green wedges

At Frankston Council meeting on 29 January 2020, Cr Hampton sought by means of a Notice of Motion (NoM) to overturn council's decision of 14 Oct 2019 to adopt a revised Draft Green Wedge Management Plan. The NoM sought to investigate an excision of part of Frankston's Green Wedge for an expansion of the Carrum Downs Industrial Precinct. The NoM was voted down by Crs McCormack, Aitken, O'Connor, Toms and Mayor Mayer, (five of the nine). Cr Bolam abstained. [Ed. Note: A correction to this article on who voted it down was made on 30 January 2020.]

Frankston commentator Michele writes: "We could not have done this without wonderful Planning Backlash, WeCanDoBetter, Defenders of South East Green Wedge , Facebook posters, advisers and supporters, and speakers from Frankston Beach Association, South East Green Wedge, Frankston Environmental Friends Network and the community. Unknown numbers of people emailed councillors. Those opposing the NOM (Notice of Motion) with presentations had loud encouragement from the gallery."

Cr Hampton reportedly stated incorrectly that his NOM was increasing the minimum lot size in Rural Conservation Zone 1 and was not proposing a reduction in lot sizes elsewhere. He reportedly later apologised privately for getting it wrong, blaming Officer error.

The CEO assured councilors that tomorrow, without delay, the Management Plan would go to the Planning Minister for an amendment to the Planning Scheme to have the GWMP introduced as a reference document.

Michele concludes: "You are all so wonderful and inspiring in your fervor to protect our environmental values and not let vested interests always have the upper hand. The biggest thank you to all of you. Of course, the winner is the Green Wedge, its special values and features. Let's hope they endure and improve.

The late Barry Ross of S.E. Green Wedges must be smiling!"

"Single-minded focus on economics allows thousands of pigs and poultry to be kept, and if you're next door in any rural or green wedge or urban growth zone, your rights to know about it, object and go to VCAT are being extinguished. This Affects all rural and regional areas of Victoria, and Green Wedge and Urban Growth zones in metropolitan Melbourne. Pig and poultry business interests, and State government, are very happy. The rest, and the environment, can fade away." Macedon Ranges Residents' Association has distilled a huge body of information about shocking rule-changes for intensification of pig and poultry farming in Victoria's Green Wedges, called, in the bullying way of our political class, "Getting things done." We have kept the original formatting for the time being, for practical reasons. Thanks to Christine Pruneau, Secretary of the Association, for putting her extensive knowledge at our disposal.

Republished from Macedon Ranges Residents' Association (http://www.mrra.asn.au/).

RED ALERT Andrews Government

Is "Getting Things Done" By Removing Prohibitions On Intensive Pig And
Poultry Farming In Rural Conservation And Rural Living Zones, And Drinking Water
Catchments, Across Victoria.   Lost In Transit: "Making Things Fair"
And "Delivering For All Victorians" 

(23/7/18 - P)  Single-minded
focus on economics allows thousands of pigs and
poultry to be kept, and if you're next door in any rural or green wedge or urban
growth zone, your rights to know about it, object and go to VCAT are being extinguished. 
Affects all rural and regional areas of Victoria, and Green Wedge and Urban Growth
zones in metropolitan Melbourne. Pig and poultry business interests, and State government,
are very happy.  The rest, and the environment, can fade away. 
Intensive Animal Industries
File

 

On 29 June, the Andrews government adopted changes (to be introduced
to all Victorian planning schemes in September) which give priority to intensive
animal production industries over environment and amenity. On the way through, democracy
dies too as these changes remove neighbours' third party rights - to receive notice,
to object and to go to VCAT - as a means of reducing the regulatory burden on applicants
for pig and poultry farms: "If certain conditions are met, low-risk farms should
be allowed to establish in appropriate rural zones without being subject to the
extra cost and time associated with third party notice and review." 
(1)

 

Do the Rural Conservation, Rural Living, Green Wedge or Urban Growth
zones constitute appropriate rural zones?  Are some of them rural
zones at all?  Can pig and poultry farms ever be low risk, particularly
in the sensitive or quasi-residential areas these zones are applied to?  The
State government thinks so.  It is removing current long-standing prohibitions
on intensive animal production, beginning with pigs and poultry, across the
board in these zones "because there will be some small or low-density farms that will
be suited to the land in these zones" (2), and
it's reducing controls in others.  A new "simplified" permit application process
is introduced, as are new pig and poultry farm permit guidelines that adopt the
'flexible' principles of ResCode: an objective to be met, standards that can be
varied, wide-ranging discretion and interpretation.

 

Here's a snap-shot of adopted planning scheme zone changes:

NEW  100 chickens and 10
emus/ostriches 

To be allowed in: Farming, Rural
Activity, Rural Conservation, Rural Living, Green Wedge,
Green Wedge A, Urban Growth zones (currently prohibited
in these zones)

No permit required, no setback, land size or stocking
rate requirements, no say for neighbours.  

If environmental or amenity issues arise, the literature
says "you are encouraged to have a friendly conversation with your neighbour
to discuss your concerns and see if impacts can be managed",
(3) as your
first option.

NEW  Chickens: Up
to 10,000 (including broiler farms)

To be allowed in: Farming, Rural
Activity, Rural Conservation, Rural Living, Green Wedge,
Green Wedge A, Urban Growth zones (currently prohibited
in these zones)

A planning permit, using the new "simplified" permit
application process, is required.  Last October, the simplified permit process
was restricted to applications for up to 450 chickens, but now applies for up to10,000
chickens (including young birds raised in sheds until old enough to range).

As these numbers are considered "low density", and "low
risk" if well-managed, residents' third party rights to notice / object / go to
VCAT are removed:

• for up to 1,000 chickens, if they are kept 50m from
  a neighbour's house or 200m from a residential zone, and
• for more than 1,000 chickens (up to 10,000), if they
  are kept 100m from a neighbour's house, or 400m from a residential zone. 

No land sizes are specified.

'Well managed' means 50% ground cover should
be maintained at all times, mobile housing and feeding infrastructure
should be moved every two weeks and production paddocks
rested for three months, stocking rates should peak at
1,500 chickens/ha (not including young birds being raised in sheds), and production
areas shouldn't be located below a 100 year flood level,
in a Special (Drinking) Water Supply Catchment or within 30m of a declared waterway. 
These management practices can be varied. 

More chickens can be applied for with a normal
permit application process (other than broiler farms of more than 10,000 chickens
in the Rural Conservation, Rural Living, Green Wedge A and Urban Growth zones).

NEW  Pigs: 150 sows
(includes progeny) OR 1,000 Standard Pig Units (SPU)
 

Standard Pig Units

To be allowed in: Farming, Rural
Activity, Rural Conservation, Rural Living, Green Wedge,
Green Wedge A, Urban Growth zones (currently prohibited
in these zones)

A planning permit, using the new "simplified" permit
application process, is required.  Last October, the simplified permit process
was restricted to applications for up to 8 sows, 1 boar and their progeny but now
applies for potentially thousands of pigs.

As these numbers are considered "low density", and "low
risk" (low environmental risk and amenity impacts) if well-managed, residents' third-party
rights to notice / object / go to VCAT are removed if the 150 sows and their progeny
or 1,000 Standard Pig Units are kept 100m from a neighbour's house, or 400m from
a residential zone.   No land sizes are specified.   

'Well-managed' pig production is contingent upon management
practices, one of which is a rotational land use system where "following each
pig phase, a cropping/forage/pasture phase allows removal of nutrients (through
plant harvest) that accumulate on paddocks from pig manure and feed waste."
(4) 

In addition, 50% ground cover should
be maintained at all times, mobile housing and feeding infrastructure
should be moved every three months, stocking rates
should peak at 12.5 SPU/ha (approx. 5 - 125 pigs), native
trees and native vegetation should have fence or other
barrier protection from pigs, and production areas shouldn't
be located below a 100 year flood level, in a Special Water Supply Catchment or
within 30m of a declared waterway.  These management practices can be varied. 
More pigs can be applied for in all of the above zones with a normal permit
process.

NEW  Poultry Hatcheries

To be allowed in: Farming, Rural
Activity, Rural Conservation, Rural Living, Green Wedge,
Green Wedge A, Urban Growth zones (currently prohibited
in these zones)

 Permit required.  No restrictions, no requirements
to be met.

If the changed zone controls and simplified planning process don't
provide sufficient scope for increased intensive animal production, major changes
to land use definitions do.  For example:

A new Animal Production
definition (described as including "farm animals kept or bred for production
purposes, for example, chickens, beef cattle, dairy cattle, pigs, sheep, rabbits,
camels, buffaloes, goats") (5). 
Animal Production is introduced as a new 'permit required' land use in all rural,
green wedge and urban growth zones. 

Current Intensive Animal Husbandry and Extensive
Animal Husbandry (grazing) land use definitions are deleted and replaced with
the softer definition of Intensive Animal Production,
and an expanded definition of Grazing Animal Production,
blurring the demarcation between intensive, and grazing, animal production activities,
in favour of more intensive (hand-feeding) 'grazing'. 

Grazing Animal Production
no longer requires most food to be obtained by grazing, but for grazing to merely
be a "key component":  "The amount of food being provided through emergency,
seasonal or supplementary feeding will vary depending on the circumstance, and can
be substantial."  (6) 

Pig and poultry farms
(pig farms, poultry farms, broiler farms, poultry hatcheries) are no longer
included in an "intensive" land use definition. They are made separate land uses
in their own right, and no longer prohibited in Rural Conservation, Rural Living,
Green Wedge A and Urban Growth Zones.    

The adopted changes originate from recommendations in the Regional
Economic Development and Services Review 2015, chaired by the Hon. John Brumby
(former Premier of Victoria), which were then run through some committee processes
(apparently not all committee members supported the proposed changes), before
exhibition of draft planning scheme changes last October.  Subsequently,
the government substantially increased the number of animals to which a simplified
planning permit application process (and removal of third party rights) applied,
and added prohibitions on pig and poultry farms in the Industrial and Urban Floodway
zones, while removing prohibitions in the Urban Growth Zone*.

*The zone applied to land earmarked for future development,
usually in Melbourne's metropolitan urban growth areas but lately also able to be
applied in rural and regional areas (Macedon Ranges Shire has a recently-introduced
UGZ at Riddells Creek). 

