planning

'It may be tempting to believe our 4WD has bumped over a wombat.' (from an article in a magazine)

Tempting?

Roadkill is driving some species towards extinction. Too few safe corridors for animals to find more food. Too many cars and trucks on many more roads through their habitats.

How about a campaign to stop carelessness about road-kill? This could encompass:

1. More careful night-driving. through countrysides and slower diving through bushland could prevent so many deaths and so many orphaned creatures that other people may then try to save, or don't.

2. Invention. Can a form of warning that is effective in warning for animals up to four minutes ahead of the coming killing-machine be invented for use by cars and trucks in places and at times that creatures are liable to be hit. Headlights can simply paralyse them in the middle of the road.

3. Safe crossing tunnels and overheads which are used in some countries. These should be build in places where many small animals get run over.

4. A British man eats road-kill as his way of preventing waste.

5. Raise awareness. It would be interesting to know how many drivers know they have driven over animals. The Royal Australian Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) could ask its members. Let's have some idea of the grim tally.

What are people feeling is their own greatest collective guilt? There's a lot of it around. Trillions are spent on weapons of horrible destruction – even by the 'goodies?

Universal Guilt Day – making a real Day of Atonement - followed by ? Could we have a Peace and Saving Museum?

See also:

1. "Tassie's roadkill carnage" by Michelle Paine in teh Hobart Mercury of 21 Nov 08.

NEARLY 300,000 animals are killed on Tasmanian roads every year. Among them, 4000 Tasmanian devils -- about 5 per cent of a population already being dying from an infectious cancer.

"Pretty much everything that lives in Tasmania, we've seen dead on the road," said scientist Alistair Hobday, who has compiled the figures in one of the most extensive roadkill studies in the world.

"Of that, 70 per cent are hit in roadkill blackspots, which only exist on small sections of the road."

2. roadkill.wilddiscovery.com.au/ "Wild Discovery Guides - Australian Wildlife RoadKill, A Wild Discovery Guide" with Len Zell.

Wild Discovery PO Box 1696 Townsville Qld 4810 ISBN 0-9757184-3-6 RRP: A$19.95. The description is:

Roadkill was shortlisted for the 2007 Whitley Award for significant contribution to Australian zoology. This is the essential 'in-car' book for any road traveller in Australia. With about one million kilometres of road, anyone travelling them is, sadly, very likely to see or cause roadkill - certainly of the millions of small bugs that will be hit.This book provides an overview of the types of roadkill, hints on what to do with them, how to clean bugs off the car and an eclectic mix of other information - from road safety to recipes. In addition the book gives an unusual insight into the many aspects of Australia's very special fauna, albeit in a somewhat macabre way.More than 200 photographs of roadkill all some identification and an excellent guide on how to avoid and observe roadkill and who to send interesting specimens to.

3. Macabre ‘humour' at www.wwwildcats.com/abz.htm

.

Due to the creative genius of one Charlie Conroy whom we proudly claim as one of our own, we are excited to announce a world first, the ABZ of ROADKILL. This is a photographic competition open to all bikers worldwide, it is designed to utilise something that would otherwise just lie around going to waste, and is currently regarded just as something to stay upwind of and to avoid hitting when it is lying in the middle of the road. This comp is aimed as a small way of making their sacrifice worthwhile and at the same time offending the general population. Both worthy aspirations of any genuine bikers!

4. Ten minutes on Google can find you a whole lot of insensitive things done and thought about roadkill.

Libs give in to Madden

This morning Planning Minister Madden’s revised Planning Amendment, now re-badged VC 68, was fast tracked through Parliament with the support of the coalition - Liberals and Nationals – who had, over the past year, held out against inducements to approve this toxic planning amendment. (Only the Greens and DLP MP’s stood firm.) This represents a catastrophe for Melbourne as it will see rezoning of land from rural to residential on the City’s fringe and so extend our notorious urban sprawl.

Protectors of Public Land: "The Community opposes these changes."

Brian Walters SC, President of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. comments:

"The community opposes these changes. Extension of the urban growth boundary will destroy green wedges, the lungs of Melbourne. This amendment will take 43,600 hectares out of the western, northern and Cranbourne South green wedges for housing development, freeways and freight terminals. The losses include: 5,000 hectares of environmentally significant Western Basalt Plains grasslands; the grassy woodlands of the Maribyrnong and Merri Creek catchments, with their magnificent red gums; and 4,000 hectares of the South East food-bowl, where highly productive market gardens using recycled water double as Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat. Our Green Wedges have been sacrosanct for generations. There was no mandate from the people to dispose of this legacy.”

Julianne Bell: Great increase in car dependency - city in permanent gridlock

Julianne Bell Secretary of PPL VIC: points out :

“It is also forecast that extension of the urban growth boundary will result in the creation of numbers of “dormitory” settlements without advance provision of infrastructure and services. It will greatly increase car dependency with people needing several cars per family and so worsen Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions. (This is ironic given the Brumby Government's recent announcement of work to control carbon emissions by the part closure of Hazelwood power station.) Monash University Centre of Population and Social Research forecast that from 1.97 million cars registered in Melbourne in 2006 there will be over 3 million by 2036. Our city will then be in permanent traffic gridlock.”

(See also "Why Gillard's car fuel-efficiency 'reforms' make no ecological or social sense" of 30 July 2010.)

Madden planning more nightmares to come

Community groups are now waiting for another bombshell from Planning Minister Madden – he is reported to be attempting to put through another planning amendment which will approve high rise (22 stories plus) along tram, bus and light rail routes as a means of accommodating the expected 1.5 million more people in Melbourne by 2036. This will result in further congestion of the major transport routes and condemn the population of flat dwellers to ill health. (Anyone who lives within 500 metres of a main road is threatened by developing asthma and cardiac-respiratory diseases.) The Brumby Government is fast turning Melbourne into one of the great unliveable cities of the world.

Inquiries: Julianne Bell Mobile 0408 022 408 Brian Walters SC Mobile 0411 020 967

Source: Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., Media Release 29 July 2010

Echoing the fiction of many of Australia's urban planners and pro-immigrationists, Queensland Labor Premier Anna Bligh characterized Vancouver as a showcase for "green development" following a recent trip to the fabled city. Growth is somehow made palatable when it is re-christened as "development", and of course, tacking the adjective "green" to it makes any development proposal seem benign. With "green development" the Growth Lobby can have its cake and develop it too. Trouble is, Vancouver's greener pastures don't stand up to scrutiny.

I went to the "De-growth" Conference in Vancouver in early May. I met with Conrad Schmidt of the "Work Less Party", and others, who had a ring side seat to the farce which was the Olympics. I was intent upon writing a summary of the conference, but as usual, was sidetracked by other issues. That Vancouver is held up as a shining beacon of sensible planning is an outrage equivalent to the International Red Cross giving a Nazi concentration camp a five star hotel rating. I'm Vancouver-born, and returned to my roots to attend the conference. My impression of the place was only re-inforced. As I commented, it is a city built on an imported slave labour caste where the slaves, too exhausted by long hours and subsistence pay, are on the one hand, celebrated by the chic left and business class alike as agents of diversity, and on the other hand, blamed for not assimilating into our society by the resentful residents who feel their competition. The truth is, the working immigrant poor, have neither the time nor the energy to do so, and it is their children who must interpret mainstream culture for them. Same old con job. My great grandparents were caught in the same vice at the turn of the century. Today 38% of Vancouverites fail to earn the $18 per hour necessary to live a decent living. And 38% of city residents are foreign born. That correlation carries a message. Most newcomers are poor, and as elsewhere in Canada, take a decade to catch up with the hindmost Canadian working poor. They cannot earn the $25,000 per year necessary to pay enough taxes to reimburse governments for the services that are provided for them. In effect, "cultural diversity" is a corporate welfare scam where Canadians pay for the services of cheap labour and employers, landlords and realtors reap the reward. Nothing new about that script. Yet it is one that travel writers and eminent tourists from Brisbane never read.

Yes, Vancouver has invested billions in monorails. But owing to open-ended growth, that transportation network has not displaced car traffic but only supplemented it. Driving about the city is an even greater nightmare now than it was when I left. And in the shadow of this grand monuments there sleeps the homeless, who can be seen by day begging for money or dashing between cars to wipe windshields. Some find shelter by the entrances of million dollar condo highrises. Vancouver is a glowing testament to the truth that growth never closes the income gap, but widens it. It may reduce unemployment, but not the unemployment rate.It may increase the GDP, but not the per capita GNP. Growth may grow the but the forces that profit from it will will ensure that its benefits are not equitably shared by buying city elections and electing pro-development politicians to the provincial legislature. Even the social democratic NDP failed to arrest the widening disparity of wealth during its eight year reign. In fact, evidence suggests that it worsened. Yet leftist politicians still remain faithfull to the credo that to meet the need for affordable housing, education and health care, they must "grow" the revenues. That can only be done in two ways. One is the traditional way of "taxing the rich". But capital is a moving target, and won't live in a tax regime that is much higher than in other jurisdictions. The second way is to pursue economic growth, which the social democratic leadership has picked up as its banner too. The two party system is in reality, a one party growthist state with two competing factions whose differences can only be calibrated in nuances. But spout the same cant about cultural diversity and sustainability and employ common buzzwords. Every initiative is "green" and all growth is "smart".

A roomate of mine in the early eighties said it best. "Those who advocate more density will get more density without any end to sprawl." Jack Marshall said that smart growth was necessary but not sufficient. It is only necessary as a growth-enabler and a means to line developer pockets. Renegade urban planner Rick Belfour made it clear at the De-growth conference. There are no "green" buildings. We already have TOO MANY buildings and houses. In our post carbon future---if we have one--- cities of Vancouver's size will not be capable of being "fed or energized". Densification does not conserve energy---quite the contrary(see attachment). More energy is needed to transport food in and waste out. Energy is needed for highrise elevators and heat (ever seen a clothes line outside the 11th floor?). So rather than pack them in, as the soft green establishment keeps arguing, we need to disperse people fast. "It is not about the number of buildings", Belfour said, "but where they are situated". They need to situated close to farmland. We need to relocalize and re-ruralize, and depopulate the megalopolis.

I wrote the following upon my return:

Watch online: http://www.thefiveringcircus.com/5ring.swf This portrait of Vancouver will disabuse you of your illusions about my hometown. It is a story that is being played out across the world----the making of cities that mimic John Kenneth Galbraith’s description of America: private affluence co-existing with public squalor. In Vancouver (and elsewhere) we now have a two-party system. The “Work Less Party” , and the incumbent “Care Less Party”.

It would be instructional for Australians to see that. I am made sick by these recurrent tales of "Vancouver, the model city". Bullshit.

Jacob Saulwick, in "Libs back Greens call for inquiry into 'big Australia'",
March 16, 2010 Sydney Morning Herald, writes,

'The Greens leader, Bob Brown, said yesterday that the inquiry would hold hearings in every capital city, asking whether Australia had the environmental, housing and transport capacity to meet a predicted increase in population to 36 million by mid-century.
''We don't have the infrastructure to deal with 21 million people at the moment - for example, public transport and water infrastructure - let alone the estimated 35 million people by mid-century,'' Senator Brown said.'
[...]
'The opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, said the opposition would work with the Greens on the proposed inquiry.
''Australians want to be heard on this issue,'' he said. ''I think Australians are very frustrated by a prime minister who just signs us up to a 36 million population and they don't have any say about it.''
The capacity of state and local governments to provide services for their growing constituencies needed to be examined, he said.
''All of these issues require some very careful analysis to know what our migration intake should be.''
The Greens will move a motion in the Senate in May calling for the inquiry to be set up.'

