Victoria's overdevelopment problem

This disgraceful rebadged “Statement of Planning Policy” for Macedon Ranges (home of Hanging Rock) sets a damaging growth plan in concrete as State policy for Macedon Ranges for the next 50 years, perpetuating the direction of our previous council (and apparently the State government), not the new direction taken by the new councillors.

The fatally flawed “Statement of Planning Policy” for Macedon Ranges is now available as Attachment 5 to the Special Council meeting agenda for Thursday 13th September, available from Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s website. http://www.mrsc.vic.gov.au/About-Council/Our-Council/Meeting-Dates-Agendas-Minutes/Council-Meeting-Agendas-Minutes/Minutes-Agendas

The officer’s recommendation is that council receive (not endorse) the document; makes it clear the document is a creature of the State government; and makes suggestions for some changes. These include requesting Ministerial Guidelines to give direction on how the Statement is to be implemented, because despite recommendations and requirements that the document itself include this fundamental component, it doesn’t.

Minor changes since January simply reshuffle the deckchairs. The gross deficiencies of the original Localised Planning Statement (now re-badged as a Statement of Planning Policy) remain. It’s still a growth plan, it still doesn’t implement the recommendations of the Macedon Ranges Protection Advisory Committee, and – unbelievably – still doesn’t connect with or implement the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes legislation.

So, other than temporarily moving the settlement boundary back to the existing town boundary at Woodend, nothing you or apparently councillors or officers have said has made any difference.

The new (so-called) “Statement of Planning Policy”:

· Doesn’t make policy statements about how things will be done but a series of weak objectives and strategies about how it is hoped things might be done.

· Instead of being based on Statement of Planning Policy No. 8, condemns SPP8 to oblivion. With it goes justification for current planning controls, including protection of township character (which isn’t a “must” in the new Statement), and no further subdivision at Macedon and Mount Macedon.

Still ignores Macedon Ranges Protection Advisory Committee’s recommendations both for preparation of a statement, and policy e.g. “Landscape, biodiversity, cultural heritage and township protection must be a cornerstone of policy protection for the Macedon Ranges. The conservation of the Shire’s landscapes is of critical importance.” Not there.

· Where absolute clarity is demanded it nails nothing down, increasing uncertainty with “encourage”, “discourage”, “aim to”, “voluntary”, “should”, “consider”, “manage”, while “must” is confined to protection of extractive industries.

· Maintains separate policy domains, without saying how all of these work together.

· Is still not binding on public entities (including council), and only requires these bodies to have regard to the Statement, where relevant.

· Still singles out only “significant”, “State” “National” “high value” and “features” as important.

· Promotes extractive industries (making Macedon Ranges a target for them), and still promotes equine and intensive agriculture.

· Forgets to include almost half of the Shire’s drinking water catchments, and still makes biodiversity dependent on a website address.

Provides absolutely no guidance about dwellings or other development in rural areas, or in towns.

· Is still a growth plan that ignores the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes legislation and sets expanded settlement boundaries without parliament’s approval.

· Only provides Woodend with a temporary reprieve by excluding its investigation areas but continues to give a ‘free kick’ to development interests in other towns by including their investigation areas.

· Still doesn’t include settlement boundaries for Gisborne and Romsey.

· Elevates Kyneton to a “Regional Centre” (10,000+ population) and falsely attributes this to the Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy when the State government is making it so.

Is based on the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan, current incomplete Macedon Ranges planning scheme and the appalling draft Visitor Economy document.

Includes the previous council’s deplorable In The Rural Living Zone document (the one based on advice from real estate interests) as a reference document AND requires its on-going implementation, including converting high quality agi soils at Romsey and Farming zone at Kyneton into 2ha blocks.

This disgraceful rebadged “Statement of Planning Policy” sets these weak, vague aspirations and a damaging growth plan in concrete as State policy for Macedon Ranges for the next 50 years, perpetuating the direction of our previous council (and apparently the State government), not the new direction taken by the new councillors.

It’s NOT protection in any guise. It takes Macedon Ranges in the opposite direction to protection and Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 (our existing Statement of Planning Policy), and will have a catastrophic effect on the Shire and its values. It could only be considered an “improvement” over the January Localised Planning Statement if going from bottom of the class to equal bottom is considered an improvement.

Please email your support and encouragement to Macedon Ranges Councillors to not endorse this Statement, and/or attend the special council meeting at Gisborne Shire Offices next Thursday, 7.00pm.

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

And let this be a lesson and warning to any other areas in Victoria that want to become ‘declared areas’.