 

The State government says of its adopted changes:

"Planning reforms have been refined further
according to the following principles:

• Farmers need to have the flexibility and information
  support to make farm management decisions and manage risks.
• Farmers are responsible for managing their environmental
  and amenity risks.
• The planning process provides opportunity to
  ensure risks are considered and assessed prior to the land use proceeding.
• The planning process should be fit-for purpose
  based on risk."  (7)

Economics-driven changes for intensive animal production are far
from finished.  In response to the question, "Are these reforms the final
step in the Planning for Sustainable Animal Industries Program?",
(8) the State government response is
"No... they represent the beginning not the end of the work.  Work on all
12 actions... [is] underway and there are more milestones to be delivered
in the near future...". (8)  
Current changes represent only 4 of the
12 actions.

 

Not all revised planning scheme provisions that enable the changes,
or supporting documents, have been made available at this stage.  The current
Code of Practice for Piggeries is being abandoned (temporarily replaced with a Practice
Note), the Victorian Code for Broiler Farms is being amended to apply to conventional
and free-range broiler farms with more than 10,000 birds, and a new Code
of Practice for a broad spectrum of intensive animal production industries (additional
to pigs and poultry) is being prepared to support further 'reform' and 'simplification'
of Victoria's planning system.  

 

Public information sessions will
be held at Bendigo 24/7/18, Daylesford 25/7/18, Benalla 26/7/18, Ballarat 27/7/18,
Torquay 1/8/18  and Tatura 6/8/18 (all 10am-2pm);  Warrnambool 31/718,
Horsham 2/8/18 and Wycheproof 3/8/18 (all 11am-3pm); and Alexandra (to be confirmed).

 

Currently available documentation, and access to information session
details and registration, can be obtained from

http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/planning-for-sustainable-animal-industries

 

MRRA Says:

 

The State government says of the final changes it has adopted,
"The planning reforms have been developed and refined according to the Government's
policy objective to support economic development while balancing environmental outcomes
and community expectations".  (9)  

 

As if suspended in 'pave paradise and
put up a parking lot' philosophy, the government euphemistically labels its ground-breaking
race towards universal intensive animal production as "sustainable" animal industries. 
But the bigger picture is missing.  The trade-off for new opportunities and
advances in terms of more ethical production practices and market expansion is
that these changes
disregard and thoughtlessly discard the broader principles of sustainability, and
democracy, and well-being, and strategic land use planning.  

 

One thing is clear: these changes have nothing to do with small-scale
or backyard self-sustainability.  This is business: industrial-strength intensive
animal production, export markets, an eye on expansion, and a green light to do
it anywhere.  The government is only too aware that this particular boat isn't
going to float without wholesale disenfranchisement, thus the vaporisation of your
rights to even know about these activities.

 

The changes take the fork in the road that leads to experimental
risk-taking, a place where self-regulation weds ResCode-flavoured 'flexibility',
and the winners take it all.  The risks involved aren't a secret, for example,
"Poor nutrient management can lead to soil structure decline, nutrient overload,
poor crop/pasture performance, leaf burn, compaction layers, erosion from bare patches,
excessive weed growth, leaching and run-off into waterways." 
(10)  These and other risks have
been recognised as unacceptable, and prohibited, for years in zones where they are
now to occur, rolling the dice with urban and rural amenity, the integrity of drinking
water catchments, and the most environmentally sensitive areas in Victoria. 
And it won't just be responsible people who take it up, these changes allow any
Tom, Dick or Harry to have a go as well.

 

The government issued a media release about the changes, entitled "Protecting
the Right To Farm In Victoria".  It contains quotes from the Minister
for Planning Richard Wynne, the Minister for Agriculture Jaala Pulford and, most
disappointingly, from Mary-Anne Thomas, current MLA for Macedon (which
seat includes Macedon Ranges Shire).  Mary-Anne says: "This is about 
getting the balance right between advancing our agricultural sector and safeguarding
the environment for decades to come."  

 

These changes aren't about protecting the right to farm but
creating new rights for intensive animal production in zones and places where they
don't currently exist, because that's where some people want them.  More rights,
in the wrong places, not because there is a lack of existing opportunities - most
of Victoria is already zoned Farming - but because it's more convenient for some.

 

The changes aren't and don't "balance"; they
only go one way. 

 

Safeguarding the environment?   Only if intensive
animal husbandry in places like Mount Macedon, Hanging Rock and drinking water catchments,
and completely compromising the Rural Conservation Zone - Victoria's ONLY conservation
zone for private land - can be considered "safeguarding" the environment.

 

While each new septic tank is counted in terms of the contamination
it adds to a drinking water catchment and public water supplies, apparently effluent
from thousands of pigs and poultry isn't an issue. Despite the red flag of mid-winter
algal blooms presently at Cairn Curran and Lake Eppalock water supply reservoirs,
the dangers of failing to prohibit intensive pig and poultry farming in drinking
water catchments haven't penetrated, and, like amenity and the natural
environment, these non-renewable catchments are to be sacrificed on the altar of
economics.  

 

Here in Macedon Ranges, mixed messages, inconsistencies and
contradictions have attained gold medal status.   Hey, it's getting
crowded in here.  Is Macedon Ranges a repository for Melbourne's overflow
population, an industrial opportunity, boom time for places with room for a
pony, intensive animal production real estate, or a sensitive environment
important to the state of Victoria?

 

In 2014, the State government said it would protect Macedon
Ranges, based on Statement of Planning Policy No. 8, for good.  Credit goes
to the State government for introducing legislation to protect Macedon Ranges Shire; 
the Distinctive Areas and Landscape Act has now been approved, with Macedon Ranges
Shire poised to be the first area in Victoria to become a declared area under that
legislation.  But with the government concurrently making changes that in turn
make it impossible to protect and prioritise the very values the legislation seeks
to protect, does it mean anything anymore?

 

The local community is still reeling from the shocking draft
Localised Planning Statement that 'protected' Macedon Ranges by under-stating values and setting up our towns to become urban growth areas.  It also revoked
the government's commitment to Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 - the policy that
has been in place here for 40 years and says protection of water catchments, tourism
and recreation, and nature conservation comes before agriculture - by saying the
Statement of Planning Policy had been superseded by the Victoria Planning Provisions, the same provisions
now being changed to give blanket intensive animal production industries
priority.  Another
piece of the LPS puzzle falls into place. 

 

As repugnant and excessive as they are, current intensive animal
industry changes are but symptoms of an epidemic of deregulation, intent upon eliminating
perceived barriers to economic and other development, that is poised to consume
planning in Victoria, rivalling in scale Jeff Kennett's one-size-fits-all Victoria Planning
Provisions in the 1990s.  Changes made last year to "VicSmart"
- a permit application process with a 10 day turnaround where Council CEOs are sole
decision-makers  - significantly expanded VicSmart's reach and the dollar value of
buildings and works which fall within its ambit (up to $1 million value). 
Buildings and works associated with intensive animal industries may qualify as VicSmart
applications, in which case councillors and third party rights will be excluded,
with applications in rural zones also exempted from being measured against any planning scheme requirements. 
This pattern of stripping out prohibitions, permit requirements and third party
rights, and increased self- and tickbox-assessment, is set to erupt if the government's
imminent "Smart Planning" proposals also go ahead.

 

Even though the short and long-term State-wide environmental
and social ramifications are profound, and inter-generational, from recent
Facebook chat there seems to be
a misconception amongst supporters of the intensive animal production changes that
objections flow from misunderstanding, that once supporters have explained the
facts, apprehensions
will disappear.  MRRA respectfully disagrees (and not just because we are
in the "white middle-class bubble of Macedon Ranges", as one supporter put it). 
Again, the bigger picture is missing.  Enthusiasm for the changes fails to recognise the heavy disbenefits to society and the environment that
result from advantaging some interests over the broader, public interest, and, indeed,
fails to grasp the true meaning of sustainability.  There's a place
for these activities.  It's called the Farming zone. 

 

At this stage, the changes are set to become law. 
There aren't many actions that can be taken, but
before your voice is silenced in September, you could join MRRA in calling upon

Minister for
Planning the Hon. Richard Wynne,

Minister for
Agriculture the Hon. Jaala Pulford, and

Mary-Anne
Thomas MLA for Macedon (or your local State government representative)
to:

• Retain existing prohibitions and controls for intensive
  animal industries, particularly in Rural Conservation and Rural Living zones,
  and 
• Retain third party rights, and
• Prohibit intensive animal production activities in all
  drinking water catchments.

 

(1) page 19, Victorian government response to public submissions,
Issue 11   

(2) page 13, Victorian government response to public submissions 

(3) page 9, 2018 planning reforms for animal industries, Frequently
Asked Questions 

(4) page 5, Pig farm planning permit guidelines

(5) page 6, 2018 Planning reforms for animal industries, Frequently
Asked Questions 

(6) page 7, 2018 Planning reforms for animal industries, Frequently
Asked Questions 

(7) page 4, 2018 Planning reforms for animal industries, Frequently
Asked Questions 

(8) page 6, 2018 Planning reforms for animal industries, Frequently
Asked Questions  

(9) page 4, 2018 Planning reforms for animal industries, Frequently
Asked Questions  

(10) page 3, "Sustainable Piggery Effluent Utilisation in
Australian Farming Systems 2011",  Australian Pork Limited   

 

 

State Government Is Removing Existing Prohibitions On
Pig, Poultry And Broiler Farms In Rural Conservation, Rural Living and Industrial
Zones

(31/10/17 - P)  Worse, these uses won't even need a permit
in the Farming Zone, and grazing is replaced with intensive 'supplementary feeding'. 
Thinking of moving to regional Victoria?  Don't bother unless you can live
with industrial animal production next door... Submissions close November
14   Intensive
Animal Industries File 
Smart Planning
File 

 

The State government is proposing changes across rural Victoria
to make intensive animal industries "sustainable", saying "the proposed planning
reforms will better support animal industries across the state" .  These
dramatic and far-reaching changes certainly leave no part of the State unscathed. 
But rather than "sustainable", these changes just make more intensive and
more animal production in more places. 

 

Existing long-standing prohibitions on intensive animal husbandry
are being removed in the Rural Conservation Zone (Victoria's
only conservation zone), and the Rural Living Zone
(which has a default minimum lot size of 2ha), with prohibitions only to remain
for cattle feedlots and intensive dairy farms.  Everything else - pigs, poultry,
goats, deer - in fact production of any bird or any mammal (except rodents!) and
their resultant animal products, will no longer be prohibited.  Prohibitions
are also removed from intensive supplementary feeding operations in these sensitive
zones (shades of Wagyu beef?).   And all of this without restrictions
on size, number or type of animals, environmental and conservation sensitivity,
setbacks - or location in drinking water catchments.