Dick Smith, however, has suggested that what is needed is a proper risk study, ie. a study which shows what the risks are at various population numbers (milestones) and growth. .... "It could show that with 36 million in 2050 what our risks are and what the chance of those risks of occurring are. Anything like that can be more objective, and allow people then to work out what they think an optimum number may be."

High Rise does not solve population growth problems: State of Australian Cities Report

High rise is often touted as a panacea for population growth energy costs, but the State of Australian Cities Report, which has just been released, shows this is yet another furphy produced by the growth lobby.

The State of Australian Cities Report 2010 has been released, to assist the Australian Government, in cooperation with state, territory and local government, and in partnership with the community and industry, to improve Australian urban policies.

The report is designed to redress an information deficiency about economic, environmental, social and demographic changes, and to reveal trends and provide a platform of knowledge for the development and implementation of future urban policies.

The report found that the past outward urban expansion has meant a greater distance between residential and employment areas with a resultant greater use of cars, higher transport costs, more vulnerability to oil price rises and the loss of agricultural land or habitat. More recently, however, the pattern of growth has seen an increasing proportion of population growth accommodated in existing inner and middle suburban areas, most notably in Sydney.

The level of car dependency in Australian cities has increased at a faster rate than population growth, creating traffic congestion problems as infrastructure and public transport have failed to keep pace with population growth.

Other key findings include:

* Australian cities rank highly on an international comparison, particularly on indices that measure quality of life and global connectivity, and measures related to the social condition of people.There is evidence to suggest that Australian cities suffer with respect to infrastructure. Of concern is the evidence that suggests a decline in international relative performance and perception in the past five years.
* Water restrictions in major cities across the nation saw total consumption by households fall by 7 per cent between 200001 and 200405 despite population growth over the period.
* Residential energy use accounted for approximately 7 per cent of total energy consumption in 200708, but grew at a high rate (2.2 per cent) relative to other sectors over the period. This growth is attributed to population increase, higher ownership of appliances and IT equipment per household, and increases in the average size of homes. Standby power was the greatest contributor to average annual growth in household energy use over the period 198990 to 200607.
* Transport emissions are one of the strongest sources of emissions growth in Australia. Strong growth in emissions from the transport sector is expected to continue, with direct CO2 equivalent emissions projected to increase 22.6 per cent over the period 2007 to 2020 (or around 1.58 per cent a year).
* Climate change is affecting rainfall patterns. Since 1950 much of eastern Australia and the far southwest, where our largest cities are located and the majority of the population lives, have experienced an annual decline of up to 50 mm in rainfall per decade affecting both the availability and quality of water supplies across urban areas.
* Levels of the key pollutants of lead, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide in the largest capital cities have decreased significantly over a ten-year period. However, particulate air pollution and ozone levels have remained at or above national air quality standard levels over the period and showed no evidence of decline.
* While national recycling rates have increased, total waste generation has also continued to increaseby around 31 per cent from 200203 to 200607 (4 years), exceeding the rate of population growth of 5.6 per cent over the period.
* When both direct and indirect environmental impacts are taken into account, higher [per capita?] environmental impacts at the household level are associated with higher incomes and smaller household sizes. Therefore, despite the opportunities for efficiency and reduced environmental impacts offered by more compact forms of urban living, inner city households of capital cities, followed by the inner suburban areas, feature the highest consumption of water use, energy use and ecological footprints even when reduced car use is taken into account.

When the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration hearing convened to hear from Peta Duke on 12 March 2010, she did not attend in answer to the summons. She had written the notorious Media Plan proposing a sham public consultation process to earn favour with the electorate. Mr Madden, who had not been summoned, sat in the chair reserved for the witness – his former Ministerial adviser - and said that he would answer questions. This was a blatant attempt to take over the inquiry being carried out by Parliament into his office’s conduct. - Protectors of Public Lands (Victoria)

When the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration hearing convened to hear from Peta Duke on 12 March 2010, she did not attend in answer to the summons. She had written the notorious Media Plan proposing a sham public consultation process to earn favour with the electorate. Mr Madden, who had not been summoned, sat in the chair reserved for the witness – his former Ministerial adviser - and said that he would answer questions. This was a blatant attempt to take over the inquiry being carried out by Parliament into his office’s conduct.

By his crass tactics in derailing the hearing of a properly constituted committee, the Minister of Planning has tried to frustrate the accountability to Parliament of himself and his office. The Premier and the Attorney-General have supported this tactic.

"Grave abuse of power"

This impropriety strikes at the heart of Parliamentary democracy and is a grave abuse of power.

Julianne Bell, Secretary of Protectors of Public Land, Victoria, (PPL Vic), attended the hearing. She commented:

“The Minister had the opportunity to explain himself during the nine hours of debate on the subject the previous Wednesday but chose not to attend. Why would he expect a hearing now?

Minister failed to use legitimate opportunities to explain himself

Over the last six months PPL has made extensive submissions to both the Planning Department and Heritage Victoria on proposed policy, and on planning decisions, including:
• the Review of VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal),
• the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary,
• the Mornington Peninsula Link (through Westerfolds);
• the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show in the Carlton Gardens; and
• the Windsor Hotel development.

Any suggestion that public consultation could be treated as a sham is of grave concern to PPL disclosing as it does a cynical attitude to the people of Victoria. The actions of the Minister have now treated the Parliament, to which he is accountable, and which represents the people of Victoria, with contempt. The community expects our democracy to be respected.”

"Scandalous situation made worse"

Brian Walters SC, President of PPL Vic, said:

“Minister Madden has made a scandalous situation far worse. As found by the Children Overboard inquiry in the Senate, ministerial advisers have no immunity from appearing before parliamentary committees, yet it seems the Government has attempted to direct or advise her to disobey the summons to do so. This undermines the rule of law and Parliamentary oversight. If the Minister’s office is not accountable to Parliament, we have lost one of the most fundamental checks of our democratic system.”

Source: Press Release from PPL (Vic), 14 March 2010

They say a week is a long time in politics but in Victoria a day is a long time.

They say a week is a long time in politics but in Victoria a day is a long time. Community members tracking the progress of the Planning and Environment Amendment (Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution GAIC) Bill have been stunned at the mercurial changes in policy exhibited by Planning Minister Justin Madden in relation to this Bill. A month ago Minister Madden was saying that he expected the planned expansion of the urban growth boundary by 43,600 hectares to be the last expansion in his lifetime. Yet a week ago he was conceding that there may have to be changes to Melbourne's urban growth boundary. He made the excuse that his not-in-my-lifetime comments were about major changes to the outer urban growth boundary not just little amendments.

Julianne Bell Secretary of the Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. commented:

“We have been taking a great interest in the progress of this Bill. If passed it will change the face of Melbourne forever and irrevocably affect the lives of many outer suburban/rural land owners. PPL VIC considers the GAIC tax is grossly unfair, unequal and discriminatory impacting on small landowners and property owners on the rural fringes of Melbourne. We are implacably opposed to the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary and alienation of Green Wedges which will automatically be implemented if the Bill is passed.

Internal contradictions, political twists and turns

We found it most extraordinary that on Tuesday last Jenny Mikakos, MLC Member for Northern Metropolitan representing the Government, said “…the government does not support any move to delay consideration of this bill… It is important that Parliament deals with this bill before Christmas so that the government can give certainty to land-holders and industry. We believe there is no logical reason to delay consideration of this bill any further, and we will be opposing the procedural motion on that basis.” Yet late yesterday Wednesday Minister Madden approached the Opposition with a series of amendments and changes to the GAIC Bill. This was the fifth proposed change to Bill and gave the Opposition, let alone the community just 16 hours to scrutinise the amendments. This is an absolute joke and indicates to us that that planning in this State is conducted on the run.”

GAIC Bill deferred to 2 February 2010

The Bill has been “deferred” which means that it will not be considered until the next sitting of Parliament starting on 2 February 2010. As it will have been deferred for than two months it will be referred to the Disputes Committee. So its fate is uncertain. Meantime the Government blames the Opposition and Greens for holding up the Bill and for not giving the landowners “certainty.” The question is what sort of certainty Minister?

Rally at Parliament 2 February 2010

Make a date for 2 February 2010 - see you at the biggest rally ever on the steps of Parliament to continue our protest over the GAIC Bill! Best wishes for the festive season and a tax-free, green and carbon reduced 2010!

Source:
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.(PPL VIC)
MEDIA RELEASE
Thursday 10 December 2009

This comment, by Canadian Tim Murray, was originally posted to the ABC Background Briefing program, 'Housing for Millions'. In response to statements by a planner which implied that the doubling of Vancouver's population in 15 years had been accomplished without pain, he writes, "Vancouver is a success story only if compared to other major urban failures."

As a victim of the “Vancouver model”, and one of tens of thousands of its refugees, I was chagrined to hear that my growing necropolis of noise, congestion and crime had “doubled its population in 15 years without pain”. To whom, developers?

The people who, according to the 52 page MacDermid report, “Funding City Politics,” finance three-quarters of Canada’s urban election campaigns and buy the zoning they want? Or urban planners, the pimps of the Growth Management Industry who, notwithstanding the universal failure of ‘smart growth’ nostrums to protect Greenfield acreage from sprawl by packing more and more people into urban feedlots where more energy inputs are required to sustain them than rural dwellers?

Vancouver is a success story only if it is compared to other major urban failures, all of which are of a scale unfitted for a post-carbon world. Don’t take my word, ask two educated Vancouverites.

Dr. Michael Healey led a team of 23 researchers from the University of British Columbia in a $2.4 million federally commissioned study of the sustainability of Metro Vancouver and the valley it encroaches upon with relentless greed. They concluded that the area had almost three times too many people to be sustainable, and had an ecological footprint 25 times its size.

Urban streams are threatened with toxic runoffs, valley soils are overloaded with nutrients from intensive agriculture and septic systems leading to the contamination of the acquifer and rural waterways . Ninety per cent of Fraser River fish revealed at least one pathological abnormality.

And this was 12 years ago in a city which has been growing 3% per year. Humans are not fairing too much better either.

According to UBC Professor James White in his study of loneliness, Canadians who live in dense compacted areas—cities---have one third fewer “close” friends than rural residents and almost half of those interviewed declared that other people are not to be trusted. The data says that the last planner interviewed on this ABC radio show is dead wrong. Even the young generation would be happier living with the Brady Bunch than stuffed in an urban rabbit warren with his “Friends” . “Smart” growth? How dense can people be?

Tim Murray
November 24/09

These are dark times for Australia and Victoria is one of the darkest places in the country for democracy. There are, however still some good people in parliament and we must support their efforts. The Greens and the Opposition need the electorate's help to have this bill stopped in the upper house. They have done it before, so they can do it again. See for example, "Coalition, Greens & DLP vote Tim Holding's North South Pipeline enabling regulations down!".

If passed, the new proposed Major Transport Projects Facilitiation Bill 2009, will create an Act of Law tol override existing planning and environmental approval processes under the 11 other Acts listed below. Like the Repco rally law in NSW it will overturn laws for the protection of democracy, the environment, and the public.

This Bill is bad because:

- It will exempt the State Government from its own laws and concentrate decision making power into one or two Ministers, raising the risk of corruption and 'influence peddling'.

- You will not be able to appeal to the Supreme court except to appeal the final decison by the Planning Minister, but the law will be biased against the appeal because they will have to favour "cost and efficiency" of the project rather than environment, heritage, or democratic agreement by the community.

This bill is bad for democracy and is not needed or wanted - except by big business and developers.

Greg Barber of the Greens has asked, "What public transport projects have ever been delayed by following proper processes?"

Labor is determined to ram this through.

He says, "Labor is determined to ram this through. Only the Liberal-National Coalition, by voting with the Greens, can stop this bill in the upper house. You are urged to email Liberal, National, DLP Upper House MPs and tell them that if they really care about stopping corruption they will vote to make state government decisions subject to the law."