For the record: Anthony Searles of Boronia speaks at 'Restore Residents' Rights', a Planning Backlash Rally organised by Mary Drost on the steps of Victorian Parliament on 8 June 2017. This rally was a huge protest by many residents' and ratepayer groups against the Victorian Government's despotic plan to privatise the planning system in order to provide for an increase in Victoria's population from approx 6m to 10m by 2050, mostly through economic immigration, in order to satiate the greed of developers who have taken over this country and the political parties. (This report and video have been uploaded out of sequence with the other speeches made on the 8 June and published on candobetter.net, owing to an editorial oversight. Apologies from candobetter.net editors.)

Congratulations to Mary Drost, Planning Backlash Convenor, for pulling this event together to signify residents' disgust at Victoria's government steamrolling property and civil rights. The turn out of groups was huge, since everyone understood how wrong the government plans are. The event was held on the steps of Parliament House. These steps had been booked in advance but, on the evening before, Planning Backlash discovered that the steps had been double-booked for the same hour. An increasingly absurd scenario loomed as the double-booked World Oceans Day plastic bag protest planned to float a giant whale and to simulate the roll of the ocean with a constant drumbeat. Eventually it was agreed between the two rallies to face in different directions and occupy only half of the steps. A very good rented PR system meant that Planning Backlash speakers could be heard most of the time, except right at the end when the batteries gave out. Jack Roach, of Boroondara Residents Action Group (BRAG) who had introduced all the speakers, rounded up the event without benefit of any amplification. Mr Roach talked about the Residents' Bill of Rights: "They have been sent to every politician, state, federal, and every council. And they have been asked to help us bring in the Residents' Bill of Rights. So far, nothing has happened. So today, we're going to push it a bit further. I'm going to read out now what we want to put to the government. The following are what we want and what we are going to put as a resolution to today's meeting to the government: [...] That the Victorian parliament ban developer contributions to political parties; restore protection for residential zones; implement mandatory heights and set-backs in mixed use and commercial zones at council discretion; abandon plans to expand fast-track no-review VicSmart applications." This was put as a motion to those assembled and passed.

Speakers

The speakers were:
- Jack Roach of Boroondara Residents Action Group (BRAG)
- Professor Michael Buxton
- David Davis, MP and Shadow Planning Minister
- Clifford Hayes, Brighton
- Brian Walsh, Kew Cottages Coalition
- Anthony Searles, Boronia
- B. McNicholas, Save St Kilda Road
- Mary Drost, Peninsula and Monash
- Brad Marsh, West Alphington

Videos of all their speeches can be found on this channel: QueenieAlexander2000 and on candobetter.net.

No to Melbourne at 8,000,000 sign

This sign appeared right at the end of the rally as a protest against a sudden arrangement requiring that objections to population numbers not feature at this rally. Planning Backlash is not usually backward in mentioning population numbers, but pressure was exerted by some groups inside Planning Backlash. This decision is explored in this article: 3 Groups censor the rest on population numbers at Planning Backlash Rally 8 June 2017.

Brad Marsh of Alphington speaking for Yarra Residents' Coalition Brian Walsh of Kew Cottages Coalition, speaks at 'Restore Residents' Rights', a Planning Backlash Rally organised by Mary Drost on the steps of Victorian Parliament, 8 June 2017. This rally was a huge protest by many residents' and ratepayer groups against the Victorian Government's despotic plan to privatise the planning system in order to provide for an increase in Victoria's population from approx 6m to 10m by 2050, mostly through immigration, in order to satiate the greed of developers who have taken over this country. Read more here: /node/5228

Ms B. McNicholas, of Save St Kilda Road, speaks about the removal of heritage listed trees by the state at dead of night from St Kilda Road. [St Kilda Road is Melbourne's Champs Elysees. Distinguished by its avenue of large old trees, botanical gardens and war memorials, it dates back to early Melbourne.] The removal of the trees was done under a police guard without notifying citizens or residents. See also this website on the problem: https://stkildard.com.au/?gclid=CITNuN_TudQCFdIHKgodkR8EGw.

Mary Drost, Convenor of Planning Backlash, speaks to the protesters at 'Restore Residents' Rights', a Planning Backlash Rally she convened on the steps of Victorian Parliament, Australia, 8 June 2017. This rally was a huge protest by many residents' and ratepayer groups against the Victorian Government's despotic plan to privatise the planning system in order to provide for an increase in an increase in Victoria's population from approx 6m to 10m by 2050, mostly through immigration, mostly through immigration, in order to satiate the greed of developers who have taken over this country.