 

Same thing is happening in Industrial zones, regardless of whether
they are next to or inside towns, except they get cattle feedlots as well. /p>

 

In the Farming Zone, up to 200 chooks and 10 emus, and either 10
pigs or 3 sows, a boar AND their progeny (22 pigs allowing 6 piglets per sow), are
OK without a permit if they are 50m away from the
house next door, or a residential zone.  Gets worse - your rights to know,
object and go to VCAT are taken away for applications for up to 450 chooks, 25 emus/ostriches,
and 8 sows, a boar and their progeny (57 pigs) - if they are 100m away from the
house next door or a residential zone.  Associated structures are free to blight
the landscape because they don't necessarily need a permit either.

 

Grazing isn't what it used to be - it's proposed to become supplementary
feeding with grazing on the side, no permit required in the Farming Zone (any number)
if feeding structures are 100m from your house or a residential zone (but can be
closer with a permit).  In the Rural Conservation, Rural Living and Industrial
Zones, requires a permit (any number) but with no conditions, restrictions, setbacks.

 

Proposed changes to zones, and land use definitions, are currently
on exhibition, along with three new Particular Provisions for Pig Farm, Poultry
Farm and Grazing Animal Production.   Submissions
close NOVEMBER 14.

 

Here's a link to make or upload a submission.

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-reform/sustainable-animal-industries/planning-for-sustainable-animal-industries-submission-form

Here's a link to the "Sustainable Animal Industries" website.

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-reform/sustainable-animal-industries

 

MRRA Says: 

 

This is "sustainable"?  What are they thinking...

Pfft!  There goes the neighbourhood, and residential amenity,
and the environment, and drinking water catchments, and State level landscape and
biodiversity significance - and with more blurring of what zones mean, proper planning: 
WRONG WAY, GO BACK!

 

Seems nowhere is safe from this industrial animal production
mania - anyone for a spot of pig, poultry, goat or deer production on Mount Macedon? 
Upstream of Lauriston Reservoir?  In the 1ha and 2ha Rural Living Zones recently
approved in Amendment C110 around Gisborne?  On Mount Aitken?  In the
Industrial 3 zones in Woodend and Romsey?  Out in the forest at Bullengarook?

 

These changes are blunt instruments that crush environmental
credibility.  Why make these changes at all?  No restrictions in forested
areas?  No restrictions in open drinking water catchments?  Unbelievable.
No restrictions on setbacks or scale either, so pick a number.  And now that
so many houses have been approved in Macedon Ranges' rural zones - and particularly
the Farming Zone - what an attractive, healthy, safe living environment all this
will make - not.  Try rural NSW or South Australia
instead.

 

The Rural Conservation Zone is applied to Victoria's most environmentally
valuable and vulnerable areas.  Rural Living Zones are usually where people
want to live "the dream".  Think about it... think about it  -
maybe that's why all forms of Intensive Animal Husbandry are (and always
have been) prohibited in these zones.  Until now.  Hello pig, poultry
and broiler farms (up to 400,000 birds), supplementary feeding, and pretty much
any other intensive animal use except cattle feedlots and intensive dairy farms. 
No restrictions in these zones - do what you like. 

 

Changes being made to definitions narrow what's "intensive"
to just a few things, and then intensify what's left.  The current definition
of grazing, 'Extensive Animal Husbandry' is about grazing - where farm
animals get most of their food by grazing.  That's gone, replaced
with 'Grazing Animal Production' where grazing is secondary to seasonal
(6 months of the year), and routine, supplementary
feeding.  Intensive.  That's why, unlike grazing, it's proposed to be
prohibited in residential and commercial zones. 

 

This package of changes is pocked-marked with errors that make
understanding what's being proposed more difficult.  Hey Houston, we have a
problem:  the proposed zones say Pig Farms have to comply with Poultry Farm
provisions, and Poultry Farms have to comply with Pig Farm conditions.  Even
though current definitions, 'Extensive animal husbandry' and 'Intensive
animal husbandry' are being deleted from the planning scheme - woooo - somehow
they are still there in the Farming, Green Wedge, Rural Activity and Industrial
1 zones.  And in a 'take the cake' effort, in the Industrial 1 zone, intensive
animal uses are both prohibited - and permit required - at the
same time.  If anyone can work out what's going on in the Green Wedge Zone
- what's in, what's out - give them a prize.  As for the new Particular Provisions
for Pig and Poultry Farms, and Grazing Animal Production, only some segments of
them are referenced in the zones as conditions to be met (mainly how to get a pig
farm or poultry farm without a permit in the Farming Zone).  The new Particular
Provision for Grazing Animal Production isn't referenced in the zones at all, so
its requirements aren't  conditions to be met in any zone.  To be honest,
it's a bit of a lottery trying to work out if, what, where and when any of these
new particular provision controls might apply, and there's not much point having
them, such as they are, unless they are actually used.

 

The big question for Macedon Ranges is, of course - how is this
protecting Macedon Ranges?  Add this lot of changes to other recent
State government changes, like VicSmart where a CEO can approve a house in a rural
zone within 10 days, without anyone else knowing about it (including you and councillors)
or meeting any planning scheme policy requirements, and lifting dwelling heights
to 11 metres and 3 storeys in the General Residential Zone, and now, changes to
the Victoria Planning
Provisions - well, this isn't what we think of as protecting this place. 
How about you?

 

ACTION REQUIRED:  Please make a short
submission by November 14th (use the submissions link above). 
Here's an overview
of the changes

The government's thinking is these changes strike 'the
right balance'.  Tell them they don't.  These changes
don't respect, let alone protect, Macedon Ranges' environment, landscape and water
catchments, residential amenity, or high quality agricultural soils, and they don't
respect residents either because they are extinguishing residents' rights. 
Tell the State government this is not protecting Macedon Ranges, and it's
not on.  Make sure you let Macedon Ranges'
councillors,
Mary-Anne
Thomas (MP for Macedon) and
Richard Wynne
(Minister for Planning) know your views.   .

 

 

"While Melbourne’s green wedges are generally considered to be a legacy of the 1972 – 1981 Rupert (Dick) Hamer State Government, they were established as part of the 1968 – 1971 Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works planning process. They were protected by what was then called the Landscape Interest A zone, with a minimum lot size of twenty acres (eight hectares). For some thirty years, this zoning worked admirably. Then Melbourne started to experience growth pressure and the speculators moved in with their propensity to buy influence. The visionary Melbourne 2030 blue print for Melbourne and its rural fringe came under siege and has been slowly but relentlessly eroded by both sides of Government ever since." [...] "It is the role of councils and State Governments to provide sound, thoroughly researched, enforceable planning policies that support the big picture for the long-term future. It is absolutely critical to halt this tsunami of South Eastern suburban sprawl with its lack of supporting infrastructure, and to provide certainty to all stakeholders. Without such resolve, speculation will run rampant and uncontrolled ad hoc development will be the order of the day. Traffic to and from the area is already appalling well beyond the normally accepted peak hours. What are you thinking, putting exponentially more cars on these road networks that are not designed to take them? Casey is heading down a vortex of engineered chaos."

Letter to Manager of Planning, City of Casey

Manager of Planning
City of Casey
P.O. Box 1000
Narre Warren VIC 3805

Response to City of Casey Draft Western Port Green Wedge Management Plan (GWMP)

I am writing in my capacity as the Southern Ranges delegate on the Green Wedges Coalition.

This draft plan is a disappointing betrayal and another nail in the coffin of all that has been achieved over the past forty or more years to accommodate the wider community’s repeatedly
expressed vision for the future of Melbourne’s peri-urban areas to retain, protect and enhance the countryside now defined as the green wedges.

These are undisputedly precious and irreplaceable resources, and the City of Casey has responsibility for significant sections of not one, but two of the most valuable and valued – the
Southern Ranges and the Westernport green wedges.

With this plan, Council seems to be on the cusp of abrogating its responsibility to our current and future generations. While paying lip service to the importance of the agricultural, environmental
and amenity values of its southern sector, the recommendations make a mockery of these, reflecting rather the successful lobbying of powerful vested interests.

Like the foothills to the Dandenong Ranges, the Western Port rural region is shared between the City of Casey and the Shire of Cardinia. A joint GWMP with a unified approach was only
common sense. Why then did our councillors:

require Casey’s strategic planning department to amend the 2015 Casey-Cardinia draft plan,
causing Cardinia Shire which opposed these pro-development changes to split and go it alone,
leaving this important area with fragmented, contradictory policies and a degraded vision for the future?

Casey has already lost huge swathes of productive farmland to urban development. In this era of climate change and food miles relevance, it makes no sense to compromise what is left by splitting it into Precincts 1 (intensive horticulture and food production) & 3 (Rural Living and agriculture).

The narrow shaft of genuine agricultural land making up Precinct 1 seems now to be jammed between the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), the Cranbourne Botanic Gardens, lower density
residential and the environmentally sensitive coastal strip. This does not bode well for its future sustainability.

Moreover, the 4-hectare lot size proposed for Precinct 3 because of historic precedent flies in the face of the research carried out by the Port Phillip & Western Port Catchment Management
Authority. This established that areas with properties of around 10 acres (4 hectares) resulted in the worst environmental outcomes. They are “neither fish nor fowl” – too small for effective land
management using agricultural equipment and cross-grazing, and too big to control weeds and pests with domestic scale measures.

Other undesirable outcomes of switching from 8 to 4 hectares include:

It increases human development and intrusion by a factor of at least two;
It potentially doubles the amount of infrastructure – houses, driveways, sheds, tennis courts, swimming pools etc.;
To make space for these, vegetation will inevitably be removed;
It doubles the potential number of pets and thus predation on local fauna;
It more than doubles the number of vehicles, given that most people who move into the area
will be car dependent;
It increases pressure on smaller roads that were designed for lower traffic volumes and that
currently have a more tranquil, rural feel;
It will lead to a flow on effect, with all properties moving towards the minimum lot size.
Properties between 12 and potentially be split into not two, but three lots.
The trend will be reinforced by rising land values with the “price per hectare increasing sharply below 6 – 8 hectares as a result of demand based on factors independent of agricultural
merit”. (“Impacts of Urban Growth & Related Development on Agriculture in the Western Port region Phillips Agribusiness May 1993)

One of the major benefits of the longstanding 8-hectare minimum lot size in the peri-urban areas is the visual and physical relief it provides. People living in ever-increasingly condensed suburbia
need ready access to these open areas. Deprive them of this outlet and you deprive them of the all important health-giving amenity of contact with the natural world.

During the process of fine-tuning the parameters for green wedge zoning, state planners established that anything under 8 hectares should be deemed residential, regardless of zone titles
such as Rural Living or Rural Lifestyle. Hence creating a Precinct 2 that allows one-hectare lot sizes under a Green Wedge A zone is a smoke screen. It is in fact a proposal to rezone from rural to residential.