Copy of the legislation and explanatory info
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/eb658cee32cafe23ca2576100014d381!OpenDocument

Coastal Management Act 1995
Consent under section 40(1)
Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987
Comment under section 66
Environment Protection Act 1970
Works approval under section 19B(7)
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
Permit under section 40
Licence under section 53 to take and keep fish
Forests Act 1958
Licence or permit under section 52
Permit under section 59(1)
Authority under section 77
Heritage Act 1995
Permit under section 74
Permit under section 113
Consent under section 129
National Parks Act 1975
Permit under section 21(1)(a)
Approval under section 23
Consent under section 25
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Preparation, approval and adoption of a planning scheme or an amendment to
a planning scheme under sections 8, 29 and 35
Granting and issue of a planning permit under section 61
Road Management Act 2004
Consent under clause 1 of Schedule 2
Decision under clause 2 of Schedule 2
Consent under clause 16 of Schedule 7
Water Act 1989
Licence under section 51
Licence under section 67
Wildlife Act 1975
Authority under section 21(1), (2) or (3)
Licence under section 22(1)
Authorisation under section 28A

Partial source for this article was

This interesting letter about the experience of a citizen representing a group's appeal at VCAT vindicates the citizen, educates others about the VCAT attitude, and shows VCAT up.

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC).

The Hon. Justice Kevin Bell
President
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
55 King Street
Melbourne 3000
13 August 2009
Your Honour

ADDENDUM TO SUBMISSION TO VCAT REVIEW

I refer to my letter of 15 May 2009, written on behalf of our organisation Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., containing our submission to the review of VCAT. I am writing to you with an addendum about a number of urgent concerns about VCAT proceedings following a Practise Day Tribunal hearing on 13 March 2009.

See attached the VCAT Order (Reference P3692/2008) relating to the Practice Day hearing on 13 March 2009, the applicant being the Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. and the Responsible Authority Port Phillip Council. We were represented by a barrister.

A matter which perturbs us greatly is the failure of the Tribunal to comply with the Practice Note which sets out procedures for submitting evidence and submissions. Port Phillip Council failed to comply with the Practice Note as its legal representative produced additional documents at the hearing without having previously circulated them to us the requisite two days beforehand or at all. Apparently this is a routine occurrence at VCAT hearings and puts community groups at a significant disadvantage because they cannot afford the expense of an adjournment to consider fresh material. I have heard from a number of our member groups that this has happened to them. In our case the Port Phillip Council brought its request to strike out our case on 13 February 2009 yet came up with additional material five minutes before the hearing a month later on 13 March 2009. Hence Council’s legal representative had plenty of time to circulate additional documents.

I understand that there are many different jurisdictions (14 different lists?) and each has different procedures for “bringing applications”. There are different Practice Notes, different forms and requirements for the different jurisdictions. It appears that Tribunal members do not enforce them, as we found in our case.

The Tribunal member hearing our case justified allowing Port Phillip Council’s legal representatives to provide additional material five minutes before the hearing by saying:

“The applicant was aware of the statement of grounds being relied upon by the council prior to the hearing; they have not come as a surprise... In the present case, there was nothing in the council’s outline of submissions or the additional material that the applicant or I could not comprehend or respond to on the day”.

In fact, some of the material was new and there was no time to even read it closely. (See Paragraph 9, Page 2 of Order.)

The Chair further made the following comment:

“The applicant, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc., through its spokespersons, Julianne Bell, appears regularly before VCAT and is familiar with Tribunal procedures, planning legislation and planning control. The applicant was represented by experienced legal counsel who himself presented detailed written submissions and was well able to request an additional opportunity to respond to anything at the practice day hearing if indeed he has been taken by surprise. He did not do so.”

(See Paragraph 10, Page 5 of Order.)

Not only was the statement about regular appearances before VCAT false, and not based on any evidence, it is apt to create great disincentive to community groups seeking to have a voice at VCAT hearings. The Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. has not appeared regularly at VCAT, in fact we have had two cases only since our establishment in 2004 - the present one included. The other case was an application in July 2008 to obtain information under FOI from Port Phillip Council. (VCAT referred the case to the Ombudsman who was unable to extract information from the Council and the case lapsed.) The organisation does not know about planning legislation or Tribunal procedures as claimed by the Tribunal Chair and accordingly engaged lawyers to represent it. I have only had very limited further contact with VCAT in other matters and do not pretend to understand the procedural requirements.

The comments by the Tribunal carry the implied slur that Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. has been vexatious, but of course there is no redress for a community group confronted by this kind of attack from a VCAT member.

Community groups come to VCAT in order to have a hearing according to law about issues of importance to the community. In many ways they ought to have more entitlement to a proper hearing than those who do so from motivations of profit. The refusal to hear a properly formulated proceeding, accompanied by this studied slight to the group bringing the claim, is typical of the type of alienation of the community by VCAT which has been so distressing for those involved in the process.

Yours sincerely

Julianne Bell
Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 2052

Melbourne City heritage under threat by undemocratic, unwanted, and destructive development

This article is a response to concerns raised by the Victorian National Trust, and using their material, so you can rely on the statements and cite them. At the base of the article and some specimen letters, there are addresses to write to or email.

Melbourne is under attack

IN MELBOURNE a very large number of heritage buildings are being demolished or overwhelmed by new development. This new development will deprive Melbourne of much that is unique to its character. Too much has already been lost in recent years.

The 1894 Eastern Arcade on Bourke Street and the rear facades of both Myer Bourke Street and David Jones have already been lost. Now a permit has been granted to demolish a collection of three interwar buildings behind Scots church, including Victoria’s oldest multi storey carpark, built in 1938.

Towers already approved break the height limit in the central city, and will be overly dominant, and may provide precedent for further breaches. St Paul’s Cathedral may soon be dominated by an 88m glass office tower in Flinders Lane that is more than twice the recommended height limit of 40m. Scots Church may soon be dominated by a 51m high office tower where the height limit is 30m.

Heritage buildings should be preserved where at all possible, and re-used instead of demolished for the sake of simple commercial gain.

Heritage buildings and precincts should not be completely overwhelmed by large new towers directly behind or over them.

Height limits should be respected, because they are intended to maintain a ‘pedestrian scaled’ street level environment, the proper context for heritage buildings.

It is alarming that so many of these big projects have been permitted by the Sate Government through a planning process that does not include an ability to make submissions or lodge appeals.

The Melbourne City Council has shown little interest in preserving existing heritage listed buildings, let alone updating the listings, which have not changed since 1984.

There is plenty of room for new development outside the central shopping area and Collins Street. The city fringe area such as La Trobe Street and beyond, King Street and beyond, and of course the Docklands and Southbank provide plenty of scope for new innovative developments without threatening unique heritage precincts.

The protection of areas by heritage and height controls, such as the central retail area, the Bourke Street hill and Chinatown, has preserved the small scale buildings of earlier eras, the laneways that serve them and the buildings hidden there. These controls are responsible for the development Melbourne’s vibrant laneway culture and apartment conversions of old buildings.

Re: Demolition of Lonsdale House, Lonsdale Street

• Lonsdale House is a good example of Art deco architecture in the city, and is ‘protected’ by a Heritage Overlay and should not be demolished. It is an integral part of the heritage streetscape of Lonsdale Street.

• The justifications used are not convincing. The need to widen the laneway for trucks sounds like a convenience rather than a necessity. Furthermore such a wide truck accessway will create a barrier and a danger for pedestrians.

• That it should be replaced with an entry for a large shopping centre and an electronic billboard clearly shows that generic ‘development’ has been given a higher priority than our unique city heritage.

• It will provide a diagonal entry to a shopping centre that will contain over 100 shops over three levels, and will have multiple entry points from Myer and Melbourne central. To allow this small corner piece as well the demolition of all but the facades of the Myer building shows that the demolition of Lonsdale House is simply a bonus profit for developers who knew full well that it was heritage listed.

• The development will destroy one of the now characteristic laneways of Melbourne, and specifically the St Jerome’s bar, home of the laneway festival. There will be no room for unusual or fringe activities that so animate Melbourne in the new shopping centre. Such unique spaces and activities are in danger of being destroyed by their popularity.

Letter specific to the Windsor

This letter should be addressed to Heritage Victoria

Email : [email protected]

Copies to the Minister and the Trust

Executive Director
Heritage Victoria
Department of Planning and Community Development
Level 4, 55 Collins St, Melbourne, VIC 3000.
PO Box 2392,
Melbourne, VIC 3001.

Dear Executive Director,

RE: Windsor Hotel redevelopment

• The Windsor certainly needs some ‘refreshing’ but the scale of the development threatens to overwhelm what would be left of the original building.

• The architecture of the new parts is certainly innovative, but is this sufficient justification for its scale and impact on the Windsor and the Bourke Hill heritage precinct ?

• The owners bought the business and the building knowing full well it was on the Heritage Register, and had a height limit of 23m, as does much of the surrounding area.

• The 1961 corner building has little heritage value, but the new corner building is a floor higher, dominating the original building more than the existing.

• If the tower is allowed, it will provide a precedent for other tall buildings in the area, threatening the low intimate scale of the precinct and its laneways and small businesses.

• Is the demolition of the rear wing of the original 1888 building really necessary ?

• Surely there is a viable alternative future for the Windsor that did not include a tower with 200 new rooms, a swimming pool, gym and all the features you would expect for a modern hotel. As a boutique heritage hotel, such facilities would not be expected.

• The re-creation of the ground level arcade, a new suite incorporating the towers, and further restoration of the interior of the original building are welcome, but seem like small concessions for a building that is already largely restored.

Letter specific to 80 Collins Street

This letter should be addressed to the Minister for Planning, with copies to the City Of Melbourne and the Trust.

Email : [email protected]

The Hon Justin Madden
Minister for Planning
Level 17/8 Nicholson Street,
East Melbourne VIC 3002

Dear Mr Madden,

Re: Proposed 40 storey office tower, 80 Collins Street

• This giant tower will totally dominate the ‘Paris End’ of Collins Street, one of the most important precincts of Melbourne.

• A 40 storey tower built right up to the street line completely ignores planning rules and precedents for Collins Street that tall towers should be setback at least 10m from the street line.

• Placing the building on giant legs does not lessen its impact on the intimate scale of the small heritage buildings below; indeed they become insignificant footnotes at the bottom of a giant commercial development.

• Building right over the airspace of the Le Louvre shop would set a very bad precedent, threatening all small buildings in the city area with the same treatment.

• The tower is 30m wide and 40 storeys tall on the north side of the street; this will cast such a shadow over the street that dappled sunlight through the trees will become a distant memory.

• How is it possible that a development that so completely ignores the rules has been allowed to get to this stage ?

• Filling in the ‘gaps’ created in the early 1970s for Nauru House would be welcome if the new development complemented the heritage buildings on either side. Instead they are transparent glass boxes set right on the street front.

What you can do

The National Trust info[AT]nattrust.com.au suggests that people write to the Minister for Planning justin.madden[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au about this matter using these facts and cc the National Trust a copy. They have also sent out two specimen letters about specific projects in Melbourne, which I append below. Below these are more addresses.

Here is the Minister for Planning's street address:
The Hon Justin Madden
Minister for Planning
Level 17/8 Nicholson Street,
East Melbourne VIC 3002

Email : justin.madden[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au

And a copy to the National Trust please : info[AT]nattrust.com.au

Mail:
Conservation Division
National Trust of Australia (Victoria),
Tasma Terrace, 4 Parliament Place,
East Melbourne Vic 3002

And you might like to write to or copy to the Lord Mayor of the City of Melbourne :

The Right Hon the Lord Mayor Robert Doyle
City of Melbourne
PO Box 1603
Melbourne VIC 3001

Email :
[email protected]

Save your Parks from Sharks

What Ever Happened to Royal Park?

