If you have ever been to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DWELP) and asked questions, you would be well-aware that the native-animal department has almost no staff, that DWELP does not use the law to protect native animals, but prevents others from using it, due to legal lack of standing.  At the same time, the Agriculture arm of DWELP enthusiastically issues permits to kill kangaroos and other native animals with almost no restriction or inspection, and quasi-imaginary

"I am highly concerned that residents’ rights are being eroded progressively and quietly by the State government through these Planning Reforms under the veil and distraction of a COVID emergency." (Kate Hely, Mayor of Stonnington.) The Toorak Residents' Group emailed the Malvern East Group material including the comments below, which are from the Mayor of Stonnington, Kate Hely, who, with a number of Mayors, had asked for a meeting with Minister Wynne to discuss the recent Planning Scheme Amendments. Minister Wynne chose not to meet with them. He sent one of his staff instead and the Mayors were NOT pleased. It is thought that he won't meet with the MAV either and that organisation is not pleased either. Mr. Wynne's disdain for local communities is well known.

"The State is looking to introduce a new Planning Reform that could lead to further removal of the community’s ability to shape local planning decisions; reforms that could remove your ability to meaningfully object to a development next door or down the road; and that could ignore the desire of our communities and the commitment of our councils to build neighbourhoods to be proud of.

I am highly concerned that residents’ rights are being eroded progressively and quietly by the State government through these Planning Reforms under the veil and distraction of a COVID emergency."

I recently led a group of 10 metro mayors who together represented 1.4 million people and 12,000 planning decisions a year to politely discuss our concerns about potential reforms with the Minister for Planning, and yet we were only deemed worthy of meeting his advisor.
We overtly asked to be involved in forming reform decisions but were essentially dismissed.

This week I heard that the President of the MAV (Municipal Association of Victoria - the peak body for all 79 Victorian councils) had not even been able to get a meeting with the Minister to discuss the concerns of our sector. So councils have been proactively trying to cooperate and work with the State on these reforms, and yet the door remains shut to us.

Compounding this sense of alarm, Council officers have been asked to sign non-disclosure agreements with DWELP (The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning - which is the State Government department in charge of planning) such that they cannot share information about the proposed Planning Reforms with the community elected councillors.

….. They are attempting to block the ability for democratically elected community representatives to know about or feed into what will dramatically impact our community, villages, streets and neighbourhoods! Alarm bells should be going off!

I have not been given any detail about these reforms. There is a discussion that they could speed up the planning process. But is that by simply removing the voice of our community? There is discussion that the reforms will help to stimulate a post-COVID recovery. But are quick builds more important than long-term neighbourhood character and due consideration of context?

My neighbouring Mayor, Gary Thompson of Boroondara pointed out, “Over the last 24 years each State Government has introduced a few new Planning Provisions. The Andrews State Government has introduced 1/3 of all the Planning Provisions over the last 24 years in just over two and a half years…. Why? Because they have the power to do so in Government.”

This is not democracy in action. It is more like democracy being locked out of the room.
And it all might happen before Christmas. However, we don't really know because they will not share with locally elected representatives what’s behind the ‘secret planning reform’ door.

Stonnington Council has goals and plans for how we want to preserve and enhance our neighbourhoods, villages and streets. We have educated and sophisticated residents that expect to be able to have a voice in what happens in their neighbourhoods and streets. We have residents who expect their Council to advocate on their behalf. I am highly concerned about these reforms - and our community should be too."

Melbourne lacks open green spaces. Unfinancial golf-courses should be returned to nature, to provide scarce habitat to our native animals and contact with nature for humans. These golf-courses often got by on the pretext that they would preserve open land, as a trade-off for more development. Melbourne is not just overdeveloped, it is overpopulated. Furthermore, our building industry is so incompetent that all its activities should be halted. Below you can read the nonsense being proposed by your government, as an excuse to give more land and free kicks to developers. It's a criminal economy that takes nature and destroys it just for more dollars for Australia's rich and greedy class. Submissions opened on 2 September 2019. Submissions can be made until 5.00pm on 30 September 2019. See example of a submission from Sheila Newman here: "Save 110 golf-courses for birds, not high-rises - Sociologist".

/Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee

Introduction

Golf is one of Australia’s most popular organised
recreational activities. The sport is experiencing big changes in demand.
Overall, traditional golf club membership is in decline and clubs are facing
changing leisure patterns and increasing operating costs. Some golf clubs have
been forced to merge or close. This trend has drawn developer interest in golf
course land.

Recognising that golf course land, especially within
Melbourne’s Urban Growth Boundary may be considered for rezoning, the Victorian
Government seeks to ensure new proposals for redevelopment are assessed
according to consistent criteria outlined in a planning decision-making
framework.