Speaking at the 8 June 2017 Planning Backlash Rally to Restore Residents' Rights, Clifford Hayes describes how Mr Wynn, Minister for Planning, has removed the protection given by residential zones that were put in by Matthew Guy, the preceding Planning Minister. Hayes says he has to give some credit to the previous government for having had the guts to introduce those zones, which were at least the result of some consultation with the residents. Minister Wynn, however, he observes, refuses to meet with resident planning groups, only listening to the developers, the planners. (A voice calls out in the background, "They're both the same!" and Clifford Hayes agrees.) The Planning Backlash Rally, organised by Mary Drost on the steps of Victorian Parliament on 8 June 2017. was a huge protest by many residents' and ratepayer groups against the Victorian Government's despotic plan to privatise the planning system in order to provide for an increase in Victoria's population from approx 6m to 10m by 2050, mostly through immigration, mostly through economic immigration, in order to satiate the greed of developers who have taken over this country and the political parties. Hayes describes fighting high-rise development as Mayor and Councillor in Brighton against successive governments. He has also run as a candidate for the Sustainable Australia Party, which tries to educate the public about the need to fight against bi-partisan plans for massive population growth in Australia.

Some quotes from Clifford Hayes' speech: "We residents must have a say. The whole process has been corrupted." "It's a problem of culture: developers and planners sing from the same songbook. More housing, more consolidation, more appartments, more units, more highrise - all on existing infrastructure. And this forces the price of land and existing housing up. Bad news for our kids, bad news for our suburbs, bad news for us. Good news for investors, good for speculators, dramatic profits to be made. So this pressure makes property speculation and property development a government protected industry. And it's backed up by planners, VCAT, the government, the department: The whole problem has been left to market forces to sort out. This is great for people who see housing as a way for people to make profits, but for a community it's bad news. We lose all the things we value. As communities we need to get things right. Housing should be for families, not just for investors." Hayes called upon the opposition speaker (David Davis) to honour his promise to restore the previous zones and to institute Planning Backlash recommendations and to allow councils to apply local controls.

Michael Buxton, Professor of Environment and Planning, RMIT University, speaks at 'Restore Residents' Rights', a Planning Backlash Rally organised by Mary Drost on the steps of Victorian Parliament, 8 June 2017. This rally was a huge protest by many residents' and ratepayer groups against the Victorian Government's despotic plan to privatise the planning system in order to provide for an increase in Victoria's population from approx 6m to 10m by 2050, mostly through immigration, in order to satiate the greed of developers who have taken over this country. The impact of this undemocratic policy is the architectural rape of our natural and built surroundings. Professor Buxton gives many examples of planning outrages, present and threatened in a strong and lucid speech.

David Davis, Liberal Shadow Minister for Planning 2017, makes many promises to reverse the Victorian Andrews Labor Government's destructive planning initiatives at 'Restore Residents' Rights', a Planning Backlash Rally organised by Mary Drost on the steps of Victorian Parliament on 8 June 2017. This rally was a huge protest by many residents' and ratepayer groups against the Victorian Government's despotic plan to privatise the planning system in order to provide for an increase in Victoria's population from approx 6m to 10m by 2050, mostly through economic immigration, in order to satiate the greed of developers who have taken over this country and the political parties.

Jack Roach, of Boroondara Residents Action Group (BRAG) speaks at 'Restore Residents' Rights', a Planning Backlash Rally organised by Mary Drost on the steps of Victorian Parliament on 8 June 2017. This rally was a huge protest by many residents' and ratepayer groups against the Victorian Government's despotic plan to privatise the planning system in order to provide for an increase in Victoria's population from approx 6m to 10m by 2050, mostly through economic immigration, in order to satiate the greed of developers who have taken over this country and the political parties.

Mr Roach gave the opening comments and introduced the other speakers at this extraordinary, packed event on the steps of the Victorian Parliament in Spring Street Melbourne, Australia. The very successful event was organised by Mary Drost, OAM, Planning Backlash convenor. The speakers were Professor Michael Buxton (RMIT Planning and Environment), Dave Davis (Shadow Minister for Planning), Cllifford Hayes (Brighton, also Sustainable Australia Party), Brian Walsh (Kew Cottages Coalition), Anthony Searles (Boronia), B McNicholas (Save St Kilda Road), Mary Drost (Peninsula and Monash, Planning Backlash) and Brad Miles (West Alphington and Yarra). The event succeeded in spite of its being double-booked by those who oversee demonstrations in front of parliament with a plastic bag protest for World Oceans Day, which almost drowned out the Planning Backlash speakers with drumbeats. This seemed to participants like an act of political sabotage. The two events were forced to come to an arrangement where they occupied different ends of the steps and spoke facing away from each other.