[1]

The Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc, of which the Royal Park Protection Group Inc. is a member, has lent us their logo for this newsletter.

Unfortunately we have failed to save Royal Park from “shark” attack. Over the short space of the past 13 years first the Kennett Government, then former Premier Bracks and his operative Bronwyn Pike MP, Member for Melbourne, plus compliant past and present Melbourne City Lord Mayors and Councillors, have presided over the progressive carve up, degradation, clear felling and concreting over of Royal Park, previously one of the glories of Marvellous Melbourne – set aside by our first visionary Governor, Charles La Trobe.

Park death by a thousand cuts

Construction of a multitude of developments include: concrete super-market style carparks round the Zoo for the Zoo, including the VCAT approved expansion at the north entrance; super tram stops; bike paths; a bus parking bay on Brens Drive for the Urban Camp; the State Netball and Hockey Centre plus carparks, ostensibly for the 2006 Commonwealth Games; and a mega, private real estate residential development “The Parkville Gardens” on the former Royal Park Psychiatric Hospital (RPPH) site, used for a few weeks for athletes’ accommodation for the 2006 Commonwealth Games. In addition, the Federation style Heritage listed buildings of the RPPH, restored at taxpayers’ expense and promised for community use, have been included in the Parkville Gardens, divided into units, handed over to the developer Australand and then sold for up to $800,000 a unit.

Hospital

Currently still under construction is the $1 billion plus new Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH), which has involved alienation of a huge section of south Royal Park to the west and north of the original hospital. Over 7 hectares, additional to the original 4.1 hectares hospital footprint, have been alienated for the “project construction site”, without guarantees that any land will be handed back to the park. In addition a 2,000 underground carpark for the expanded hospital is being built under the Park and, apparently, under a PPP deal a private hotel is to be built in the new hospital complex. The “Mercy Health” development, an aged care facility, is now being built on the former RPPH site. Although we believe that original contracts show approval for only a 100 aged care bed “social housing” facility, this aged care facility has 140 beds. Additionally a “Mercy Place” multi storey apartment complex is being built with 53 units for private sale, priced up to $600,000, and has use of a wing of the heritage buildings on the site. A “retail hub” is to be built for the flats and the aged care facility with consulting rooms. Also a Catholic chapel.

Freeway extension aborted

Thanks to the extended campaign last year up to December 2008 by RPPG with a coalition of community allies, extension of the Eastern Freeway - through under or over Royal Park, planned by Sir Rod Eddington as part of the $18 billion “East West Link” will now not proceed. It has been quietly deleted from the Victorian Transport Plan.

Ex Liberal leader, Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, cuts funding and protection of parks

Of grave concern is the fact that, as the present Council under Lord Mayor Robert Doyle has downgraded the care and protection of city parks and cut funding to the community, Royal Park will accordingly suffer. (See over.)

“This is my Land, this is your Land, this is our Land, this is not Australand’s” Banner at protest over loss of RPPH site.

Breach of Royal Park Master Plan by City of Melbourne

Breach of Royal Park Master Plan by City of Melbourne: As members may recall Lord Mayor John So sacked the Director and Deputy Director of Parks and Gardens plus a number of staff to save funds. In March this year Council terminated the Royal Park Master Plan Implementation Advisory Committee (RPMIAC) on the grounds that the implementation of the Master Plan was complete. This is far from the truth.

In April we saw the extraordinary departure from the Royal Park Master Plan by staff. The hill top in West Parkville with views of the Macedon Ranges was, in the Master Plan, to be kept clear. RPPG heard that staff planned to plant 120 forest eucalypts – Red Ironbarks. This species is not indigenous to Royal Park, was not included for this location in the Master Plan and will obscure the magnificent views. It is entirely unsuitable for a picnic area as the trees are prone to “limb drop”. RPPG plus other community groups’ members appealed to Councillor Cathy Oke to request staff to put the planting on hold until future discussions could be held. Staff apparently ignored her instructions and went ahead the next day and planted 120 Red Ironbark Trees. In June RPPG made a submission to the “Eco-City Committee” on the agenda item on Master Plans and included our complaints but have had no response. Members formerly of RPMIAC supported by RPPG and the North and West Melbourne Association have put in a formal complaint to the City of Melbourne over this breach of the Master Plan.

Phoney Parks Advisory Committee

Establishment of a Phoney Parks Advisory Committee: RPPG understood from Cr Cathy Oke from the May Council Committee meetings that Council was to establish a Parks Advisory Committee. By the June meeting it had morphed into a “Community Engagement Committee” It was then further altered when the CEO Cathy Alexander spoke to explain that it really was a committee to help set up consultations in the community. The Lord Mayor also had a go at explaining. So there is now no central Parks Advisory Committee as promised when the individual parks committees including Royal Park were terminated.

State Netball and Hockey Centre’s Obtrusive Hockey Lights

State Netball and Hockey Centre’s Obtrusive Hockey Lights: RPPG has a representative on the SNHC Advisory Committee. At the beginning of May installation of new lights was discussed and RPPG presented the Executive Summary of Dr Barry Clark’s latest research paper on the health risks associated with exposure to powerful light at night which includes increased risk of breast and prostate cancers. (As 2/3 of the Zoo is flooded with light when the hockey lights are on then the animals’ health is also at risk.) The State Sports Centres Trust is to be advised. This is serious because it puts the SSCT on notice of risk to health of users and staff of the Centre.

Volunteers not supported where it counts

Issue of Certificates of Appreciation to Royal Park Protection Group Inc. Volunteers: Representatives of RPPG – Rod Quantock and Julianne Bell - were invited to an afternoon tea on 11 June 2009 hosted by Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner, Federal Member for Melbourne “to acknowledge the important role that volunteers from the Royal Park Protection Group make in strengthening the well being of our local community.” Moreover we were presented with “Certificates of Appreciation” for “our outstanding contribution to the community.” Compare the scant recognition to community groups ever been given by the City of Melbourne!

Sewer Mining to supply parks and gardens with water

Report of the Parliamentary Environment and Natural Resources Committee Inquiry into Melbourne’s Future Water Supply: The report was released in June 2009. It contains a section of RPPG Convenor Julianne Bell’s submission to the Committee on 2 February 2009 on Sewer Mining (Page 204) which would be a means of supplying the City of Melbourne with recycled water for all its parks and gardens. (The Committee’s recommendation is to pursue sewer mining projects.)

RPPG Next Meeting:
Time: 11:30 am
Date: Saturday 1 August 2009
Venue: Walmsley House Royal Park corner of Gatehouse Street and Royal Parade Parkville.
Transport: Park in Gatehouse Street; tram up Elizabeth Street to Royal Parade. Get off at Gatehouse Street. Train to Flinders Street then tram as above.

Unreasonable rules for grant submissions

Rejection of RPPG’s Application for a 2010 Community Grant: As RPPG Committee members were ill and away overseas RPPG submitted our application by email. This was not accepted as only postal applications were specified. It is extraordinary as many organisations including the State Government accept online submissions and by email. It appears to us an excuse to cut back on grants.

This notice was printed with the support of the City of Melbourne through the 2009 Community Grants Program.

[1] This article comes from The Royal Park Protection Group Inc., News Bulletin – July 2009

The area proposed for intensive suburban development directly abuts World Heritage Ramsar Wetlands and close to World Heritage Fraser Island

Craig Warhurst writes in the Gympie Times that:

"GYMPIE Regional Council seems to be taking a leaf out of Premier Anna Bligh's book and is selling off land assets to fund its budget." He quoted "Corporate Governance and Finance Committee chairperson Councillor Donna Neilson" as having said that "Council planned to sell off industrial land at Tin Can Bay, Monkland and a home at Kilkivan to raise revenue."

Apparently Cr Neilson had said that the council would not be selling off assets just to keep running, 'only' those deemed 'superfluous'.

She was reported as having explained that, “Not all the $115 million budget comes from rates revenue,“only about $40 million.”

Urban Development on Inskip Peninsula will send residents' broke through rising rates, taxes & costs

Referring to outlying land-sales to suburban developers, Greg Wood, Coordinator of Friends of Rainbow Beach, said on Thursday (23 July 09) that Urban development on Inskip Peninsula won’t just destroy local lifestyle, it will help send us all broke.

Mr Wood cited a recent study by Victorian Department of Planning that found infrastructure costs due to urban extension are more than twice as much as those needed for infill development.

“Rainbow Shores Stage 2, and the unconsulted Land Swap being engineered to replace it, are both urban extensions beyond the existing township” said Mr Wood. “Both would cost ratepayers and taxpayers more than twice as much to support over time than would sensible development within the existing town footprint”.

Mr Wood said that, given the spiral of rate rises Gympie Regional Council feels compelled to inflict on rate-payers, Councillors would be either foolish or irresponsible to ignore this study.

Development doesn't pay for itself; ratepayers pick up much of the tab

“Some Councillors will say the developer pays all of the development costs,” said Mr Wood. “This is dangerously incorrect. A large proportion of the works and services that are ultimately needed due to any development are not even designed or costed at the time of application approval. They can’t possibly be charged accurately. And then there’s the additional, ongoing cost of upkeep.”

Mr Wood says the Victorian report quantifies the absolutely enormous total cost of infrastructure needed due to relentless urban development. The report presents a cost of $653m for total infrastructure required for 1,000 dwellings built in extension of the existing urban area at. The cost for same amount developed as infill is $309m.

Urban sprawl costs ratepayers twice as much as infill

“That’s over $600,000 and $300,000 per household respectively, said Mr Wood. “There’s no way the average household can contribute this amount to public finances. To the extent services are provided, and many are late or never arrive, they are payed for via debt. With the rate of urban sprawl being encouraged by this current Government it’s not hard to see exactly how the infamous State Budget black hole has been dug.”

Call to Queensland State Gov to cease trampling on local communities

Mr Wood called on the Queensland State Govt to cease trampling on the lives and finances of local communities and ordinary citizens in its increasingly mad rush to serve the interests of private developers. He said development must fulfil community need and not just speculator greed

He has also called on Gympie Regional Council to do something useful about the region’s financial security. He says the current plan of simply leaning on ratepayers until they bust is neither fair nor secure.

Council urged to lobby secretive State against inflicting costly Inskip development on Gympie ratepayers

“Council can make a good start on this by effectively lobbying the State over the expensive Inskip white elephant that is now being concocted behind closed doors”, said Mr Wood.

According to the Gympie Times, the Queensland state budget transferred many costs from state to councils. LNP State Member for Gympie David Gibson said that the council's planning had been 'thrown into chaos'. He illustrated this by explaining that simple things like street lights that the state was no longer funding were now council's responsibility and council could either turn the lights off or pass the cost on to ratepayers. He commented that pensioners and people on fixed incomes would be particularly badly affected.

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.

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.

Australians receive little useful coverage in the mainstream media about new laws which are constantly being brought in to privilege overpopulation and overdevelopment in various states. Candobetter tries to publish information to fill this gap. The Bill discussed below, if passed, will make Victorians slaves to developers. They will not be able to influence most of what happens in their state and they will be punished if they try to stop developments by other means.

The comments below were on a debate (in an ALP-dominated parliament) was on the second reading of a motion by Mr Batchelor, The Minister for Community Development, for the Victorian Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2009.
Labor Ministers who spoke in support of this bill were Mr Brooks of Bundoora, Victoria and Ms D’Ambrosio, of Mill Park, Victoria.