This is inconsistent with the GWMP vision for a permanent green and rural area within the precinct. Given the bi-partisan support for a fixed UGB, the proposal is unconscionable.

While Melbourne’s green wedges are generally considered to be a legacy of the 1972 – 1981 Rupert (Dick) Hamer State Government, they were established as part of the 1968 – 1971
Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works planning process. They were protected by what was then called the Landscape Interest A zone, with a minimum lot size of twenty acres (eight hectares).

For some thirty years, this zoning worked admirably. Then Melbourne started to experience growth pressure and the speculators moved in with their propensity to buy influence. The visionary
Melbourne 2030 blue print for Melbourne and its rural fringe came under siege and has been slowly but relentlessly eroded by both sides of Government ever since. [Emphasis added by candobetter.net editor.]

The dismay of the community is given voice in the following letter to The Age from the late Lady April Hamer from October 2013.

Keep wedge faith

COULD I add a few words to the current controversy over Melbourne's green wedges.
My arguments are not about money, so perhaps they have little weight today, and of course I am
attached to the ideas of my late husband, Dick Hamer.
I believe that his ideas were firmly based on a system of city planning that emphasises restraint,
for the purpose of allowing families a better choice for themselves and for the environment - which
is now all the more important.
We should also bear in mind that any encroachment into our green spaces is irreversible.
Speculators, of course, will disagree, but remaining faithful to the original intention of the green
wedges would give us all a more disciplined, sustainable and welcoming city for future
generations.
Lady April Hamer, Alphington”

I also draw your attention to the last paragraph an old article from the business journal “Rydges” entitled “Profits and losses from re-zoning”. It is enlightening:

“Trying to achieve a re-zoning, or prevent a use down-grading can be a profitable exercise and
one in which you should be prepared to put substantial time and effort because the pay-off is there.”

Of course urban fringe property owners are going to push for zoning changes that bring them unearned windfall profits. And of course, some councillors are going to take up their cause,
whether due to naivety or to personal vested interest. They should, however, be cognisant of the need to stand firm for the sake of the greater good. They have been elected to represent the silent majority, not to pander to a vocal self-interested minority.

As the population in and around them increases, the retention of these open areas becomes ever more important. There is little enough non-urban land left in the City of Casey. What remains
should be treated as sacrosanct. It should be protected and enhanced at all costs. Moreover, the longer firm protective policies are in place and adhered to, the easier it is to safeguard them in the future.

It is the role of councils and State Governments to provide sound, thoroughly researched, enforceable planning policies that support the big picture for the long-term future. It is absolutely
critical to halt this tsunami of South Eastern suburban sprawl with its lack of supporting infrastructure, and to provide certainty to all stakeholders. Without such resolve, speculation will
run rampant and uncontrolled ad hoc development will be the order of the day.

Traffic to and from the area is already appalling well beyond the normally accepted peak hours. What are you thinking, putting exponentially more cars on these road networks that are not
designed to take them? Casey is heading down a vortex of engineered chaos.

The more you eat into open space amenity, the less useful it becomes and the less willing people are to work to protect and/or enhance it. There is no excuse for allowing our precious green wedge open spaces to gradually disappear. There is no shortage of alternative sites for residential development and there is no shortage of contra-indications.

If you don’t revisit this draft scheme and remove those parts that compromise and/or weaken the aims and protective policies of the green wedge zones, you might as well rename it the Casey
Western Port Redevelopment Management Plan, and be honest about it.

Rosalie Counsell
Southern Ranges Green Wedge Delegate, Green Wedges Coalition
[Address edited out by candobetter.net editor]
Phone: 9796 8568 Mobile: 0429 955 421
Email: [email protected]

Dear Minister Matthew Guy,
You are obviously gung ho for political advancement!
You appear to do anything to appease those with the loudest voices as well as all developers.
We ask you to please consider native animals which have no voice but ours.
NATIVE ANIMALS NEED YOUR HELP MINISTER GUY!

DO THE RIGHT THING BY THEM – REJECT FRANKSTON COUNCIL’s REQUEST
DO THE RIGHT THING FOR KOALAS especially !

"Planning" must encompass more considerations than just stretching urban boundaries

Mr Matthew Guy, Minister for Planning, Victoria
Level 20
1 Spring Street Melbourne 3000

Dear Sir,
Re: resolution that was passed by the Frankston Council on 20 Jan ’14 that Council writes to the minister requesting authorisation to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the planning scheme covering the rezoning of 42 ha of green wedge land in Stotts Lane, Frankston South for residential subdivision.

The resolution was passed 5:4 on the vote of the Mayor.

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) Inc believes you should reject Frankston Council’s request:

Already Franston's Green Wedge nibble at

Frankston should not lose any more Green Wedge, after such huge loss to Peninsula Link, and recent rezoning for Peninsula Private hospital development. Development in this area will see the loss of land currently classified as Rural Conservation Zone which is covered by a Significant Landscape Overlay.

Habitat clearance is the greatest threat our wildlife faces today ; the land in question would further deplete what was a significant bio-link between the listed RAMSAR Seaford wetlands and the listed RAMSAR Westernport wetlands.

Native animals need habitat, or they die!

This land is an important habitat corridor for Koalas. Every spring male koalas migrate from Cranbourne Botanical gardens to mate with the female population that lives in Frankston South. Since Peninsula link opening there have been two male koalas killed on the freeway. If this vital link is lost the South Frankston Koala population will be locally extinct

There is continual loss of habitat in this area due to the new freeway, and little to no offsets in Frankston.

There is increased competition for habitat amongst wildlife, and more vulnerable species such as sugar gliders and woodland birds especially the the eastern yellow robin will also become locally extinct.

Local wildlife shelters are faced with a number of problems

An increase of wildlife that needs care - Less habitat to release rehabilitated wildlife

This means:

- We need to find more volunteers to help run our shelters - We need find more funds to rehabilitate and feed wildlife

- If we are unable to meet those needs we have to limit our services which obviously causes stress to both us and the community member we are unable to help.

Stotts Lane has strong conservation values that need preserving, and shouldn't be dug up for housing

The applicant has engaged BL&A to prepare a Flora and Fauna Assessment Report. This report recognises that the land contains areas of vegetation of high conservation and the area is of very high conservation significance.

-The Report states on page 10 that the property “displays good habitat connectivity”, indicating a connection between Langwarrin Flora and Fauna Reserve and Frankston Natural Features Reserve via patches of remnant bushland. The report goes on to state on page 24 that “aquatic habitats of the study area are therefore considered to be of potential state conservation significance for fauna” and mentions the endangered Growling Grass frog".

This "Planning" violates previous planning policies

The proposed change flies in the face of:

-The long standing bi-partisan support for protecting Melbourne's Green Wedges.

-The State and Local Planning Policies for protecting Melbourne’s Green Wedges.

-Plan Melbourne's initiative to establish a permanent metropolitan urban boundary.

-The strategy quoted in Planning Scheme Clause 11.04-5 - Melbourne Urban Growth:

Contain urban development within the established urban growth boundary. Any change to the urban growth boundary must only occur to reflect the needs demonstrated in the designated growth areas.

Protected land for wildlife and conservation is not an "anomaly"

In 2011 Frankston Council refused a request for the land to be treated as an ‘Anomaly’ in the Review of Urban Growth Boundary Anomalies Outside Growth Areas. An amendment to rezone the land to a residential zone was also refused by the then Minister for Planning in August 2004.

No strategic justification has been put forward for the proposal; instead it has been assessed on a purely ad hoc basis without taking into consideration the wider implications. . Regrettably, to date, Council has not undertaken a Green Wedge Management Plan that would provide guidance on the future management and planning for the Green Wedge.

Population is being "projected" but not land for native animals and vegetation

There is no need for additional residential land in the municipality because, as stated out in Council's Housing Strategy. Frankston's projected population can be accommodated within existing urban areas.

The proposal is opposed by the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, Federal MPs Mr Bruce Billson and Mr Greg Hunt, and State MP Mr David Morris. We understand that the Member for Frankston, Mr Geoff Shaw, is also opposed to the proposal as is Mr Johan Scheffer the Member for Eastern Victoria Region.

The proposed would result in the urban sprawl extending down onto the Mornington Peninsula and would eliminate the break that separates the township of Baxter from the urban area of Frankston.

This is in direct conflict with the Draft Frankston Housing Strategy (para 1.2.1), which states that the “South East and Mornington Peninsula Green Wedges provide a limit to the region’s growth to the south and east.”

Approval of the application would mean the loss of pleasant, picturesque, rural properties that contain stands of mature, native trees that provide valuable habitat and vegetation that is classified as being of very high conservation significance. The importance of the scenic value of the area is recognised in the Planning Scheme by it being covered by a Significant Landscape Overlay.

Proper planning transcends ticking housing approvals and opportunities for developers

Approval of the application would create uncertainty and encourage more such opportunistic proposals. This was acknowledged in the officer report in the agenda for the meeting which stated:

Council and Officers have been contacted by representatives for other land holders outside the Urban Growth Boundary in regards to either their future plans with their land or enquiring of Council’s view to future urban rezonings.

An enquiry in the north of the City is suggesting rezoning 356 hectares to residential, centrally in the city 22 hectares to industrial use; and to the south 8.6 hectares to residential.

This proposal has no justification, is contrary to State and Local Planning Policies, would set a dangerous precedent and urge you to refuse to authorise the Council’s request to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the planning scheme.

The Green Wedge must be maintained to protect its conservation, recreation and agricultural values. Green Wedges have played an important part in making Melbourne the 'World Most Liveable City'. Frankston’s Green Wedge makes a substantial contribution to the mental and physical health of the community.

Current planning is ad hoc, destructive and opportunistic instead of being holistic

Current planning laws only take into account wildlife value or need for protection if it is deemed threatened, and even then that is always not enough to secure protection.

Do the Right thing please Minister Guy

Kind regards

Maryland Wilson, President Australian Wildlife Protection Council

It is shocking to hear that several Frankston Councillors have voted to build over the last koala corridor in this crucial area. Craig Thomson has made a Submission to Frankston Council item 11.8 AGAINST Request for a Planning Scheme amendment to REMOVE 42 hectares from the Green Wedge Conservation Zone to allow 350 houses to be built. He says, "The land is a vital Koala migration route- it means local extinction of koalas in South Frankston. The VOTE was close 5 to 4 against the koalas. The next step for this item is for further community consultation and the Planning scheme amendment to go before the Minister."

Unfortunately Cr Aitkin’s[1] motion to refuse this amendment was defeated 5 votes to 4 and the council's officer recommendation which was in favour of the request was moved 5 votes to 4.

The next step for this item is for further community consultation and the Planning scheme amendment to go before the minister.