I have now attended three workshops on how to compensate for the loss of southern brown bandicoot (SBB) habitat because of urban expansion adjacent to the Royal Botanical Gardens Cranbourne.

At the first meeting I went with a totally open mind in order to see what was on offer for the loss of SBB habitat adjacent to the Royal Botanical Gardens Cranbourne. I was willing to see how corridors would work, where they would be located and how wide they were to be. I also wanted to know what other alternatives there were on offer. To my disappointment, there were nothing else but corridors recommended as compensation for habitat loss and b pop loss. Large reserves did not get a mention. There were also no considerations about the effects of climate change.

At the second meeting, things somewhat improved. While corridors were still the main subject, some reserves and trans-location of SBB’s was also suggested. After examining the viability of the proposed corridors I found that at least two of them, one to the Pines and one to Western Port Bay were, in my view, a ridiculous idea in too many ways which I have already detailed in an earlier report. For the rest of the corridors I decided to wait until I could see the area where they were to be placed and to examine the presence of remnants of SBB’s in the Koo Wee Rup area.

At the third meeting and bus trip I became clearly aware that corridors in this region were subject to the same limitations as the previous two corridors. I had to conclude that all of the recommended corridors were not only ridiculous but also extremely so. On the last stop we were shown a drainage lane with good vegetation and flowing water. In spite of this, SBB’s were still trying to move to each side of this corridor and into totally unsuitable habitat. My question is, how much longer can they survive there while exposed to further urban development and the presence of foxes and cats and floods?

Collectively, a Population Viability Assessment (PVA) applied to all of these corridors to estimate whether they will work for SBB’s would fail totally. (A standard PVA estimates the species population survival potential for the next 100 years.) My own assessment is that these untested corridors will be a total waste of money. They will not work and SBB’s deserve better than just a piecemeal solution.

Lets think about the SBB’s. What would they prefer? If one honestly wanted to provide the best for them, they would have to be properly protected as they are at the RGBC and should be so, in some other, similar reserves as well. We have a moral obligation to properly protect this species by keeping them in reserves such as the RBGC and some other similar reserves. I have no objection to maintain existing pockets of SBB’s in the wild by intensive fox and cat control for as long as they can survive there. However, for them to be able to exist in new, untested corridors is, in my opinion, nothing but a costly gamble and is guaranteed to fail. Have we not learned as yet from the untold failures that occurred with the Eastern Barred Bandicoots where they became nearly extinct before they were eventually protected in large reserves only or on islands. I therefore beg the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP) to think clearly and honestly about the many problems with those far too narrow corridors for bandicoots and respond properly to the outcome of a realistic PVA study on them.

Wildlife corridors appear to be the ideal solution in most people’s mind when it comes to the protection and enhancement of wildlife. There seems to be a deeply embedded corridor mentality that makes people believe that wildlife corridors will cater for everything. However, there needs to be a closer examination as to what type of wildlife will use corridors? And what type of corridors can be of a positive benefit to wildlife.

In the case of the Southern Brown Bandicoot (SBB) , to promote ONLY corridors in the Royal Botanical Gardens Cranbourne region for their survival is totally unacceptable and unproven. SBB’s should not be simply used as a bargaining point in order to create wildlife corridors. SBB’s are not a corridor living species by nature and therefore I can not see how, especially in brand new corridors, and with so many obstacles, that these corridors could be successfully used by bandicoots. They would also be severely isolated in corridors for long periods which will result in in-breeding and incest, problems which could be easy overcome if they lived in large reserves.

I therefore totally disagree with the proposal in TRYING for SBB’s to live within corridors ONLY and especially where they are exposed to foxes, cats, dogs and cars as well as the disturbance from adjoining urban housing estates.. They cannot, and will not, survive in these conditions! The unfortunate bandicoots would be condemned to a network of narrow corridors where they have to try to survive in what is left for them.

Even while some old, isolated remnant bandicoot populations still just survive in some linear fragments, such as road sides or drainage lines, it should not be expected that they will survive in newly created corridors and all will be OK for the future of this species.

These are cruel expectations and there is no real future for the SBB. They will not survive A proper scientific evaluation needs to be carried out, know as Population Viability Assessment. Bandicoots living under the above proposed conditions would never pass this test! Another situation, which has not been fully considered, is what if the corridors are considered a fire hazard, passing between housing estates? Vacant building blocks in these estates have to be cleared and slashed before each summer. In addition, the corridors will be most likely be used by people to walk their dogs, making predator control virtually impossible.