Mr Clark of Box Hill and Mr David Morris (in the Liberal Opposition) spoke against it. Here is Mr Clark's speech. We present Mr David Morris's speech in the next article, to be published shortly, "New Vic Planning Legislation Bill "a blatant, naked grab for power"

Criticism in Parliament of the Victorian Planning Legislation Amendment Bill

Mr CLARK (Box Hill) —

The Planning Legislation Amendment Bill has five main purposes. It makes amendments to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 so that any area of Victoria may be deemed to be a growth area, it creates a regime for the establishment and operation of new development assessment committees (DACs), it increases penalties in the Heritage Act 1995, it amends the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Trust Act 1996 to remove the limitation requiring that the trust only operate within the city of Port Phillip and the city of Melbourne, and it amends the Docklands Act 1991 to allow VicUrban to continue its involvement in projects in the Docklands development beyond 31 December 2005. The last of these purposes is effectively a tidy-up amendment, because VicUrban is already continuing its involvement in such projects.

I would be interested to hear the government’s reasons for removing the limitations on the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Trust so it can operate beyond the city of Port Phillip and the city of Melbourne. The increased penalties in the Heritage Act continue policy initiatives started in previous legislation.

The bill proposes to give the Governor in Council the power to declare as a growth area any part of Victoria that the Governor in Council sees fit

The two main provisions of the bill are the first ones I referred to. The bill proposes to give the Governor in Council the power to declare as a growth area any part of Victoria that the Governor in Council sees fit, and the bill contains extensive mechanisms for the constitution and operation of development assessment committees.

The government has announced that the initial development assessment committee areas will be the activity areas of Camberwell, Doncaster, Geelong, Preston and Coburg, but they can go much further than that. They can basically be extended as the government sees fit.

Once created, the new DACs will act in lieu of the responsible authority for all developments within their deemed operational areas, as determined by the ministerial order. The order will specify the class of development to which it applies and the areas it covers.

Each DAC will consist of five members. Three, including the chair, will be appointed by the Minister for Planning, and two will be nominated by the relevant municipal council from a group of five persons who are councillors or members of staff of that council.

There are provisions in the bill relating to the disclosure of membership of the DAC, provisions relating to conflicts of interest and disclosure of those conflicts, and provisions empowering removal of DAC members in certain circumstances. The bill specifies that the DAC will have the powers of the responsible authority in relation to the matters it considers. The decisions it makes will be treated as the decisions of the responsible authority. The relevant municipal council is required to provide documents, information and assistance to the DAC and to reimburse all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by a DAC other than the remuneration of the three members nominated by the minister. Once a decision is made by the DAC, it is treated as if it were effectively the decision of the council itself. For example, it is liable to be appealed at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). This is the scheme of the bill. In putting forward the bill the government has said it is partnering with local government in seeking to improve the operation of the planning system.

I have to say that I have been struggling to think of an initiative announced in the planning sphere, or indeed in any other sphere of government, that is as stupid as the provision contained in this bill in terms of achieving the objectives for which it is said to be put forward.

There has certainly been other legislation that has been more damaging to the community than this, but in terms of its sheer illogicality, this bill is hard to beat.

The argument in favour of this legislation effectively says — and perhaps I will put some words in the government’s mouth — the current planning system is not working properly. There are long delays and interminable arguments.

Bill won't help create jobs

The government may claim councils cannot make timely decisions and that this is inhibiting the capacity to get on with developments and create jobs and prosperity for the state. Taking that argument as a given, this bill does absolutely nothing effective to overcome the bulk of the problems that exist in the system on that account. It simply creates a new decision-making body, the DAC, to make a decision in lieu of the councillors of the municipality sitting around the table in the council chamber.

Every other element of the process remains as it is.

Problems with the adequacy of zoning, planning scheme definitions, flawed criteria for deciding about the issue of planning permits and local government planning departments that are short staffed or where staff are slow, lacking in ability, pedantic or unaccountable — or any of the other accusations that are made from time to time — continue. Exactly the same group of council officers will be servicing the DAC as are currently servicing the councillors.

Beyond the point of a decision being made, if people object to a decision, they can appeal to VCAT against the decision of the DAC, just as they can appeal to VCAT against the decision of the council. The potential for this measure to overcome perceived problems in the planning system is extraordinarily limited. Those who hold out hope that once the DAC makes a decision the development can proceed ignore the fact that if there is strong resident opposition to a proposed planning initiative, that decision can go off to VCAT just as it can in the case of a council decision. If we assume the council would have rejected an application and the DAC would approve it, nonetheless the residents who were opposed to that application could still take it to VCAT. Any potential improvement to remedy the current problems of the planning system is extraordinarily limited. I fear those who were hoping to get great benefit out of this scheme, if it is enacted and implemented, will be sorely disappointed.

But that is only half of the problem with this bill.

The even greater half of the problem is the extraordinary price at which it comes in terms of intrusion on local communities, the diminution of the capacity of local communities to have a say in their own destiny, and the undermining of the role of local government councillors. The government appears to be treating local government councillors with disdain and disregard.

The government has the nerve to call this bill a partnership with local government, whereas in fact it will take away the existing responsibilities of local government to make decisions on planning permits and offers councils only two places out of five at the table of development assessment committees. The government is doing that on an extraordinarily limited and constrained basis.

To start off with, because councillors will have only two places out of five they will always be at risk of being outvoted. The second-reading speech claims that there is going to be an independent chair, but when members look at the bill they will see there is nothing of the sort — the chair is to be appointed by the minister as are the two other non-council nominees.

The local community representatives can be either councillors or members of staff. I think it will be highly likely that councillors will find it virtually impossible to become involved with a DAC. If they do, they are certainly going to be under extraordinary constraints.

There are confidentiality provisions governing members of DACs. The councillors who take part in them are almost certainly frequently, if not always, going to find themselves outvoted. They are then likely going to come under attack from the local community.

DAC Confidentiality provisions stop councillors talking to their communities

They will be trying to defend themselves with one arm tied behind their backs, because they will not be able to cite confidential information in their defence. They will be in a no-win situation.

Councillors squeezed out of planning process, leaving only government officers

If this scheme ends up being enacted, I would not be at all surprised if councillors say, ‘We are not going to take part in this at all. We are not going to be tarred with this brush. We’ll send some council officers along to make the decisions’. Councillors are effectively being squeezed out of the process altogether.

No reason required for overriding public policy

A further concerning aspect is that the DACs are not only being created in defined areas where the government has demonstrated there is some overriding public policy reason as to why in particular cases and in particularly sensitive or important parts of Victoria a DAC should be established.

Crocodilian policies

The DACs can be set up anywhere the government chooses. It reminds me of Churchill’s metaphor of people hoping the crocodile will eat them last while the crocodile goes around gobbling up one at a time. The Brumby government crocodile has designated a handful of local communities to gobble up in the first instance, and it will soon be chomping its way further through other communities.

A bil to destroy any democratic resistance to any development

It will not only do so in activity centres. The government has talked about its policy of imposing high density development along tram corridors. If the government runs into local community opposition to that proposal, next we will find that it has constituted a DAC to take responsibility, for example, for the entire strip of properties along the tram 109 route. Thus that entire strip, running from the city of Yarra through Boroondara to Box Hill, could also be pulled out of the hands of the local community.

The government is seeking an extraordinarily broad grant of discretionary power from this Parliament.

Exactly the same point applies in relation to the power it seeks through this bill to designate growth areas. It is not as if, for example, the government has a schedule in the bill and is seeking to designate areas in the schedule as growth areas; it wants the power to declare any part of the state to be a growth area. It could designate 1 hectare in Mildura, 100 hectares in Sale or a former commercial site in Camberwell to be a growth area, and all the rules relating to growth areas would then apply.

What would also apply is the obligation on people who develop land in any of those areas to pay the growth areas infrastructure contribution. This is a new burden on the people — a new tax being introduced for the first time in Victoria in 2009–10.

The government has claimed that there are going to be no new taxes, but if one looks at the budget papers made available to the house earlier today, one sees that for the first time in 2009–10 something in the order of $84.7 million is going to be collected from growth areas. The budget papers are a bit confusing as to exactly what this is going to consist of, and there is an inconsistency between budget paper 4 and budget paper 3.

Flat tax of $95,000 per ha on land owners whose land is rezoned from rural whether they asked for rezone or not

Budget paper 4 talks simply about a growth areas infrastructure contribution, estimated to be $85 million in 2009–10 — it explains that land brought into an urban growth boundary in future will be liable to a levy of $95 000 per hectare. In budget paper 3, under ‘Revenue initiatives’, at page 369, this figure is split into two figures, which designate a growth areas development fund and a growth areas infrastructure contribution, one of $42.3 million and the other of $42.4 million. This seems, although the budget papers do not make this clear, to reflect the fact that some of the money in the growth areas infrastructure contribution will in turn be assigned to a growth areas development fund — at least that is my assessment. If government members can confirm or vary that, I look forward to hearing what they can tell us.

[T]his bill will enable the government, without any further recourse to the Parliament, to declare an area to be a growth area. Following on from that will be the liability of citizens to pay this increased levy.

Be that as it may, this bill will enable the government, without any further recourse to the Parliament, to declare an area to be a growth area. Following on from that will be the liability of citizens to pay this increased levy. I would have thought that was getting pretty close to violating longstanding constitutional principles about the need for taxation or similar imposts to be authorised by Parliament rather than be imposed by the government through open-ended delegated legislation.

However, regardless of the constitutional principles, it arms the Brumby government with yet another way of grabbing revenue out of the community without proper debate and without proper authorisation by this Parliament.

This legislation seems to be completely at odds with the promises and claims that the Bracks and Brumby governments have made and the Labor Party made when in opposition about planning and their support for local communities. The former planning minister, John Thwaites, made out that he was going to be the champion of local communities and would restore authority, which he claimed had been taken away by the previous government, to local communities. But instead of restoring authority or allowing local communities to have a legitimate say, the government is taking that ‘say’ away from local communities at just about every step of the way. The bill before the house is a particularly gross example of that.

As I said, this bill is not going to be of any significant benefit in creating jobs and speeding up the development process. It operates at only that one particular point in the continuum at which an initial decision is made by a responsible authority.

It also may well not be of much help to small and medium-sized developers if the government is going to exercise its power primarily at the instigation of larger developers who come to it and persuade it to act in any particular case.

The fundamental opposition to this is twofold. On the one hand it does nothing to fix the serious problems which the Bracks and Brumby governments have allowed to evolve and fester within our planning system. It does nothing to overcome unreasonable delays; it does nothing to provide certainty to residents or those seeking to develop properties. It puts one more complicating element, in particular instances, on an existing convoluted structure that is not working properly.

Yet on the other hand it dramatically derogates from any potential for local communities to have a say through their local representatives. It is treating local government and local councillors with contempt, asking them to be part of a process through a DAC in which they have only two votes out of five — three votes are appointed by the minister against them — and to try to defend their position with one arm tied behind their backs.
The bill, whichever way you look at it, is badly flawed.

It attacks principles of democracy, of devolution and decentralisation. It attacks principles of accountability to Parliament by government for revenue raising. It is bad in all of those respects, and it is opposed by the coalition.

Source: “Planning Legislation Amendment Bill, (Second Reading), Members Statements, Assembly, Hansard, Tuesday, 5, May, 2009 pp. 1103-1115

Human Population growth impacts on wildlife: The endangered Earless Dragon is being used to justify killing thousands of Eastern Gray kangaroos in Belconnen and Majura, but the motive is really developers' profit. As grasslands are turned into building sites, as human population growth is encouraged.. Kangaroos are in the way, as is democracy, so both are being buried. See also:Kangaroo articles

When an Earless Dragon is like a smoking gun we should ask who fired the gun.

Did the ACT government organize the mass killing of thousands of Eastern Grey kangaroos in Belconnen and Majura, near Canberra, in a sudden uncharacteristic and galvanic effort to save the endangered Earless Dragon?