Developers watching for green light

The implications of this proposal are massive for the green wedge of the peninsula and would ultimately give a green light to developers (who are already watching this case very closely) to destroy our environment and open spaces.

Submission against 11.8 Request for Planning Scheme Amendment Stotts Lane

As a wildlife rescuer I am expressing my concerns that of the rezoning of 42 hectares from the green
wedge at Stotts Lane. These concerns are for the welfare of the local wildlife and the added pressure
placed on voluntary wildlife groups who have provided the Frankston city council a free service for over 25 years.

Habitat clearance is the greatest threat that faces our wildlife today and the land in question would
further deplete what was a significant bio-link between the listed RAMSAR Seaford wetlands and the
listed RAMSAR Westernport wetlands.

This land is an important habitat corridor for Koalas. Every spring male koalas migrate from Cranbourne Botanical gardens to mate with the female population that lives in Frankston South.

Since the opening of Peninsula link there has been two male koalas killed on the freeway, and if
this vital link was lost the South Frankston Koala population would be locally extinct in a number of
years.

With the continual loss of habitat in this area especially due to the new freeway, and with very little
to no offsets found in the city of Frankston. There is increased competition for habitat amongst wildlife, and as such more vulnerable species such as sugar gliders and woodland birds especially the likes of the eastern yellow robin will also become locally extinct.

With the loss of habitat and increased volume of traffic and increased number of domestic animals for such housing on green wedge land, local wildlife shelters are faced with a number of problems

1. An increase of wildlife that needs care

2. Less habitat to release rehabilitated wildlife

This means:

1. We need to find more volunteers to help run our shelters

2. We need find more funds to rehabilitate and feed wildlife

3. If we are unable to meet those needs we have limit our services which obviously causes stress to
both us and the community member we are unable to help.

4. If we are unable to find suitable habitat to release wildlife we have to look at other areas for
releasing wildlife reducing genetic viability and biodiversity of an area.

Kind regards

Craig Thomson,
Secretary Animalia Wildlife Shelter

NOTES

Not too surprising to hear of Cr Aitken voting to protect the koalas. He is an unusual man for his times: a wonderful and thoughtful councillor, whose father was also a councillor for Frankston - CDB Editor]

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 superb document establishes a history of concerted public demand for protection of the green wedges and a host of reasons for that public opposition to Matthew Guy's six new suburbs. It represents more than 80 groups of Victorians - (Ed. Candobetter.) "The whole rationale for extending the Urban Growth Boundary is to accommodate the unprecedented flood of population to Victoria. PPL VIC considers that the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary is really the thin end of the wedge. As there are no plans to stop the present high rate of population growth (mostly from immigration) the process of loss of Green Wedges and agricultural land is endless. There will be another extension when the proposed boundaries are seen to be filling up. The Government must abandon the Green Wedge land grab as destructive of the environment, a threat to wildlife, including endangered species, and as a major contributor to Green House Gas Emissions. Around the urban fringe we have a concentration of some of the most endangered eco- systems in Australia..." Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Land, VictoriaJulianne Bell, Protectors of Public Land, Victoria.

The superb document below establishes a history of concerted public demand for protection of the green wedges and a host of reasons for that public opposition to Matthew Guy's six new suburbs. It represents more than 80 groups of Victorians protesting against Victorian government population growth and development policies for reasons that damn Matthew Guy's extension of the Urban Growth Boundary. These extensions are even worse than those planned by the preceding government, however the preceding Kennett, Bracks and Brumby Governments created the planning precedents and undemocratic conditions that give the Baillieu Government the delusion that it has the right to ride over citizens rights' to conserve public land and wildlife habitat from private greed.

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

Mr George Seitz
Committee Chair
Outer Suburban/Interface Services & Development Committee
C/- Parliament House
Spring Street, Melbourne
VIC 3002

19 October 2009

Dear Mr. Seitz,

Submission to Parliamentary Outer Suburban Interface/Services and Development Committee Inquiring into the Impact of State Government Decision to Change the Urban Growth Boundary

Introduction:

I am making a submission on behalf of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC.) I should by way of introduction mention that our organisation, established in 2004, is a State wide coalition of over 80 environment, heritage, resident and parks groups across Victoria. We are dedicated to keeping public lands in public hands and to protecting and conserving iconic heritage places and environmental sites of significance.

Summary of Grounds of Opposition: In addressing the terms of reference we are considering

“The impact of the State Government’s decision to change the urban growth boundary on landholders and the environment…”

PPL VIC draws the Committee’s attention to the failure of the State Government in strategic urban planning over the last 10 years and in encouraging uncontrolled entry of settlers to Victoria without examining sustainable population levels. We object to creation of growth areas outside the existing boundaries as extending and creating urban sprawl; alienation of established Green Wedges; destruction of the environment and wildlife; loss of biodiversity; creation of “dormitory” settlements without infrastructure and services; likely social alienation of youth; loss of arable land for food production; increasing car dependency; worsening Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to climate change with land clearance, unsustainable housing and reliance on road transport; plus knowingly approving the building of new settlements in fire-prone areas. Additionally we deplore the imposition of a vendor tax on landowners in order to fund the infrastructure of the new settlements and the impetus given to land speculation and “land banking.” PPL VIC supports the submissions made by our colleagues from the “Green Wedges Coalition” and “Taxed Out”.

The grounds of our submission are as follows:

New Growth Areas = Future Urban Sprawl = Major Failure of Strategic Urban Planning:

The Bracks Government guaranteed in 2002 that, under a Labor Government there would be no changes or amendments to the Urban Boundary or to the Green Wedges corridors. The fact that there are now radical changes represents a serious breach of faith with the electorate by the Brumby Government. Melbourne 2030 was considered to be the blue print for future development and was expressly intended to contain future urban sprawl; to prevent urban incursions into rural land; to concentrate residential growth into areas served by high capacity public transport; and protect sensitive environmental zones around the city. Many planners have pronounced Melbourne 2030 dead in view of recent radical departures from the plan.
Before the 2002 election the State Government announced protection of Melbourne’s green wedges from subdivision and inappropriate urban uses. There was bipartisan support - the Opposition supported the green wedge protection legislation when it passed through the Legislative Assembly before the 2002 election.
The Government has additionally broken a 2005 promise when 11,500 hectares was excised from Green Wedges land that there would be no further changes until 2030. The community accepted the excision on this proviso. Apparently, the Minister for Planning gave a number of assurances right up to the announcement of the review of the Urban Growth Boundary that there would be changes to Green Wedges. .
The State Government announced its review of the Urban Growth Boundary in December 2008 when it released the Melbourne @5 million, an update to Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Development. This signalled the State Government’s plans to open up at least 23,000 hectares – including land in Green Wedges areas - for urban expansion to allow for construction of 600,000 houses with 284, 000 of these to be located in growth areas. It was only apparently belatedly realised by Government advisers and planners that Victoria needs to accommodate another 1 million people before 2025. By 2036 Melbourne is predicted to have a further 1.8 million, twice the number forecast by Melbourne 2030 planners. By anyone’s reckoning failure to predict this massive population boom is a monumental blunder in strategic planning (See also comment under population)
We can see no improvements under the current Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities (DMNSC) report on the Urban Growth Boundary Review released in June 2009. PPL VIC was alarmed to see that according to the Green Wedges Coalition the report proposes to excise a further 41,663 hectares from Melbourne’s Green Wedges, nearly twice the area estimated to have been needed in last December’s Melbourne @ 5 Million report.
Minister Madden has added to proposals by announcing on 6 October 2009 that new “Precinct Structure Plans guidelines” were to be added, a kind of overlay for suburbs of 3,000 dwellings or more. These guidelines were drawn up to try to ensure developments avoided becoming isolated, so called “dormitory” suburbs - places where there is nothing to do but sleep. The Age article of 11 October 2009 “Sprawl of the wild,” by Melissa Fyfe says “

The Victorian Government has discovered sustainable communities. Pity it’s 10 years late.”

On 16 October 2009 Planning Minister Madden announced the draft legislation for Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution Bill. We have only been given time to make comments until 2 November 2009. (It is not known if the legislation will be introduced to Parliament before this Committee has reported.) The problem is that arrangement to levy the GAIC have been changed or significantly amended. Michael Hocking of Taxed Out says on his website:

“This is taxing the landowner by stealth. The tax is still applied at a flat rate regardless of the sale price yet the land may be twenty years from development. A property owner needing to sell in the short-term will find it virtually impossible to find a purchaser who is prepared to accept a GAIC liability when he sells, meaning the only likely purchaser is a developer not interested in the value of the dwelling and not interested in paying development prices for land that won't be developed for decades. The Growth Areas Authority assumptions relating to value uplift remain fundamentally flawed and Taxed Out Inc. intends to expose these issues at the Parliamentary Inquiry…In many respects this situation is worse than that originally proposed.

PPL VIC deplores the fact that the State Government appears to have attempted to mislead affected landowners. We also point out that this debacle over changes to the GAIC further illustrates that our contention that this is planning on the run.

What is a Sustainable Population for Victoria?

The whole rationale for extending the Urban Growth Boundary is to accommodate the unprecedented flood of population to Victoria. It is instructional to Google the “Population Clock” of the Bureau of Statistics. This shows the resident population of Australia which increases by one person every 1 minute and 12 seconds. This projection is based on the estimated resident population at 31 March 2009 and assumes growth since then of:
• one birth every 1 minute and 44 seconds,
• one death every 3 minutes and 39 seconds,
• a net gain of one international migrant every 1 minutes and 53 seconds leading to
• an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 12 seconds
PPL VIC considers that the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary is really the thin end of the wedge. As there are no plans to stop the present high rate of population growth (mostly from immigration) the process of loss of Green Wedges and agricultural land is endless. There will be another extension when the proposed boundaries are seen to be filling up.

The extension of the Urban Growth Boundary does not save private or public open space in the established suburbs - the rate of population growth is so high that Melbourne is getting more urban densification daily as well as urban sprawl. As we have pointed out the State Government is devoid of coherence in these planning matters and its approach to endless population growth.
PPL VIC considers it imperative that the Victorian Government hold a forum to determine the population sustainable for Victoria, especially in view of water shortages and the likelihood of future droughts. (Excuses used have been “immigration is a Federal matter” but State Premiers have influence in Canberra.) At a rally on 14 July 2009 protesting over Planning Minister Madden’s “Cash for Chat” with developers, PPLVIC and allies delivered a set of resolutions to the Minister including the need for a population forum. There were over 500 people at the Rally which indicates the strength of public feeling concerning the issues raised here.
I have a quote here from Mr Kelvin Thomson MHR, Federal Member for Wills who says that:

Everything that makes our city the great place to live, work and raise a family, is potentially under threat if population growth and urban sprawl continue at the current rate. We must implement a strategy to control population growth, urban expansion and development. Our way of life, open spaces and infrastructure cannot be sacrificed on the altar of ever expanding population. We have a responsibility to secure our city’s future by thorough, thoughtful and detailed planning. This planning should not include an expanding Melbourne waistline.” (“Five Million is too many: Securing the Social and Environmental Future of Melbourne” Submission to the Urban Growth Boundary Review July 2009.