In respect of new corridors, I have never heard of a case where a long and narrow, brand new corridor was able to connect two substantial colonies of bandicoots. I have no objection to a short and wide corridor linking with two substantial colonies of bandicoots with appropriate protection such as predator proof fencing. However, such a possibility does not exists in these regions, due to the fact that SBB’s living outside the Royal Botantical Gardens Cranbourne and in the Koo Wee Rup swamp area can now only be found in some linear fragments. Fox and cat control will not be able to protect them there for ever.

Strangely, when a corridor for bandicoots is still seriously considered to link the RBGC with bandicoots on Quail Island; with Koo Wee Rup, and into the Frankston area it becomes obvious to me that no proper thought was given to the implication encountered .

The distance to Quail Island alone is 10 km and to Koo Wee Rup much further.Disastrously, the latest news is that there are at present fewer than 100 bandicoots remaining on Quail Island due to feral pig disturbance. Bandicoots will have to swim from the island at exactly the right spot to find the entrance of the open-ended corridor on the mainland visa versa. The corridor needs to be at least 200 m wide but Malcolm Legg, the local ecologist, suggests they should be 1 km wide. In addition, to provide any form of protection, the corridors need to have a predator proof fence on both sides (therefore 20 km of fencing is required for the Quail Island corridor alone) and all of these corridors have to be re-vegetated to suit bandicoots. This type of scenario applies also to the proposed corridors to Frankston and the Pines.

Another problem is that the majority, if not all, of these corridors have to cross several roads and many will have serious bottle necks. These corridors were recently approved by the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Simon Birmingham, after “serious consideration” , and were recommended in the most recent strategy AS THE ONLT SOLUTION. There is no costing for them or for the cost to obtain some private land. This and other such proposed corridors, will do absolutely nothing for the long-term protection and well-being of the SBB. This deeply inbred corridor mentality is the reason why all of the Government’s strategies to protect the SBB’s have so far failed. A PHD student, Sarah Maclagan, currently caring out research into SBB’s in this region, agrees that corridors are only a small part of a solution for the ultimate protection of them.

I further question why the SBB’s are expected to mostly survive in corridors within this region when for a closely related species, the Eastern Barred Bandicoot in western Victoria, no corridors have been considered for them, and for good reasons.

To my dismay, I am absolutely amazed that in all of those failed strategies there was never a mention of keeping bandicoots within large reserves surrounded by a predator proof fence. In the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve at Frankston North, there were at one time at least 400 bandicoots. The $ 1.6 million allocated for predator proof fencing was taken away, in spite of the $ 20 millions spent in the reserve on underpasses for this bandicoot as well as for the re-vegetation of large areas to suit them. To allow dog walking in this nature conservation reserve seems to be more important to Parks Victoria then the protection of this nationally endangered bandicoot,.

I note that, beside the Pines, there are several other reserves on the Mornington Peninsula which have suitable habitat for bandicoots and should be considered such as the Briars Park at Mt. Martha which already has a predator proof fence around their nature reserve as well as many other reserves where bandicoots used to be in their hundreds.

In order to prevent the extinction of this species, some ‘insurance’ colonies within large reserves should be a priority.. Bandicoots will be so much happier and safer in a much more natural environment where they can retreat in the hot summer into cool gullies and freely spread out in all directions in winter . It will be more natural or akin to ‘wild’ conditions, than being crammed into narrow corridors and exposed to all the threats that are created by corridors. As to the health of the gene pool, bandicoots can be easily exchanged between reserves by trans location.

Anyone really and sincerely concerned with the survival of this species must first and foremost make recommendations for SBB’s to be re-located within reserves such as the Pines, the Briars and possibly two other reserves, surrounded by a predator proof fence.

Why not copy the proven success experienced in the RBGC and follow this example rather the risk trying to condemn bandicoots into corridors?

To invest millions of dollars as a long-shot in unproven corridors for bandicoots is an expensive way to achieve even more failures. There is, at present, already $20 million wasted on under passes in the Pines and this could be exacerbated by loosing yet more money in the construction of unproven corridors especially created for SBB’s.

There are at present far too many pseudo experts who seem to know better than people involved with bandicoots for over 40 years. Their recommendations are based on emotions only rather than on clearly evaluated and scientific evidence which, unfortunately, unfortunately resulted in a long history of failures for this species.