(Illustration of dragon as gun by Carol.)Thousands of Eastern Grey kangaroos have recently been shot and bulldozed into pits in Belconnen and Majura, [1] Australian Capital Territory (ACT), in fatal massive round-ups which have not been seen since early last century. In a torrent of official reports and statements, scientists and politicians have fingered the Eastern Grey Kangaroo for overgrazing rare grasslands and thus threatening their other inhabitants, notably the endangered Earless Dragon.

Who would have thought that the little Earless Dragon had such powerful friends in government, planning, universities and business - even the Canberra International Airport? [2] The Grasslands Earless Dragon doesn't pay taxes and doesn't directly contribute to political fundraisers, but it is often associated with grants and development programs these days.

Were these culls really for the benefit of the Earless Dragon? Or was the Earless Dragon only an excuse for this macropod massacre, in which case, what was the real motive?

Although these planned culls aroused public ire and many questions, formal responses were highly selective. Many questions about the Belconnen cull went unanswered and remain unanswered. When the Majura cull came up on the agenda, the same angry questions received the same infuriating non-responses.

The public and the kangaroos deserve much better.

It was so difficult to make sense of what was happening. Could the whole thing actually be as cruel and stupid as the kangaroo-cull protesters claimed? Or were the protesters really childish people who could not accept the obvious need to put some animals which had ‘bred like rabbits’ out of their misery?

After all, the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) had given its seal of approval. That meant it must be okay, right? Right? (See, for instance: "Questions to Michael Linke, RSPCA re the Majura Massacre of Kangaroos")

Absence of testable theoretical basis for cull

My own preoccupation over the months intervening between the Belconnen and the Majura kills had been to ascertain what population theory was used to arrive at the diagnosis of overpopulation or to assert that there should be only one kangaroo per hectare. My search failed. This question has now become one of whether there was any population theory at all. A theory of how kangaroo populations behave is necessary for any outsider to be able to test the validity of the judgement that the Majura Roos or the Belconnen Roos or any other roos were overpopulating and needed ‘culling’. Saying that there should be one per hectare or that they may die of starvation are remarks which, on their own, do not justify culls.

I was amazed that official reports did not begin with a description of how kangaroo populations were thought to operate, how this theory had been tested and the populations measured. In an effort to find out if any real theory and application had taken place, I attempted to contact officials and scientists involved in kangaroo management programs of one sort or another. No population theory of any kind, whether or not demonstrating lemming-like multiplication tendencies in kangaroos, has yet surfaced as a reasonable basis of the culling of the Belconnen or Majura roos.

What did emerge was that there was an overtly declared perception of conflict between human activities and the presence of kangaroos in grazing and a less overtly acknowledged conflict between land-use intensification in urban development, such as roads and new suburbs, accompanying the promotion of radical human population growth policies in the ACT. (See, for instance, this description of planned expansion and intensification in the area.)

Dr Fletcher’s thesis oddly at odds with Canberra culls

One scientist who was closely associated with the Belconnen cull and the Majura cull, was Don Fletcher. Fletcher is the Senior Ecologist in Research and Monitoring in Parks, Conservation and Lands, Department of Territory and Municipal Services, ACT. His involvement in the Belconnen Roo cull seems to have been officially limited to capturing then releasing female survivors after inserting contraceptives in them. He was one of the writers of the public consultation document leading up to the Majura cull.

He defended these culls and has defended the assessments leading up to the Majura culls in a public consultation document. Yet his own thesis on the “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Temperate Grasslands,” (pdf 4.27mb) seemed to discredit claims at the basis of these culls, which were too high population density and a need to manage it down to one kangaroo per hectare. For instance, he wrote on page 237 of his study that :

“The study did not provide evidence that high densities of kangaroos reduce groundcover to the levels where erosion can accelerate. Unmanaged kangaroo populations did not necessarily result in low levels of ground cover. Groundcover had a positive but not significant relationship to kangaroo density, with the highest cover at the wettest site where kangaroo density was highest. Weather has an important influence on groundcover.” [3]

He also wrote that some of the populations he was studying were at the highest density recorded. They ranged between 4.5 and 5.1 kangaroos per hectare. The density in the studies below was expressed in square kilometers. To get density per hectare, divide by 100. [4] Fletcher wrote:

“The kangaroo density estimates reported in Chapter 7 for the three study sites (mean eastern grey kangaroo densities of 450, 480 and 510 km2) are the highest kangaroo densities reported. For comparison, the maximum density of combined red kangaroos and western grey kangaroos in the Kinchega study was less than 56 km2 (Bayliss 1987) and the density of eastern grey kangaroos at Wallaby Creek (Southwell 1987b) was 41 to 50 km2. The next highest kangaroo density outside the vicinity of my study sites appears to be that of Coulson et al. (1999a) for eastern grey kangaroos at Yan Yean Reservoir near Melbourne, which was 220 km2.”

Coulson’s study of kangaroos at 2.2 per ha was published in 1999 as Coulson G, Alviano P, Ramp P, Way S “The kangaroos of Yan Yean: history of a problem population”. [5] Graham Coulson’s Yan Yean article is frequently cited by kangaroo population students and he seems to be thought of as the originator of the “one kangaroo per kilometer” ‘rule’.

I did contact Dr Fletcher by email, and he was initially quite friendly, but when I attempted to ask him questions about his thesis responses to my emails ceased, even though I re-sent the emails.

For every assertion a contradictory one remains unanswered

The ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee Report No.1 (issued prior to the Majura cull) reported conflict between kangaroos and the rural community which uses 23% of the ACT.

“A key issue for rural lessees is the conflict between kangaroo grazing and pasture and fodder crop production.”
(ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee Report No.1. )

It stated as fact anecdotal reports that kangaroo populations ballooned due to man-made pasture improvements.

“There is general consensus that, in other parts of Australia at least, land clearing and swamp drainage to extend areas for introduced pasture, together with the increase in the number of farm dams has improved habitat for Eastern Grey Kangaroos and some other macropods, leading to increased numbers.”

But these anecdotal reports are very selective and easily countered by others, for instance in Dr John Auty’s comprehensive review of original documents forming the history of kangaroo populations from the time of European settlement in Australia. See “Red Plague Grey Plague - Kangaroo [numbers] myths and legends”

Other ACT researchers have also questioned the logistical principle of blaming kangaroos for human pressures on the environment, i.e. why blame kangaroos when we know that the damage is outstandingly done by sheep and cattle? In the Olsen and Low report case cited below the researchers are talking about farming, but they could just as much be talking about new suburbs, i.e. why blame kangaroos when the damage is obviously being done by human population growth, accompanying infrastructure and housing development (roads and suburbs), and human activities (driving cars, growing lawns, shopping, expansion of production, etc.)?

“The discontinuation of damage mitigation as grounds for harvesting is in many ways a more honest approach to kangaroo management given that damage is difficult to monitor, predict and even to prove empirically to be an issue. It also removes the implication that kangaroos are pests.

However, some landholders still perceive damage mitigation to be the main reason for harvesting and continue to call for greater quotas, mainly during the recent years of low rainfall. Arguably, this is a socio-economic problem rather than an ecological one. Certainly, the issue of land degradation will never be redressed by simple reduction in kangaroo numbers when there is no concomitant control of sheep and other introduced herbivore grazing impacts.” Olsen and Low Report. [6]

Is the real conflict over the grasslands between developers and kangaroos rather than kangaroos and earless dragons?

Fletcher, in his thesis, describes Kangaroo density in the ACT as having “increased more rapidly from 1996 to 2000 after sheep and cattle grazing had ended.” [7] Sheep and cattle had been allowed to graze in the threatened grasslands. In some cases they have even been returned to the areas where kangaroos have been ‘euthanazed’ to protect those fragile grasslands.

The question asked here should not be whether the kangaroo density increased to take up pasture vacated by sheep and or cattle. The real question should be: Did such a reduction in sheep and cattle grazing then bring the unfortunate kangaroos into conflict with urban developers over the rezoning of agricultural land for rural use?

In fact, if we drop the non-issue of kangaroo numbers, the relevance of developer-ambition conflicting with retaining grasslands for any indigenous animals becomes obvious.

Kangaroos graze there, which is obviously better than sheep and cattle grazing there, but property developers want to raise far more lucrative crops of humans there by building roads and houses where kangaroos now graze, along with earless dragons.

Unfortunately the government is encouraging developers. Maxine Cooper, Commissioner for Sustainability, in her report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation, says that the "ACT is fortunate in being in a strong position to be able to advance the protection of lowland native grassland, in particular Natural Temperate Grassland communities and the species it supports," ... BUT... [she adds]:

“Protecting lowland native grassland from development is also a challenge as these areas, being generally flat to gently undulating with no trees, are often prime potential development sites. Much of Canberra’s development is on lands that were once lowland native grassland.” Maxine Cooper Report, p. v.

“Development that potentially affects lowland native grassland is either underway or
planned for the ACT (see Section 5). This development has the potential to sever corridor and connectivity between grasslands and woodlands and/or other adjacent habitats. Many of the recommendations presented in this report reinforce the importance of connectivity.” Maxine Cooper Report, pp 74-75,

Now most of the competition with kangaroos is from property development. Stimulating property development is government policy and the means of stimulus is a policy to encourage interstate immigration and natural increase through baby bonuses. This government decision to stimulate human population growth in the ACT and to expand development in the ACT causes pressure on the local kangaroo population and the population of the Earless Dragon in the ACT.

Grave failure of public education and democracy

The commercially-based decisions about human population policy which cause these pressures, however, are kept entirely out of official calculations, negotiations, and rationales pertaining to kangaroo culls and definitions of kangaroo overpopulation in Belconnen and Majura, ACT. This omission means that the public do not have the information to hold the government responsible where it should be held responsible, nor to question the costs of its policies. This represents a grave failure of public education and democracy.

Oddly, Maxine Cooper, in her “Report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation,” 12 March 2009, mentions and notes the threat to the grasslands from development, yet she does not factor this logically into the reasonableness of blaming and killing kangaroos.

Instead, she uncritically accepts the illogical explanations which she is provided with about kangaroos. She even provides further faulty measures of kangaroo population densities by rate of car-kangaroo collisions.

“The 2007–08 State of the Environment report states that motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos has increased by 38% (from 563 in 2005–06 to 777 in 2006–07). Rangers have advised that they now attend more than 1,000 roadside kangaroo incidents per year in Canberra.” [8]

Although Maxine is aware that the building of roads and suburbs is impacting the grasslands, she does not stop to think that these are also impacting the kangaroos through an increasing rate of driving them out of their habitats and onto the roads to make way for houses.

If, however, commercial development pressure were properly assessed, then its role as the primary population impact on the grasslands and the cause of ACT policies to depopulate kangaroos would become obvious and the government would no longer be able to deflect criticism of overdevelopment and cruelty to kangaroos.

Who profits? When an Earless Dragon is like a smoking gun we should ask who fired the gun.

What of the Earless Dragon in all this? Small and scarce, it is not hard to imagine it fitting into a developer’s pocket-size native-style garden. You could even imagine thirty-something refugees from housing prices in Sydney and Singapore cultivating it in garden pots in new high-rises. Imagine is the key, since who would check up?

Pardon me for being skeptical, but the high profile of the Earless Dragon makes me think of advice to writers about mentioning loaded guns in detective stories. If there is a gun it is there to shoot a victim for a motive. The huge importance suddenly given to the humble Earless Dragon bespeaks a greater purpose than the self-evident worth of its own preservation. Cherchez le maccabe. [Find the cadaver.] The Dragon is the weapon to get rid of the much-loved kangaroos. There can be no argument there, for we hear little else but how the kangaroos are threatening this little animal. Once the kangaroos are gone, the tiny Dragon’s profile will almost certainly sink back to the level which escapes most humans’ notice, unreported by the mainstream press.