Destruction of the Environment and Green Wedges:

The Government must abandon the Green Wedge land grab as destructive of the environment, a threat to wildlife, including endangered species, and as a major contributor to Green House Gas Emissions. Around the urban fringe we have a concentration of some of the most endangered eco- systems in Australia including the Western Basalt Plains Grasslands and Grassy Woodlands in the Darebin, Jackson and Merri Creek valleys, with 400 year-old red gums, and plus loss of habitat for a range of threatened species (e.g. Southern Brown Bandicoot.) PPL VIC supports the submission of the Green Wedges Coalition as being an excellent detailed statement of the threats to significant landscapes, endangered species and wildlife plus indigenous vegetation.
The 15,000 hectares of grassland reserves to be provided over 10 years as a trade-off for grasslands is apparently of poorer quality than the kangaroo (themeda) grasslands to be destroyed
The removal of environmental protection from all areas within the Urban Growth Boundary would seem to indicate that areas such as significant parts of the Merri Creek Catchment will not be protected from environmental damage or even clearing.
Areas for development are clear felled by developers. The loss of trees and other vegetation for housing adds to global warming effect. Is there any provision for conservation?

The proposed high density, low open private space in these outer suburbs means they will be hotter - urban heat island effect - from the lack of the cooling effect of vegetation/transpiration - low ratio of vegetation to concrete and other hard surfaces.

What provision is made for public open space? There is no mention made of public open space for passive recreation as well as sports fields and recreation areas.

On past performance, no allowance will be made for wildlife in outer suburban development. PPL VIC has had experience with kangaroos of Somerton and Morang where animals get trapped in developed areas and just left to get killed on roads. The outer suburban interface is considered terra nullius it seems. What of smaller animals/birds what about the grasslands and inhabitants? There appears to be no consideration given to the creation or maintenance of wildlife corridors.

The State Government appears to have taken little notice of report by the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Mr Ian Mc Phail, in “The State of the Environment Victoria 2008”. In it he comments:

"Victoria's population growth, increasing affluence and the expansion of our cities and towns has contributed to unsustainable levels of resource consumption and waste production. This has direct environmental impacts through changes in land use from conservation and agriculture to cities and towns. To supply our cities and towns, we harvest water for residential and manufacturing purposes, changed river flows, discharge wastes to land and sea, remove native vegetation and send damaging gases into the atmosphere." (Refer in the report to A Culture of Consumption. Drivers of Change – Population, Change and Settlements Page 9)

The report continues:

“Continuing growth of Victoria’s population will increase demand for land, as well as housing and transport services, potentially leading to more waste and pollution. Extra demand for water is particularly pertinent given the predictive effects of climate change on already depleted water storages.”

Mr Mc Phail concludes on a depressing note:

"It is currently cheaper to protect the environment to than to restore it but it is even cheaper to degrade it…”

Urban Growth Areas in Fire Prone Areas:

Whether it is advisable settling thousands of people in outer suburban fire prone areas does not appear to have occurred to the Government. These are the outer suburban areas classified as "Growth Areas": Beveridge, Bulla, Devin Meadows, Cranbourne East, Clyde North, Diggers Rest, Donnybrook, Kalkalo, Melton, Mt Cottrell, Officer, Pakenham, South Morang, Sunbury, Tarneit and Truganina.

Councils opposed to the extension of the Growth Areas Boundary and the imposition of the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution are Melton, Casey, Cardinia and Mitchell. Wyndham refuses to comment.

It is apparent that these areas are either under resourced by fire services or not serviced at all. We assume this also goes for ambulance and police. Would the State Government be liable if fire services were not provided and a fire went through the settlement?

The Age reported on 4 July 2009 (Lessons to Learn) on the proceedings of the Bushfire Royal Commission and pointed to urban sprawl as one of the “fatal confluence of factors” that led to Black Saturday.

Cost to Victorians:

The cost of building new homes in the rural fringes of Melbourne is double that of constructing infill dwellings in the inner city. This is the hidden cost of suburban sprawl. This is an unacceptable financial burden for Victorian tax payers to shoulder. The added costs include extra infrastructure such as power, water and transport, as well as higher health costs and greenhouse gas emissions.
The report, commissioned by the State Department of Planning and released in July, cites research that found

"for every 1000 dwellings, the cost for infill development (in existing suburbs) is $309 million and the cost of fringe developments is $653 million".

It has been stated by Minister Madden in Parliament (and reported in the Sunday Age 11 October that the funds to be raised by the $95,000 hectares Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution will cover only 15 per cent of total infrastructure costs. The Minister is prepared to sacrifice Green Wedges land that makes Melbourne “livable” and to destroy the livelihoods of many small landowners and farmers for this minor financial return.
Unfair Tax on Land Vendors: The Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution is an unfair, discriminatory tax on family farms and small landowners, even after amendment by the State Government in draft legislation. As we have consistently maintained, the tax needs to be withdrawn and any charges levied at the point of development, consistent with the approach taken in other Australian states. PPL VIC supports the campaigns of “Taxed Out” and as mentioned above held a joint rally on 14 July 2009 to protest against the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution.
Perpetuation of Car Dependency: The plans to construct major freeways/ring roads and the absence of plans for extensive rail networks to serve the new suburbs spells out that the population of Melbourne will remain dependent on cars despite the uncertain future of oil. We are particularly concerned over plans to build the E6 freeway through Woollert. The roadway appears redundant.
Reduction of Arable Land: Given our population crisis and likely food shortages with the drought it is unthinkable that the Government can even be contemplating turning over arable land for housing development. The loss of vegetable farms including prime market garden land in the Westernport Catchment will increase food miles for our produce.
Increase of Green House Gas Emissions: Climate change is the most important moral question of the age and must be at the forefront of our public policy. The State Government appears to have its head in the sand. Compared to other cities in the world Melbourne has one of the highest rates per capita. Our private vehicles and public transport were recently recorded to generate 11 million tonnes of carbon monoxide a year compared with 8.5 tonnes in London. The increase in urban sprawl will worsen our figure.

Accommodation of Population within Existing Urban Growth Boundaries:

No examination has been undertaken of how the increased population can be accommodated in Metropolitan Melbourne.

Suggestions have been made that an inventory should be conducted of development applications which have already been approved by Council within the Urban Growth Boundary but which have not yet been built. Utilizing existing approvals might go some way to addressing the issue.

An inventory also needs to be undertaken of brown field sites and land which could be available for residential development – former transport depots, rail sidings and Commonwealth Government sites eg the Maribyrnong Defence site.

It is most unfortunate that the practice of “land banking” by developers appears widespread throughout the city. Take for example land on the former Royal Park Psychiatric Hospital site in Parkville which was given to Australand and the Citta Property Group to build a residential development then used for 2 weeks for the 2006 Commonwealth Games Village. The original plans showed a wall of 700 units in a 9 storey block along City Link. The land is still vacant and there have been no attempts to commence building. The developers are said to be waiting until the “market is right.” The truth is that developers prefer green field sites and are unwilling to invest in developing brown field sites.

Request to Committee: PPL VIC urges the Committee to reject approval of the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary and the iniquitous Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution and to develop recommendations for accommodating increased population within the Urban Boundary plus arriving at consensus for determining a sustainable population for Melbourne.

Yours sincerely

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

0408022408
jbell5[AT]bigpond.com

Urgent Appeal to all Victorian activist groups

Planning Backlash is joining Protectors of Public Lands and Green Wedge Coalition to oppose Amendment VC67, which is being brought to Parliament by Justin Madden (Minister for Planning) on June 22.

This amendment must not be passed.

Please join the rally 1 - 2 PM

June 22

On the steps of Victorian Parliament, Melbourne.

Details from Protectors of Public Lands:

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. has joined with the Green Wedges Coalition Inc. and Planning Backlash to hold a protest SAY NO TO VC67 PLANNING AMENDMENT - STOP URBAN SPRAWL, GREEN WEDGES DESTRUCTION AND HIGH
RISE ON TRAM/BUS ROUTES. It is not exaggerating to say that, if ratified by Parliament, this amendment could signify a catastrophe for Melbourne - the face and fabric of our city will be changed irrevocably forever. We are, therefore, inviting member groups, friends and supporters to our protest:

Rationale for Rally:

It is expected that, at this next sitting of Parliament commencing on 22 June 2010, Planning Minister Madden will be putting a resolution to the Upper House for ratification of VC 67 Planning Amendment. This is to approve extension of Melbourne's urban growth boundary involving alienation of Green Wedges and will also increase density (Government lingo for high
rise) of residential development, including along tram and bus routes.

We need you to write to Coalition (Liberals and Nationals) Members of Parliament plus the DLP Member Peter Kavanagh urging them to take a last stand and vote no on VC 67. It would be helpful if you wrote to the Greens commending the Members for their stand opposing VC67. (I will send email addresses in my next communication. Also some extracts of VC 67.)

The maps showing the new Urban Growth Boundary and affected shires were only made available by the Department of Sustainability at the request of MPs late on 9 June. See VC67 at link here.

Full text of this submission may be downloaded here in a pdf file 293.43kb.

Kelvin Thompson, ALP, Federal Member for Wills, (a House of Representatives seat.) Wills is located in the north-west of Melbourne, Victoria, comprising Coburg, Coburg North, Gowanbrae, Hadfield, Oak Park, Pascoe Vale, and Strathmore, extending as far north as Fawkner, Glenroy and the Western Ring Road and south to include most of Brunswick and Brunswick East and containing parts of the State electorates of Pascoe Vale, Brunswick, Broadmeadows, Thomastown and Essendon. At a local Government level it shares most of its borders with Moreland, but includes Strathmore from the municipality of Moonee Valley and the Essendon Airport.)

It is indeed cheering to hear a member of the Federal Government criticise the policies of the Growth Lobbyists in Australia. The speech quoted at length below was in Labor MP attacks Melbourne's expansion plan ( July 20 2009) misreported in the Age where it was conflated with statements from the Committee of Melbourne. This conflation misled me and others to believe that Kelvin Thompson was against expansion into the Green Wedges, but was calling for open slather along the main arteries of Melbourne. If you read his submission or the quotes below, you will see that he is actually stating that more population growth in Melbourne is environmentally and socially unsustainable. He is critical of arguments for expansion or infilling. He also exposes the related hypocrisy and nonsensicality of the Government's climate change policies in the light of continuous population growth. He even exposes the fact that the Victorian State Government advertises for high immigration, a fact that they constantly avoid making clear to the long-suffering public.