While I strongly support the creation of corridors between housing estates for other wildlife and in order to prevent wall to wall urban development, we should not use the endangered bandicoot as bargaining chips for the establishment of corridors, and in this way, restrict the ways they should be properly protected.

Therefore, the creation of corridors and the protection of bandicoots must remain two distinctly separated issues! For the prevention of regional extinction of this species, they must not be provided with just corridors only.

On Thursday the fifth of November 2015, local, state and federal representatives from The Greens launched their plan for a “Better More Liveable Melbourne” but what impact will this plan have considering Victoria's population is increasing by a hundred thousand a year (especially when most of the growth is in Melbourne)?

Proposed renewable energy public transport

At first glance it appears that it would have a major impact, especially as the aim of the plan is to invest heavily in a wide range of projects including three new railway stations, schools in the Docklands, fifty new trams running on 100% renewable energy, a railway line to Doncaster and an upgrade of the train signalling system.

Of all of the aforementioned proposals, it would not be unreasonable to expect that the signalling upgrade would be one of the more affordable options on the table, yet the current state Labor government has already abandoned plans to enact this legislation, precisely because it is unable to find the funds.

So how are the Greens going to come up with the money for a range of considerably more ambitious proposals? Their answer is “through fixing the unfair tax system such as abolishing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, making sure that the big banks pay their fair share and by ensuring that property developers contribute part of their profits to pay for community infrastructure.”

Limitations of current paradigm and time

While this sounds reasonable, there is nevertheless no hope whatsoever of this policy framework becoming reality in time to prevent a much worse infrastructure crisis. The policies are so far removed from the current political paradigm (as supported by The Coalition and Labor) that to rely upon change in the short or even the medium term would be grossly unrealistic. We unfortunately do not have the luxury of buying that kind of time.

On top of a growing infrastructure debt, Melbourne will require an additional 355,000 new homes in the next decade alone, just to keep up with demand. The Greens advocate urban consolidation, whereby urban sprawl is replaced with higher density development, normally located within close proximity to established public transport. So far in Melbourne at least, this approach has turned out to be a major exercise in greenwash, mainly because the whole process is directed by free market economics resulting in a situation whereby very few high-density residential developments are even remotely affordable to people on lower incomes. Even fewer units are large enough to house families. A recent study by Bob Birrell and David McCloskey from The Australian Population Research Institute has highlighted the fact that ninety percent of new apartment approvals in Melbourne are no greater than sixty square metres in size, mainly because they are aimed at investors.

Developer resistance to good planning

The Greens would like to substantially increase affordable housing while also ensuring that stronger design standards are put in place. This approach however is likely to meet massive resistance from powerful and influential development interests who would, as a result, be forced to take a significant cut in profits. The decision to also make developers contribute towards infrastructure projects would further entrench this opposition.

Therefore if we are to be serious about saving Melbourne's food bowl (which is now under severe attack from urban sprawl) as well as its diverse inner suburban neighbourhoods, we cannot afford to wait until the Greens become strong enough in number to substantially increase their political influence. Bad planning (as well as being a gross waste of resources) is almost impossible to reverse and poorly envisioned development is happening now at an accelerating pace.

Deceptive not to inform public that population growth massively increases planning problems

The fact that this situation is being massively exacerbated by rapid population growth is another issue that cannot be ignored. Informing society that it is our environmental duty to live in high density developments is deceptive when in reality it is as much about forcing communities to adapt to a population policy aimed primarily at boosting GDP.

Long-proposed Fisherman's Bend development would absorb less than one year's population growth

Our population is now increasing at such a rate that even if all of the Greens' policies were already in place, it would nevertheless be impossible to implement a workable and effective planning strategy that could keep up with this demand. This is because good planning needs to be well considered and should take into account much more than the housing needs of its residents. To take one example, the proposed Fisherman's Bend development has been on the drawing board for a long period, yet upon completion, it will absorb less than one year's worth of Melbourne's current rate of population growth.

Medium density alternative to high density

An alternative strategy (which is promoted by forward thinking planners such as Professor Michael Buxton) is to increase the density of middle suburbs such as Reservoir and Fawkner. They already contain a substantial amount of infrastructure and much of the post-war detached housing stock contained within them does not come anywhere close to the energy efficiency standards that would be required if they were built today. A substantial proportion of this stock could therefore be replaced with dual or triple occupancy developments complete with access to private open space. This would be in contrast to the higher density alternatives that are being championed in the inner suburbs, where space is much more of a premium.