Let us ask the ever-useful sociological question here. Who benefits?
Developers and their friends do.

Let justice be done

You wouldn’t think it from listening to politicians, but I have it from a reliable source that, in the ACT, the biggest source of public complaint is cruelty to animals. People should realize that they are not alone in their horror at the cruelty entailed by all this unwanted (except by its few focused beneficiaries) and costly population growth and development. The Earless Dragon has been deployed with the effect of sowing paralysing confusion among nature groups by implying an ungenerous bias for furry kangaroos against ugly dragons.

”To save the beauty, or the beast; that is the question
Eastern grey kangaroos are among the most appealing of mammals (Figure 12), while Ginninderra Lepidium, Grassland Earless Dragons, Coorooboorama Raspy Crickets (Figure 4), Striped legless Lizards, Perunga Grasshoppers (Figure5), Golden Sun Moths (Figure5), and other grassland-dependent plants and animals, are all ugly. Well that may be one opinion, but if so, it is irrelevant. Governments are legally and morally obliged to protect each species. Beauty is not a consideration.” ”A Pictorial Guide to the Kangaroo Culling Issue, Dept of Territorial and Municipal Services, ACT Government” [ 9]

This has the hallmarks of a straw man argument.

Let the community be heard as it rises to save the grasslands and return them to their rightful management by kangaroos and Earless Dragons. Let due opprobrium be publicly dealt the Growth Lobby by exposing its greed and cowardice in orchestrating the cold-blooded execution of thousands of living, breathing, social creatures for economic and ecological crimes they could never have committed, merely to defend its exceedingly narrow and debt-ridden interests. Let us sheet home to the Growth Lobby and its minions in government the depravity with which they attempt to corrupt our wider society. We are not cruel or injust. We do not support cruelty and injustice.

It seems amazing that Maxine Cooper can support a kangaroo cull when she also writes that the Majura Valley grassland is “arguably one of the largest areas of Natural Temperate Grassland remaining in southeast Australia” but that it has no long-term planning protection and there is no commitment for any, and that to protect it by defining it as a reserve would

“[…]constrain future development options, for example, the potential Canberra International Airport northern link road and the potential east-west Kowen road [… and] would also ensure that the Natural Temperate Grassland, the Grassland Earless Dragon and other threatened species are not adversely affected through incremental developments, as would be the case if the potential Canberra International Airport northern link road and the potential east-west Kowen road were to be progressed according to existing concept plans.” [10]

In other words, Maxine Cooper is aware that plans for several new roads and urban expansion are planned for the Majura grasslands and sees that it will be necessary to curb this development to protect the grasslands. [11]

Some of Cooper’s other recommendations (apart from those which promote the culling of kangaroos on illogical grounds) are good. I provide these in the appendix to this article.

Earless Dragon scarcity previously coincided with kangaroo scarcity in ACT

Don Fletcher, in “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Temperate Grasslands,” describes how, in the 1940s and 1950s kangaroos actually became rare in the ACT due to competition by European grazing stock. Even when these stock were removed, they remained rare for some time. Salt blocks were put out in the 1960s to attract kangaroos to the Tidbinbilla Fauna Reserve, where in 1963 employees went for three months without seeing one.) [12]

Oddly, at the same time as kangaroos were banished from the ACT, the Earless Dragon also became scarce. It couldn’t have been because of too many kangaroos.

“The Grassland Earless Dragon was very common in the ACT up to the 1930s but there are now very few left. This is mainly because there are so few areas of its native grassland habitat remaining. There are now only two main populations known in the ACT; and there is one near Cooma in NSW.” Source: The ACT Conservation Council, http://www.consact.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=34#GED
[13 ]

Note that the Earless Dragon was also found in 2001 in Mount Tyson on Queensland's Darling Downs. [14]

APPENDIX: Maxine Cooper, in her “Report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation,” 12 March 2009

Recommendation 23: Plan a Majura Valley Reserve to protect Natural Temperate Grassland and its supporting species, particularly the Grassland Earless Dragon, by defining the boundaries of this proposed reserve in the near future.”

“Findings that informed Recommendation 27
During the investigation, the Commissioner’s Office found it difficult to identify the location of lowland native grassland sites relative to planning zones that guide land use. To help the community and developers gain information on grassland sites relative to planning zones it is recommended that a map of the location of lowland native grassland sites relative to planning zones be published.

Recommendation 27: Publish a map that shows the location of lowland native grassland sites relative to planning zones. This should be readily available through the ACT Planning and Land Authority and the Department of Territory and Municipal Services.” Source: Maxine Cooper, Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, “Report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation,” 12 March 2009, pp 73-74

“In terms of biodiversity conservation, the ideal approach is to establish a series of conservation reserves (which may include voluntary schemes) that are of sufficient size and biodiversity to maintain a full range of ecological communities (and hence species) on a long-term basis. It is also desirable for such reserves to be located to enable connectivity for animal movement and other interactions between them.125
The natural connections between grasslands and adjoining woodlands have mostly been severed, but should be retained where they still exist.

Important grassland sites for connectivity between woodland and grassland are at:

• Mount Ainslie Nature Reserve and Campbell Park (MA05)
• ‘Callum Brae’ (JE02)
• Jerrabomberra West Reserve (JE03) and woodland to the west
• Gungaderra Nature Reserve (GU02) and Gungahlin Hill
• Aranda Bushland and Caswell Drive (BE10)
• Majura Valley at the Majura Training Area (MA01).

Important grassland sites for connectivity between grasslands are at:

• Campbell Park (MA05) and Majura West (MA06)
• adjacent grassland on either side of the ACT and New South Wales border via Harman Bonshaw North (JE06) and Harman Bonshaw South (JE07), Jerrabomberra East Reserve (JE05), Woods Lane (JE06), and Queanbeyan Nature Reserve (Letchworth, New SouthWales)
• adjacent grassland between the Canberra International Airport (MA03) the Majura
Training Area (MA01) and ‘Malcolm Vale’ (MA04). Pp. 74-75

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

NOTES

[1] “Majura roo cull targets 6000, Canberra Times, 2 May 2009, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/majuraroo-cull-targets-6000/1502384.aspx and
Victor Violante, “Roo cull under way: 2000 shot”, Canberra Times, 9/05/2009,
“About 2000 eastern grey kangaroos at the Department of Defence's Majura Training Area have been culled this week, with a further 4000 expected to be shot. Defence confirmed yesterday that culling had begun on Tuesday and contractors doing the cull had already achieved about a third of their target.
Defence spokesman Brigadier Brian Dawson said there were about 9000 eastern grey kangaroos on the Defence-owned site, and they would reduce the population to the ''sustainable level'', a density of one per hectare. This would reduce the population to about 3000.
‘The cull is being conducted humanely by licensed and experienced professional contractors,'' Brigadier Dawson said yesterday.’”
[2] Kangaroos Threaten One Of Australia's Last Remaining Original Grasslands, And Endangered Animals (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/ 080521114923.htm) “The eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus) has always been part of the cityscape of Canberra, also known as the "bush capital" of Australia. But even Leipzig-based scientist Dr Marion Höhn and Anett Richter of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) are surprised by the high numbers of them. In her doctoral thesis, Anett Richter is investigating how selected invertebrate species such as ground beetles are affected by landscape fragmentation and habitat alteration in natural grasslands in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Yet during her fieldwork she discovered that there were far fewer of them than expected.
What she found instead were dry grasslands, grazed bare and scarred by the worst drought to hit Australia in a century. Particularly, she was surprised to find large quantities of kangaroo dung, especially in the enclosed military areas: "The results of the fragmentation studies are not yet available. But we assume that there is a relationship on individual sites between the extremely high density of kangaroos and species diversity among the invertebrates – especially in times of severe drought."”

In Peter Robertson & Murray Evans, /files/earless-dragon-management-2009-tympanocryptis-pinguicolla.pdf National Recovery Plan for the Grassland Earless Dragon Tympanocryptis pinguicolla, published by the ACT Department of Territory and Municipal Services, Canberra, 2009: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/43f24013-b621-4ff6-bf09-34da942e8ced/files/tympanocryptis-pinguicolla.pdf the Canberra International Airport is listed as responsible for the management of earless dragon habitat at the airport (p.9); as possibly relatedly suffering economic impacts (p.12); as supporting ongoing studies p.19.

The Airport legal framework for protecting dragon habitat, including land management agreements and conservation directions, is outlined in section A5.1, p.4:

"Development at the Canberra Airport requires approval for Major Development Plans (MDP) (defined under the Airports Act 1996) from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Infrastructure Minister). The Infrastructure Minister, under Section 160(2)(c) of the EPBC Act, must obtain and consider advice from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (Environment Minister). Although an approval may be given by the Infrastructure Minister for a MDP, a permit from the Environment Minister under Section 201 of the EPBC
Act to move, take or kill is required to harm a Grassland Earless Dragon or its habitat. In issuing such a permit the Environment Minister must be satisfied that the action will not have an adverse impact and will contribute significantly to the conservation of the species."

[3] Don Fletcher, “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Temperate Grasslands,” was on line as a pdf, which is the form I downloaded it as. A copy is preserved now under this article, linked here: /files/Fletcher-kangaroo-thesis.pdf because the pdf is now of limited availability, although copies are still at the University of Canberra Library, reference: http://nla.gov.au/anbd.bib-an42269526. A book by the same title and author has also been published.
[4] There are 100 ha in one square km. So if density varied between 450 and 510 kangs per square km, then that is 4.5 p ha or 5.10 per ha. With 220 per square km 2.2 per ha.
[5] Coulson G, Alviano P, Ramp P, Way S (1999). “The kangaroos of Yan Yean: history of a problem population”, Proc R Soc Vic 111: 121–130.
[6] Penny Olsen and Tim Low, “Situation Analysis Report Update on Current State of Scientific Knowledge on Kangaroos in the Environment, Including Ecological and Economic Impact and Effect of Culling”, School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200
26 Henry Street, Chapel Hill, Queensland 4049, Prepared for the Kangaroo Management Advisory Panel, March 2006
[7] Don Fletcher, “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos
in Temperate Grasslands”, p.40
[8] In Note 11: “The 2007–08 State of the Environment report states that motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos has increased by 38% (from 563 in 2005–06 to 777 in 2006–07). Rangers have advised that they now attend more than 1,000 roadside kangaroo incidents per year in Canberra.” Although Maxine is aware that the building of roads and suburbs is impacting the grasslands, she does not stop to think that these are also impacting the kangaroos through an increasing rate of driving them out of their habitats and on to the roads. Nor does Don Fletcher, in his thesis, where he accepts reports on increasing rates of car collisions with kangaroos in Victoria, also a state with a population growth policy which manifests in rapid population growth and development and rapid depletion of kangaroo habitat.
[9] A Pictorial Guide to the Kangaroo Culling Issue (2006) from the ACT Department of Territorial and Administrative Services.

[10] Maxine Cooper Report, pp. xv-xvi
[11] Maxine Cooper Report, pp.74-75 and pp xv-xvi:

“Development that potentially affects lowland native grassland is either underway or
planned for the ACT (see Section 5). This development has the potential to sever corridor and connectivity between grasslands and woodlands and/or other adjacent habitats. Many of the recommendations presented in this report reinforce the importance of connectivity.” pp 74-75

“Majura Valley’s large, intact lowland native grassland area, which consists of a number of sites under the control of various government agencies, does not have long-term planning protection; it is not in a reserve and there is no commitment for this to occur.