I have to say: Bravo Kelvin Thompson! You show leadership in a government apparently composed mostly of cowards and ignoramuses who take orders from big business against the interests of their electorates. The only thing you have left out is the role that the Federal Government plays in granting the states the numbers they so vociferously demand of it.

Headings are by the candobetter editor:

Kelvin writes:

"Our city is forecast to have 4 million people living in it by the end of this year, with annual population growth rates reaching 2% (Colebatch 2009). The outer fringe of Melbourne is currently taking 61% of our population growth (Buckley 2009). This is placing pressure on the existing Urban Growth Boundary.

Climate change is the biggest moral issue of our time

Climate change is the biggest moral issue of our time and addressing it must be at the forefront of our public policy planning. Compared to other major cities throughout the developed world, Melbourne has one of the highest rates of carbon emissions per capita. Our city’s cars, trucks, motorcycles and public transport services were recently recorded to generate 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, compared with just 8.5 million tonnes in London. This equates to 3.1 tonnes of carbon per person in Melbourne compared with 1.2 tonnes per person in Greater London. One of the key reasons for our significantly higher rate of emissions per person is because of Melbourne’s larger geographic area, which means journeys tend to be longer and heavily reliant on cars (Lucas & Millar 2008).

Twice the number of people in Melbourne will mean twice the amount of carbon emissions, congestion and pollution.

Existing Government policies are encouraging an expansion of up to 75,000 people a year. If we continue down this public policy path we will need to accommodate another 1 million people before 2025 (Buckley 2009). By 2036 Melbourne is predicted to have a further 1.8 million people, nearly twice the number forecast in Melbourne 2030 (Moncrief 2008). Twice the number of people in Melbourne will mean twice the amount of carbon emissions, congestion and pollution.

Submission to the Urban Growth Boundary Review

1. Executive Summary

Our city has reached the point where we need to change direction or risk our social and environmental future.

Melbourne is at a fork in the road. For a long time our city, its way of life and the opportunities it offers to all who come here has been the envy of cities around the world. To maintain this desirable situation we must act decisively to address the issues that threaten Melbourne with becoming another crowded, over populated, congested and polluted metropolis. Our city has reached the point where we need to change direction or risk our social and environmental future.

The Urban Growth Boundary Melbourne@ 5 million review provides the opportunity to investigate the issues currently facing our city and the options we still have to address them. This submission will identify the ecological issues associated with expanding the northern, western and southern Urban Growth Boundaries and discuss the long term consequences for Melbourne of the proposed expansion. I am making recommendations which will protect Melbourne’s social and economic
growth, local amenity, transport system and reduce our carbon footprint. I have put forward an alternative plan to that of an ever expanding urban fringe.

Melbourne is one of the world’s most liveable cities. This year it was ranked third out of 140 cities as being the most liveable city. Our lifestyle, employment opportunities, health system, education system, infrastructure and environment are all aspects of a community that is the envy of many around the world (The Age 2009).

Melbourne is now the fastest growing city in Australia, with thousands flocking to live here on a never before seen scale. Melbourne’s population is growing on a scale not seen in Australia before, swelling by almost 150,000 people in two years (Colebatch 2009). The 2001 Census recorded Melbourne’s population at 3.3 million people (ABS 2001). In 2006 our population reached 3.6 million (ABS 2006). It has continued to grow faster than that of any other city in the country.

Melbourne’s population grew by 74,713 in the year to last June and by 74, 791 during the previous year. Melbourne’s population is growing by more than 200 people a day, or almost 1500 per week. Melbourne’s population growth last year far outpaced all other major Australian cities. Sydney grew by 55,047 (1.35%), Brisbane by 43,404 (2.3%) and Perth by 43,381 (2.8%) (Colebatch 2009).

In response to revised population projections showing that Melbourne will reach five million people faster than anticipated, the Victorian Government announced its intention to review the Urban Growth Boundary in December 2008 (DoPCD 2009:i). The Urban Growth Boundary was introduced in 2002 as part of Melbourne 2030 (DoPCD 2009A). The boundary was expressly put in place to contain urban sprawl. It was expressly designed to prevent ongoing urban expansion into rural land surrounding metropolitan Melbourne and its fringe (DoSE 2005). It set out to place a clear limit to metropolitan Melbourne’s development. It sought to concentrate urban expansion into growth areas that are served by high capacity public transport (DoSE 2005A).

The most recent review of Melbourne @ 5 million forecasts an additional 600,000 new dwellings in Melbourne with 284,000 of these needing to be located in growth areas. Most of this future growth will be in the north and west of Melbourne (DoPCD 2009:i).

The State Government is investigating changes to the Urban Growth Boundary in response to updated population forecasts and revised longer term growth issues (DoPCD:6). Areas under consideration for urban expansion include 20,448
hectares in Melbourne’s west around Caroline Springs, Melton and Werribee; 25,385 hectares around Sunbury, Craigieburn and Donnybrook and 5560 hectares east of Cranbourne.

Under the plan Melbourne’s Urban Growth Boundary would be allowed to grow another 41,000 hectares to accommodate an extra 415,000 people. Development of these areas would lead to a loss of some of the most valuable grasslands on the city’s fringe (Dowling & Lahey 2009).

Around the urban fringe, we have a concentration of some of the most endangered ecosystems in Australia, including Western Basalt Plains Grassland and Grassy Woodland, and a diverse range of other vegetation types and threatened species (Environment Victoria 2009). It is vital we do everything we can to protect these ecologically sensitive and important areas from being overrun by high density development.

The Victorian Government is now seeking public feedback on the proposals regarding the proposed changes to the Urban Growth Boundary before a final decision is made (DoPCD 2009:3). In making a final decision, I encourage the Victorian Government to consider the issues of population, local amenity and liveability, climate change, economic growth and transport. I have put forward recommendations that are designed to tackle urban sprawl and that will continue to protect the
things that make Melbourne great.

Everything that makes our city the great place to live, work and raise a family, is potentially under threat if population growth and urban sprawl continue at the current rate.

Everything that makes our city the great place to live, work and raise a family, is potentially under threat if population growth and urban sprawl continue at the current rate. We must implement a strategy to control population growth, urban expansion and development. Our way of life, open spaces and infrastructure cannot be sacrificed on the altar of ever expanding population. We have a responsibility to secure our city’s future through thorough, thoughtful and detailed planning. This
planning should not include an expanding Melbourne waistline.

[...]

Encouraging urban sprawl and ever increasing high density developments will lead to a more
polluted, congested and unsustainable Melbourne. Bringing millions of people in to Melbourne will increase the stress on water supplies that are already strained, increase reliance on fossil fuels by communities that are on our urban fringe, and it will increase Melbourne’s carbon footprint when we must be reducing it.

Regrettably the planning process in Melbourne is not being used to achieve environmental sustainability. Melbourne is generating more greenhouse emissions, using more water, losing open space and turning into a high rise steel and concrete jungle. Planners and policy makers talk the talk of protecting Melbourne’s environment, but their actions have the opposite effect. They behave as Gough Whitlam once described rowers facing in one direction but heading in the opposite one.

The promise of Green Wedges to give Melbourne lungs of open space in which to breathe has been broken

A fundamental component of planning for Melbourne’s growth during the 1970s was the concept of
urban growth corridors radiating outwards, separated by wedges of non-urban land (Friends of Merri Creek 2009:3). But the promise of Green Wedges to give Melbourne lungs of open space in which to breathe has been broken, and is proposed to be broken yet again. We need to retain Green Wedges as permanent wedges between growth corridors, not as potential urban land supply that is bulldozed as soon as there is a demand for it.

Image from cover of Graeme Base, Uno's Garden, Viking, Penguin Australia, 2006

Re: Proposed Urban Growth Boundary changes.

There is a fantastic book by renowned author Graeme Base, that I often read to my children. It’s called ‘Uno’s Garden’. It’s about a guy named Uno, who arrives in the forest one beautiful day, where there are many fascinating and extraordinary animals there to greet him. And one entirely exceptional Snortlepig.

Uno loves the forest so much, he decides to live there. But, in time, a little village grows up around his house. Then a town, then a city….and soon Uno realises that the animals and plants have begun to disappear….
(sounding familiar?)

***

Graeme Base starts his book with this rhyme:

‘The animals go one by one
A hundred plants, then there were none
And all the while the buildings double…
This numbers game adds up to trouble’

So significant is this story, that it featured as the Myer Christmas windows in 2007. If you haven’t already read the book, I urge you to get a copy. It really is easy to read, and makes perfect sense.

On behalf of my children, I would like you to seriously consider the moral of this story when determining the UGB and population expansion.

Sharing our backyard on the periphery of the proposed new South East UGB, are EPBC listed, endangered Southern Brown Bandicoots. To my kids, these are like the ‘Snortlepig’ in the story. They think the Government must be careful to protect them as it’s important we have biodiversity. They really get that. What they don’t get, is that the Government is now planning to shift the boundary of the Urban Growth Corridor encroaching into Green Wedge land further threatening the SBB’s, to make way for more ‘concrete and McMansions’. They are worried that it will never end, and wonder where all the animals and farmers producing our food are going to go. They are worried that when they get ‘old’, their children and grandchildren will suffer for today’s government’s seeming lack of concern for the environment.

What should I tell them?

Submitted by: Catherine Manning [to the Growth Areas Authority]
Friday 17th July, 2009.

Photographs of Southern Brown Bandicoots in our backyard near Clyde.

One of several speeches made at Melbourne 14 July 2009 rally against undemocratic rezoning of green wedges to benefit developers by making it possible to continue high immigration by providing housing at the expense of wildlife, open spaces and democracy.

The speaker is Michael Hocking of Taxed Out. The GAIC tax proposed is quite medieval, like a tax on peasants to benefit lords, which is how the feudal system worked. Where modern practice in the anglophone land-tenure systems is to tax developers the windfall they make on rezoned land, the GAIC tax would tax landowners if they sold land which had been rezoned against their wishes. The choice is a Hobson's one; if you stay you pay very high rates based on the theoretical value of resale. Hard to stay under the circumstances. A recipe for driving farmers and wildlife out and ushering suburbia in. A policy driven by the Growth Lobby.