The fact that the Greens have contested local elections on the premise of protecting the village culture of inner suburb areas such as Prahrarn and Westgarth shows that they too realise that there is a limit to the amount of high-density development that is desirable in their own heartlands. A slower rate of population growth is therefore required in order to limit ad-hoc and unsightly apartment blocks in the inner suburbs in favour of a slower, more graceful transition to town house living in the middle suburbs.

Another option is to put greater emphasis on developing regional towns but again population growth would need to be slowed until the appropriate infrastructure and policies are in place to make this happen. Otherwise, any policy relating to population that is not in tandem with infrastructure and affordable housing targets will greatly impact our ability to plan resilient communities. Persuading people to relocate from the metropolitan area would also be a long process because we are ultimately a nation of urban-conurbations, not boundless plains.

For example, forty percent of Australians live either in Melbourne or Sydney compared to only twenty percent of people who live in England's two main cities of London and Birmingham. Therefore our population growth (which translates to a new Sydney less than every 15 years) is far less evenly distributed than in many European countries which are served with a large network of established regional towns.

Grow our population or grow food?

Some would argue that despite our current poor planning models, Australia nevertheless has an obligation to help ease the burden of heavily populated countries. This however becomes counterproductive if people are forced to increase their environmental footprint simply by virtue of moving here. It would be better to focus on protecting our threatened agricultural land from suburban sprawl for the purpose of exporting food to those countries that are most in need. Population policy should after all be primarily focused on doing the most good for people who need the most help.

Refugees

The Greens would not lose any support (and would stand to gain a lot more) if they were to continue to advocate for a higher refugee intake whilst also initiating a wide ranging consultation process on population to include urban ecologists, planning experts and climate scientists as well as the general public. A major component of that process would be determining what infrastructure goals need to be reached (such as high speed rail) as a prerequisite to population targets being met.

In the meantime the full scale and urgency of Melbourne's housing and infrastructure crisis needs to be acknowledged and acted on accordingly. The 'Plan For A Better, More Liveable Melbourne' is not nearly enough to save Melbourne but it is not too late. We must act quickly to demand that population policy and infrastructure policy are in sync and that there is a full and open enquiry into Melbourne's planning strategy.

Mark Allen is an ex-town planner and environmental activist with a particular interest in population. He runs workshops on Population, Permaculture and Planning across Australia and runs a Facebook group of the same name. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Everyone knows that that the Coalition Government (now in caretaker mode) led by Denis Napthine has already signed the contracts for the infamous East West Link Toll Road in advance of the election this Saturday. What the public may not appreciate is that the East West Connect, a consortium contracted to carry out the construction of the biggest infrastructure project ever seen in Victoria, has already commenced work on the project in Royal Park. Last week teams of EWC surveyors moved in and commenced marking trees for removal in the vicinity of the planned tunnel entrance over the Ross Straw Field in Royal Park West as well marking what appears to be a construction road up Brens Drive, through the State Netball and Hockey Centre carpark and north on to the area of Royal Park designated by Linking Melbourne Authority for a construction camp and carpark.

Julianne Bell Secretary of PPL VIC comments:

“Our State wide coalition of 80 groups, plus a huge network of supporters for public transport not tollroads were outraged by the effrontery of Napthine and his cohorts to have started construction of the East West Link Toll Road in advance of the election and before the legal challenge to the project by the Cities of Yarra and Moreland is heard in the Supreme Court in mid December 2014. Last week our lawyers wrote to the contractors asking that work stop pending the legal hearing. They haven’t stopped work and it looks like they wont. Despite denials by EWC that trees are being marked out, we are afraid there will be a wholesale clearance overnight of indigenous/native vegetation in West Royal Park which pre dates white settlement and which has never suffered any real disturbance. This is the only remnant vegetation site left in Melbourne as far as we know. It is also habitat for an endangered species – White’s Skink.”

Meantime, for over a week, opponents of the East West Link have gathered daily in Royal Park to express their opposition to the project and to protest over the fact that the Coalition has given the go-ahead to work before the case comes up before the Supreme Court. The State Netball and Hockey Centre management believes the line delivered by EWC that there will be no interference with Brens Drive or with the Centre carpark.

There appears to have been a blanket ban by the media on reports that East West Connect has started project work in Royal Park. Shock jocks on 3AW and ABC 774 have refused to discuss the subject or newspaper letters editors to include comments.

Our groups call on the Labor Opposition, if elected this Saturday to govern, to put an immediate protection order on Royal Park to ensure that East West Connect desist from any further work in the Park or on the SNHC site.

Contact: Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. and Spokesperson Royal Park Protection Group Inc. Mobile: 0408022408

Watch highlights of the Surf Coast Energy Group Forum. The issues of population, climate change and pressures on our bio-diversity are addressed. Kelvin Thomson attended, Prof Ian Lowe was a speaker and the audience was large and varied.