Given the significance of the Majura Valley grassland, arguably one of the largest areas of Natural Temperate Grassland remaining in southeast Australia, the presence of five threatened species including the Grassland Earless Dragon, it is strongly recommended that a commitment be made to create a reserve in this locality.” [xv-xvi]

[…]defining the site of the proposed Majura Valley reserve would constrain future
development options, for example, the potential Canberra International Airport northern link road and the potential east-west Kowen road, it would provide a more certain context for potential developments. It would also ensure that the Natural Temperate Grassland, the Grassland Earless Dragon and other threatened species are not adversely affected through incremental developments, as would be the case if the potential Canberra International Airport northern link road and the potential east-west Kowen road were to be progressed according to existing concept plans. [xv-xvi]

The lands for the proposed reserve could be the subject of a formal conservation agreement between the ACT and Australian governments.”
[12] Don Fletcher, “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos
in Temperate Grasslands”: “3.3 History of eastern grey kangaroo populations on the sites
All three sites had been grazed commercially for 50 – 150 years until withdrawn in recent decades for conservation or water supply purposes. Each site supported an unmanaged population of eastern grey kangaroos, which was at high density. Kangaroos were scarce in the ACT region in the 1940s and 1950s (Schumack 1977; ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee 1996, p. 9). This included the study sites. The first employees in the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve lived there for three months in 1963 before seeing a kangaroo (Mick McMahon, former employee, personal communication; ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee 1996) and salt blocks were put out to attract kangaroos in the years before the reserve was opened to the public (ACT government official file: Tidbinbilla Fauna Reserve Advisory Committee – 1966).”
[13] Source: The ACT Conservation Council description of the Grassland Earless Dragon - Typanocryptis pinguicolla.
[14] Mt Tyson's Grassland Earless Dragon: not extinct after all
“Chocolate bilbies are facing stiff market competition from the Grassland Earless Dragon in Mount Tyson on Queensland's Darling Downs. GED (as the Grassland Earless Dragon is affectionately known) was thought to be extinct, but was rediscovered in 2001. An adult GED grows to around 12 centimetres long and has spotted spiky skin which makes it a camouflage specialist. […] The Landcare Group has received more than $7,000 from the Australian Government to fund a variety of activities designed to promote awareness of GED and create a conservation management strategy for the species. […] The Group had previously received funding through a State Government Community Natural Resource Awareness Activity Grant, which they used to commission the chocolate mould that was provided to manufacture the chocolate dragons. Support has also been provided by local businesses such as Ergon Energy in Toowoomba and by the Queensland Museum and the University of Queensland Gatton campus.”

In 2001 I made predictions about Australia's current predicament, at the end of a statistical appendix on population and energy for Australia and France (pdf 2.8M). Throughout my thesis I discussed these looming problems and their drivers. It seems appropriate to cite the short predictions from the appendix here, because Australian governments constantly pretend that no-one could see what was coming. The people who formed government from the 80s to now should be held formally responsible.

[Written in 2001]
"Australia's recent history is a strong indicator that population growth is likely to remain rapid or accelerate in the next half century. Between 1946 and 2001, Australia's population grew by 11,849,099 persons, or by 157.58%. From 1946 to 1974 it grew by 85.76%. From 1974 to 2001 it grew by 38.65%. Between the year of the French base projections, 1990 and 2001 Australia's population has grown by approximately 12.8% from 17,169,800 to 19,368,345 or an average of 1.6% per annum. Australia's growth, up to 1966 was affected by baby boom high fertility and high net migration. Although fertility declined rapidly after this, the high immigration continued. With increasing longevity this means that the population has continued to expand rapidly. We can assume that most of the Australian baby boomers will die between 2027 and 2051. If high immigration continues, however, the population will have continued to expand and will require more intense land-use, more infrastructure, and more technology to maintain its economy, even with similar per capita footprints. With exponentially expanding drylands salinity and other forms of desertification, plus massively degraded waterways, together with micro-climate changes brought about by local vegetation removal (without considering the possibility of macro-global climate changes) it is difficult to see how such a large population will survive without severe declines in quality of life, standard of living, health and longevity. As well as other bio-diversity die-off, the chances seem high for considerable human die-off due to the effect of desertification on the economy and environment. Petroleum based energy shortages are likely both to increase poverty and misery as cheap fuel becomes much less accessible to ordinary citizens. Pollution is likely to increase as coal and other lower grade fuels are substituted, since Australia has not invested in alternative energy sources. Poor design of built and transport infrastructure will add to the difficulty in reducing and satisfying energy demand for both personal and economic use."

On the other hand, under a different system:

"France's recent history is a strong indicator that population growth is unlikely to accelerate in the next half century. Between 1946 and 2001, France's population grew by 18,914,482 persons, or by 47.13 %. From 1946 to 1974 (28 years) it grew by 25.4%. From 1974 to 2001 (27 years) it grew by 17.32%. Between the year of the base population for these projections, 1990, and 2001 France's population has grown by 2,462,713 people or approximately 4.35%, or and average of 0.39% per annum from 56,577,000 in 1990 to 59,039,713. France's growth up to 1974 was affected by both the high fertility of the baby boom and high immigration. After 1974 the contribution of both these factors declined sharply. Increased longevity means that the population remains large, although its base is reducing. If we consider that the Baby Boom went from 1947 to about 1966, and assume longevity of between 80 and 85 years, then between 2027 and 2051 the baby boomer generation will die off. With no other changes this will leave the French population several millions smaller. Since France, like most Western European countries is under considerable environmental stress due to the intensity of land use required by its economy, a smaller population even with similar per capita footprints would lessen this stress and the long-term need for greater infrastructure and technology for the maintenance of the population and its economy. If, as seems likely, petroleum based fuels become rarer and more expensive, France is ahead of a lot of other countries, including Australia, in the spatial organisation, planning and technology for transport and other built infrastructure mediating economic and personal fuel needs. It currently has access to alternative fuel sources and technologies and potentially to others."

Today (8 September 2008) Premier John Brumby unveiled his ominous Victorian Transport Plan in a briefing at Federation Square before an audience of transport heavies.

The Plan no longer includes, however, the proposal encoded in Recommendation 4 of Sir Rod Eddington’s Investing in transport - East West Link Needs Assessment of March 2008.

This proposal, which lies at the very core of his Review, read “Planning work should commence on the staged construction of a new 18 kilometre cross-city road connection, extending from the western suburbs to the Eastern Freeway.”

Concerned people in Melbourne understand that this “cross city road connection" referred to road-tunnels planned for inner Melbourne, to transect Royal and Holland Parks and the Newell Wetlands; and to traverse Sunshine and Footscray in the Western suburbs along elevated roadways.

The East West Tunnel has done a disappearing act

To the citizens of Melbourne's great relief, the East West Tunnel has done a disappearing act!

Rod Quantock, Actor and Activist, and Deputy Convenor of the Royal Park Protection Group Inc. (RPPG) stated that his group interpreted the deletion of the East West road tunnel and freeway from the Brumby Victorian Transport Plan, as "a win for commonsense and the common people."

Quantock described how the groundswell of opposition has grown from June and July this year. It was around that time that councils in the path of road tunnels and toll-ways - Brimbank, Melbourne, Moonee Valley and Yarra Councils - voted unanimously “No Tunnels,” in the face of massive community outrage.

Grass-roots opposition and the dramatic decline of the Labor vote

Convenor Quantock said that there was a general feeling that:

"Grass roots opposition, the dramatic decline of the Labor vote in recent local government elections and the threat to sitting State and Federal Labor Members of Parliament may well have helped persuade the Government against including Sir Rod’s tunnels and freeways in today’s Transport Plan.”

Julianne Bell, Convenor of Royal Park Protection Group (RPPG), told how RPPG has been at the forefront of opposition to destruction of our parks, our local neighbourhoods and heritage streetscapes by the retrograde, ill-conceived transport plans of the Brumby Government.

The long war for democracy and public space is ongoing

Ms Bell stated,

"We have campaigned for 10 years against the expansion of the Eastern Freeway through Royal Park and, during this year, against the onslaught of the Eddington road tunnels. We are grateful that Royal Park, with its open bushland and wetlands, has seen a reprieve from what could have been almost fatal destruction at the hands of bulldozer drivers working on the tunnels.

"The Zoo animals can breathe easy now that a tunnel won’t be constructed next to their home. The State Netball and Hockey Centre can rest assured that games won’t be disturbed by the blasting next door in underground tunnels."

She warned, however, that no-one can afford to relax for long in the current frantic climate of incessant construction. Miss Bell explained:

"The Brumby Government continues to pay lip service to the philosophy of sustainability but appears intent on destroying the urban environment with incremental expansion of roads."

Patrick White, [the great Australian novelist, and author of Voss], sagely observed in 1972 when addressing a rally in Centennial Park, Sydney:

“Parkland is valuable and greedy eyes see the money in it. So you must always be on the alert. Hang onto your breathing spaces in this developing and already over congested city. Protect your parks from the pressure of political concrete.”

Julianne Bell says that RPPG will continue to campaign for sustainable public transport and will be eternally vigilant about proposals by any Government, no matter what colour or persuasion, to build more freeways or tollways through inner Melbourne.

For more information, contact Rod Quantock on 0438862079 & Julianne Bell on 0408022408

VCAT Planning Consultative Forums

The Planning and Environment List of the Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has advertised "a series of consultative forums with stakeholder groups during 2008" to include Council planning officers, Referral authorities, Lawyers, planners and other consultants who regularly appear at the Tribunal, peak body organisations, and Community planning groups."

The purpose has been given as providing "a forum for users of the Tribunal to raise issues regarding its processes and procedures"; to give "the Tribunal an opportunity to explain any recent changes to its practices within the organisation"; to "encourage discussion about matters of common interest to users generally or specific stakeholder groups, and suggest potential improvements"; and to "Consider the establishment of a small rotating users group that would meet periodically with the Tribunal."

Consultative forums will be held at the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal, Room 2.1,
Level 2, 55 King Street, Melbourne from 4.30pm to 6.00pm on these dates:
17 March 2008 Council planning officers
7 April 2008 Lawyers, consultants, peak bodies
26 May 2008 Referral authorities
7 July 2008 Council planning officers
28 July 2008 Lawyers, consultants, peak bodies
13 October 2008 Community groups
Three combined regional consultative forums will be held for council officers, referral
authorities and local consultants as follows:
28 April 2008 Shepparton
16 June 2008 Gippsland
11 August 2008 Ballarat
“Operation Jaguar”, initiated in 2003, introduced a series of reforms to the operation of the
Planning and Environment List, including the establishment of Friday Practice Day hearings.

The Tribunal claims that it "maintains a process of continuous improvement with respect to its operations" and to be "keen to gather feedback on these reforms from users of the system and on its performance generally, as well as identify further areas of improvement."
The consultative forum will be open to anyone from relevant stakeholder groups provided
they pre-register with the Tribunal. People who are interested in attending should register
their interest by completing a registration form and returning it via post or fax.

For more information contact Lauren Gardiner
Email: Lauren.gardiner[AT]justice.vic.gov.au Telephone: 03 9628 9992 Fax: 03 9628 9891

This letter was printed in The Age Newspaper on Friday 1 Sep 2006 The latest planning proposal to waive the necessity of council approval for "minor" projects such as pergolas, single storey extensions and swimming pools (bid to defuse anger on planning, The Age, 30/80 sounds like a response to a situation that is out of control. Reducing the control of planning authorities for these projects paves the way for building chaos in suburbia with people's freedom to build coming at the expense of the amenity of their neighbours. Alternatively where neighbours agree, it could well be at the expense of the general amenity of the suburb as low standards may be shared by those two neighbours. There is now no refuge for Melbourne residents. There is nowhere to move where anything will stay the same. Every suburb is being filled with units. Only the very wealthy who can afford a large property can be guaranteed reasonable amenity as we had in past decades. We are being forced to lose Melbourne's renowned liveability and amenity because of forced population growth, encouraged by the State government,and accommodated by Melbourne 2030. Jill Quirk President - Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian Branch)