Shortly after his lunch with the "Progressive Business Association" must have ended, Mr Madden, who apparently departed shyly out the back door, looked surprised to be intercepted and presented with the resolutions of the Bastille Day Rally against Urban Expansion and Rotten taxes by Julianne Bell, Rosemary West and Jill Quirk, acting on behalf of the environment and democracy.
See also: Unnatural Growth and Rotten Taxes and Animal Apocalypse Shortly after his lunch with the "Progressive Business Association" must have ended, Mr Madden, who apparently departed shyly out the back door, looked surprised to be intercepted and presented with the resolutions of the Bastille Day Rally against Urban Expansion and Rotten taxes by Julianne Bell, Rosemary West and Jill Quirk, acting on behalf of the environment and democracy.
See also: Unnatural Growth and Rotten Taxes and Animal Apocalypse

Julianne Bell presents Planning Minister Mr Madden the resolutions from Melbourne's Bastille Day rally against Urban Expansion, July 14, 2009. (Photo by Jill Quirk)

Bastille Day a good day to defend public land and to demand representation

Bastille Day, Melbourne, Tuesday 14 July, 2009 Many groups with converging environmental, landholder and democratic concerns gathered at the corner of William and Collins Streets, to hear speakers alert the public about Planning Minister Madden's unpleasant and undemocratic plans for Victoria's green wedges.

Ms Bell of Protectors of Public Lands (Victoria), Jill Quirk, of SPA, Ms West, of Green Wedges, and Michael Hocking, of Taxed Out (S.E. Region), had organised a day of protest, which Planning Backlash had urged people to attend. "In our view the attack on Victorians by the Brumby Government in implementing the urban growth boundary expansion, the Green Wedge land grab and levying exorbitant taxes on family farms and small land owners is extraordinarily serious. It has far reaching implications for, amongst other things, destruction of the environment and climate change," wrote Mary Drost.

Resolutions

The meeting passed the following resolutions under the heading of "Protectors of Public Lands":

This meeting:

1. Deplores the fact that Planning Minister Justin Madden MLC is hosting developers at an ALP fund raising lunch and is putting Victoria’s planning policies up for sale.

2. Calls upon the Minister to:

• abandon the Green Wedge land grab.
• levy developers, not family farmers and small landowners.
• hold a population summit to determine how many people Victoria can reasonably sustain.
• meet with community groups at Parliament House to discuss the Urban Growth Boundary Extension and related matters.

Outside the palace

Instead of their usual stamping ground on the steps of Parliament House, where politicians are apparently willing to take the flack for the growth lobby, the protesters had decided to demonstrate closer to the source of Victoria's woes - at a meeting with big business and developers held by the ALP-fundraising arm known as the Progressive Business organisation in the Intercontinental Rialto Hotel.

After speeches from Julianne Bell, Rosemary West, Michael Hocking and Brian Walters S.C., the demonstrators spread out in an angry body hundreds big across Collins Street, rhythmically shouting, "Axe the Taxes" and proceeded downhill to the hotel where Mr Madden's Bastille-Day rendezvous was scheduled.

Outside the hotel there were a number of impromptu speeches through a loud-hailer, punctuated with sustained chants of "Sack Madden", "Sack Brumby", whilst the crowd waited patiently, if noisily, for Julianne, Michael, Jill and Rosemary to deliver the resolutions to Mr Madden. It was clear that most of the people attending, particularly those who stood to lose enormous equity through taxes on any future land-sales or through enormously increased rates if they did not sell, were responding to immediate and serious threat. The faces were tense, there were tears glistening, voices were angry. One man with a continental accent took the loud-hailer and warned that people would be drained of every drop of blood - he meant money - if they failed to halt the process there.

Eventually the four delegates returned to say that they had delivered the resolutions but that Mr Madden had still not arrived for the lunch.

After some deliberation, and in view of the fact that the police had asked politely, the crowd disassembled, with cries of 'We'll be back!" Julianne Bell, Rosemary West, Jill Quirk and a candobetter journalist went around to a cafe behind the hotel and drank their coffee facing the window.

Late meeting with Mr Madden

Mr Madden was spotted shyly leaving the hotel and was intercepted, as pictured in the photos. He did seek to separate himself quickly and turned away, but wheeled around when someone called out, "Marie-Antoinette! Are you afraid to talk to the people?" He then remained long enough for Julianne Bell to present him personally with the Meeting Resolutions. There was a brief chat, where he insisted that his door was always open, or words to that effect, prompting another comment to the effect that if it only cost $1,500 for business to lunch with him, then surely taxpayers who pay much more than that annually, could expect to have much more influence. A member of his party was heard to claim that the State Government has nothing to do with population growth in Melbourne, that it is a Federal Government responsibility. A member of the Bell party corrected this misapprehension.

Indeed, population growth policy, particularly through immigration, is more and more crafted and influenced by the States, for it is the state governments which look after land and water. Population growth increases the price of land and State Governments reap financial benefits from land-transactions via taxes. The Victorian government has a website called www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au (see more about this and the developer lobby in Melbourne at Melbourne 2008: Life in a destruction zone which shows some of its dedication to the policy of increasing population in Australia.)

One more thing. The resolution calling for a population summit could backfire, since Mr Brumby's predecessor, Mr Bracks, held the Melbourne Population Summit in 2002. This event was almost entirely given over to developer propaganda, with journalists making speeches to promote population growth, as if they actually experts. The Premier and many others misled the public by talking as if Australia's population was falling and presenting massive population growth as a benign, even positive. Auspiced by the developer officiated and funded Australian Population Institute (APop), the Dennis Family Corporation (Developers, Financiers, builders, land-bankers), various commercial media with a reliance on marketing land, Mr Pratt, a big advocate of big populations and 'managing water' for business reasons who was facing criminal charges before he died, with Master of Ceremonies, Steve Vizard - convicted of insider trading - it was a very sorry event which reflects and reverberates to this day to the great shame of all politicians associated with it.

Community Protest over Extension of Melbourne's Urban Growth Boundary, Destruction of Green Wedges & Unfair Land Tax on 14 July 2009

Here is the notice of a community rally protesting over the impact of the expansion of Melbourne's urban growth boundary, about to be pushed out by up to 46,000 hectares, for residential development and a freeway/ring road. The State Government is considering taking over planning powers of these new "growth areas".

The rally is being organised by Taxed Out Inc., Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. and the Green Wedges Coalition. Community groups have been angered by the announcement that, as reported in the Age of 16 June 2009. Planning Minister Madden will host a luncheon on 14 July 2009 to "brief" developers and business "on the vision for our growth areas and the need to fast track infrastructure investment to create jobs" - and to raise funds for the ALP. It seems that a privileged section of the community can buy the Minister's ear at the expense of other citizens.

When: 11:30 am Tuesday 14 July 2009

Where: Meet at the South-East Corner of Collins and William Streets, Melbourne.

Why:

The proposed expansion of Melbourne's Urban Growth Boundary will involve rezoning up to 46,000 hectares for residential development, new roads and a freeway. This policy could see unprecedented destruction of green wedges; environmental damage plus loss of western grasslands; destruction of wildlife including endangered species; increased greenhouse gas emissions; building of yet more freeways; loss of arable farm land; compulsory acquisition of land; increased tax burdens including the grossly unfair vendor tax a "Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution - GAIC"; and comes as a result of the go-for-growth-at any-cost Government philosophy. Also the erosion of our democracy will be on the cards if the elected State Government bypasses Parliament and local councils over planning and environment issues.

Transport: Trams in Collins and William Streets, some meter parking in Haymarket Street. Train to Flagstaff Station then tram down William Street. Spencer Street then tram down Bourke or Collins to William Street

Bring to Rally: Warm clothes, a cut lunch and something to sit on. Plus a placard. (Some will be provided.)

Support Needed:

We would be very glad if you can send us a message on behalf of your organisation in support of the rally. This will help prove that your organisation is not city-centric or has "NIMBY" tendencies. Send to the above email address. I will read them out. Make sure to give the name of your group. (Messages of support have already been received from a few outer suburban and rural groups saying how much they appreciate city folks taking up these issues.) Plus we need people to attend even for a short time. Send to Julianne Bell on jbell5[AT]bigpond.com

Contacts: Julianne Bell Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc 0408022408 and jbell5[AT]bigpond.com, Rosemary West Green Wedges Coalition 0418 554 799 and John Holtham Taxed Out 0409136311.

Protectors of Public Lands. When governments fail democracy, you need organisations like this one. Please consider joining to save your state from developers, more debt and worse.

Victoria's urban growth boundary extension and demise of green wedges.

Julianne Bell, of Protectors of Public Lands writes:

Here is some information which you might have already seen on the Urban Growth Boundary Extension.

This will involve requisitioning 50,000 hectares for residential development and new roads with extraordinary implications for environmental damage and destruction of wildlife, loss of western grasslands, increase greenhouse gas emissions, loss of arable farm land, destruction of green wedges, compulsory acquisition of land, increased tax burdens and the go-for-growth-at any-costs philosophy. Also the erosion of our democracy when the elected State Government bypasses Parliament and local councils over planning and environment issues.

Why you should make yet another submission

We urge you to make a submission to the Growth Areas Authority. We should not have to do this but sometimes it is worthwhile.e.g. the Eddington Review on the East West Link through inner Melbourne and prime parkland. There were over 2,300 submissions mostly opposing the road tunnels/freeways and advocating public transport funding. (The Government was stunned at the response) Note that the EW Link was dropped from Victorian Transport Plan.

The "public information sessions" are drop in times to get information. I rang 1800 090 789 for information and hope to be sent a DVD with the information. Google Department of Planning and Community Development, Growth Areas Authority or Urban Growth Boundary.

The Government is seeking public feedback on the following proposals:

* Melbourne's revised Urban Growth Boundary and land designated for development.
* An alignment for the Regional Rail Link (west of Werribee to Deer Park).
* An alignment for the Outer Metropolitan Ring / E6 Transport Corridor.
* The boundaries and management of proposed grassland reserves in Melbourne's west.

Public feedback is also sought on the findings set out in the Strategic Impact Assessment Report for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

According to instructions there are three ways you can provide your submission:

* Make your submission online (http://www.vic.gov.au/planningmelbourne); or
* Send your submission by post to the Growth Areas Authority, at PO BOX 1166, Carlton, Victoria 3053
* Hand deliver your submission to the Growth Areas Authority at Level 6, 35 Spring Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000

Submissions close at 5:00 pm on Friday, 17 July 2009.

All submissions will be considered by the Victorian Government before it makes any decisions. (!)

Candobetter Editor: Protectors of Public Lands needs more active hands on deck. Please consider joining, because only through organisations like this, can Victorians organise to combat the evil Victorian Government's abject railroading of our taxes to supplement the style of living to which the Growth Lobby developers have become accustomed, at the expense of nature itself.