An article by Kathy Lord, "Wildlife group 'pushed to the limit', in ABC News, typifies many mainstream press reports on kangaroos as it reports the phenomenon of kangaroos turning up in suburban and urban areas. This article entirely omits to criticise the cause, which is human overpopulation and expansion due to Australian and State goverments' undemocratic policy of inviting mass immigration from interstate and overseas. This needs to be exposed. The article, as stands, makes it look as if kangaroos are for some bizarre reason invading the city. This is grossly unfair and quite callous. The casual references to darting and euthanasia gloss over a completely avoidable problem that breaks the hearts of many Australians who just want the suburban expansion and its destruction of nature to stop.

"Wildlife group 'pushed to the limit' by growing number of calls for help for kangaroos in residential areas," relates sympathetically how growing numbers of displaced and injured wildlife are overwhelming the capacity of wildlife rescuers and carers. But it fails to show sympathy for the kangaroos; treating them like some insensate mass of troublemakers. The 'problem' seems largely reduced to one of getting the government to help Wildlife Victoria 'dart' the kangaroos. It hints blandly at mass euthanasia. It does not say where 2000 and more kangaroos might be placed, once darted, in what is a chronic displacement problem caused by government policy.

"Wildlife Victoria chief executive officer Karen Masson said since December 2012, the number of calls for help has increased rapidly. A large mob of up to 2,000 kangaroos has been displaced from new suburbs in the Mernda, Doreen and Whittlesea areas north of Melbourne. The animals head into residential areas for lush green grass and that is when they get into trouble,"

Lord makes it sound as if the kangaroos have somewhere else to go and are choosing, through some kind of gourmet impulse, to invade suburban gardens.

"The problem has forced Wildlife Victoria into a corner. The group says it can no longer afford to dart kangaroos, leaving it up to the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI). Ms Masson said the department has agreed to take over, but its darters only work between 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday to Friday.
The ABC asked to speak to a DEPI spokesman about the problem but the department only offered a brief statement.
"The Department of Environment and Primary Industries recognises the challenges of kangaroos in growth areas north of Melbourne and is working with Wildlife Victoria on the matter," the statement said.

Note: you may have to view the video below on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVxjHnSxP1k. When the start button of the embedded video below is pressed, the following message may be displayed: "Playback on other web-sites has been disabled by the owner" - Ed

This video was made in 2006 about a group of kangaroos marooned in Thomastown, which people tried to save. The situation has got even worse for kangaroos and that small clan is long paved over.

Journalists need to learn to present the situation more fairly

The author of "Wildlife pushed to the limit," and other journalists, need to learn to use more a balanced language and less biased terms when writing about kangaroos that are lost, isolated from their families and bewildered among crowds of humans and our noisy travel devices.

The kangaroo found near Sydney Road Coburg, (mentioned in the article) like the others who found themselves trapped in the airport carpark and one in the terminal, do not intentionally and deliberately cause chaos for humans.

To be fair, Kathy Lord did mention how wildlife groups are struggling with increased calls for help with distressed kangaroos, and how volunteers are overworked and understaffed, and wildlife groups are underfunded.

Many articles like this, however, make it appear as though kangaroos are somehow invading urban areas like some form of enemy aliens on the march to take over ‘our’ land, when in actual fact they were here long before humans.

We humans are the ones with ‘ballooning populations’ and ‘uncontrolled numbers’ (to use the words of the uninformed), who occupy their land.

Kangaroos and other wildlife have to contend with bushfires, ‘controlled burnoffs’, speeding vehicles, farmers & drunken shooters, sadistic morons in their utes, toxic sprays, polluted creeks from farm runoff, droughts and floods.

To add to that, human overpopulation and our urban and industrial sprawl are invading wildlife habitat and squeezing kangaroos out into the open making them vulnerable to further dangers.

Yet journalists continue to vilify these displaced roos with terms like ‘the kangaroo problem', ‘pests’ or ‘causing chaos’. These journalists neglect to inform the public of the real problems involved, especially the human problem.

Those who get to publish their own versions of kangaroo stories in major media outlets with wide coverage aren't getting the message out about what is really happening.

Articles like the above-mentioned often misrepresent the real situation, depriving the kangaroos of sympathy and understanding for their plight. They also deprive the community of a platform for necessary political action.

If you’re a journalist please take into consideration all of the above natural and human threats to kangaroos the next time you have an article to write on the topic.