectives, clarify who has standing to appeal planning decisions and assess the potential for greater use of market instruments to achieve planning objectives,'' according to the treasury briefing document.

Federal MP, Mr Kelvin Thomson, says, “The last thing the Victorian Government should be doing is making it easier for developers to construct more high rise, more apartments and more concrete monstrosities.”

“Premier Ted Baillieu and Planning Minister Matthew Guy when in Opposition were very critical of the former State Government’s handling of the planning system. They have no mandate whatsoever to contemplate measures to further reduce residents say on planning and development proposals.

“The plans being considered by the Liberal State Government would provide less scope to appeal against contentious planning proposals. The Age report suggests that the appeal process could be pared back to cut the number of objectors, on the basis that it costs developers money.

“Such an approach displays an arrogant disregard for the costs that high rise concrete monstrosities impose on local communities- more traffic, more congestion, more carbon emissions, increased pressure on local infrastructure and services, the suffocation of local amenity and the effect on physical and mental wellbeing.

“All too often property developers make handsome profits at the expense of local residents and communities, profiting from infrastructure which local communities have built and paid for, and leaving locals to live with the inconvenience of loss of amenity which comes with more crowded neighbourhoods.

“In my own electorate there are numerous examples of residents and neighbourhoods being short-changed, disregarded, and left to pick up the pieces- such as the Union Street U108 development in Brunswick, the Kodak Redevelopment and former Coburg High School site in Coburg, the Bell St-York St and Cumberland Rd developments in Pascoe Vale, the former Tip Top Site, Nicholson St and 240 Lygon Street developments in Brunswick etc.

“Developers use doublespeak terms like "sustainable", "exemplary design", "efficient planning" and "reduced footprint". These are all code for removing residents' rights to meaningfully object to developments in their neighbourhoods.

“Any further moves to prevent residents from having a say will only damage the quality of life for residents in Melbourne, and take our city down the road of the high-rise concrete jungles of Asia and Latin America.

“The planning system needs to provide residents, local communities and local councillors with a greater ability to have a say on what developments are appropriate for their neighbourhoods- not a reduced one”, Mr Thomson concluded.

Sources:Josh Gordon, "Push to cut planning appeals,"The Age, 29/11/11 and a Media Release from Kelvin Thomson MP, Member for Wills, Wednesday 30 November 2011. Media contact: Anthony Cianflone 9350 5777 or 0424 138 558