Draft Golf Course Redevelopment Guidelines (PDF)

PDF (5.39 MB)

Draft Golf Redevelopment Planning Guidelines (Word)

MS Word (31.93 KB)

×Close

Document Library

Draft Golf Course Redevelopment Guidelines (PDF)

PDF (5.39 MB)

Draft Golf Redevelopment Planning Guidelines (Word)

MS Word (31.93 KB)

Close

Privacy Collection Statement

PDF (167.95 KB)

×Close

Document Library

Privacy Collection Statement

PDF (167.95 KB)

Close

Join the conversation today

Create an account or sign in to share your thoughts and ideas.

#signUpModal" data-remote="false">
Sign Up

#loginModal" data-remote="false">
Login

I have read the Privacy Collection Statement Required

I agree for a copy of my submission to be published in its entirety, on the Engage Victoria website or other Victorian Government website Required

Where personal information about other people (including photos) is included in my submission, I have notified them of the contents of this Privacy Collection Notice and obtained their consent to their personal information being disclosed to DELWP. Required

I am entitled to deal with the intellectual property rights (incl. copyright) of all material (both mine and any third party's) in my submission and have obtained necessary consent(s) from any and all third parties owning the copyright for such dealings. Required

Full Name Required

Organisation

If applicable. If not applicable just leave blank.

Address (Line 1) Required

Address (Line 2)

Suburb Required

State Required

VIC

NSW

SA

TAS

QLD

NT

WA

ACT

Other (please specify)

Postcode Required

Address of affected property (if different to above)

Note if you do not wish your address to be made publicly available do not include it in this box.

Email Required

Your email address will be our primary means of contacting you if we need to. Please check that the address that you have provided is correct and does not contain any spaces.

Confirm email address Required

Phone number Required

Add your submission Required

Type your submission into the text box. If your submission is more than 500 words, please upload your submission as an attachment below.

Do not include any other personal information in the body of your submission, such as addresses, email and phone details, unless that information can be made publicly available.

You have 3,000 characters left.

Upload your submission and / or supporting documents

Files can be sent to us if they are in ZIP, PDF, DOC or DOCX formats. Files preferably should be less than 6 Mb in size but should be no bigger than 20 Mb in size.

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council has serious concerns about the protection of seals on Mornington Peninsula beaches. Seals are a fascinating visitor to our beaches all year round, whether a regular inhabitant or the occasional day-tripper, they come to rest during the day after a night of feeding in the bay. But they are increasingly at threat of human interference when they rest on our busy beaches during the holiday season. Our pleas for help have fallen on deaf ears and our state government department the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), authorised to protect wildlife, is failing miserably when it comes to wildlife welfare and seal protection. They refuse to meet with ALL relevant stakeholders and fail to support wildlife volunteers to establish any kind of system to actively manage the situation.

Threats to Seals

Over the past two years seals resting on Mornington Peninsula beaches have endured crowds of thousands of onlookers, dog attacks, jet ski harassment, drunken people riding on them, objects thrown at them, kicked, yelled at, poked and chased back into the water. The Mornington Peninsula community and local wildlife groups are very concerned that if the seals are not protected and a seal acts to protect itself, it may be seen as a risk to ‘public safety’ and DELWP may see fit to destroy the animal.

What the Seals Need

In order to ensure seals are protected into the future we need an urgent response from the authorities. We envisage an improvement to the current situation in a short space of time if several easy measures are undertaken:

1. We need an urgent meeting with ALL stakeholders, including volunteers, to establish a consensus as to who manages seals on particular stretches of beach.
2. Standard protocols for an action plan to be initiated when a seal arrives.
3. Communication systems, contact numbers of foreshore rangers (from foreshore Committees of Management (COMs), shire rangers and volunteers to be accessed when a seal arrives.
4. Several seal ‘kits’ to be stored along the coast for easy access when a seal needs protection. These kits should include, signage, tape barriers, stakes or bollards, brochures and a volunteer sign in sheet for insurance coverage etc. These ‘kits’ should be regularly replenished and kept in good order.
5. Permanent signage to educate the public seals and the regulations.

The AWPC is urging immediate action from the government on this matter.

Some Background

Who Manages the Protection of Seals?
DELWP do not attend to supervise resting seals, nor do shire council rangers or Parks Victoria rangers. Whilst the AGL Marine Response Unit (MRU) work to assess injured and entangled seals and travel far and wide to do this important work, they ordinarily do not attend to supervise uninjured, resting seals on public beaches. There are no current protocols, systems, reliable equipment or appropriate storage for equipment currently in place on the Mornington Peninsula.

For many years wildlife volunteers have been tirelessly responding to calls from the public when a seal arrives on a beach, they erect signage (to keep dogs away, listing the regulations and information about seals) and tape barriers around the seal to alert people of it’s presence and to make sure it is not approached or harassed. Volunteers also provide useful information about seals and act as the eyes and ears supervising the safety of the seal and the public.

At the moment, apart from a few signs (without stakes) provided by DELWP and brochures, volunteers are purchasing equipment, stakes, tape etc. themselves and supervising seals on an ad hoc basis without any support from authorities.

Current Situation
DELWP and Foreshore Committee of Management Managed Beaches
When a seal rests on a beach on the Mornington Peninsula managed by a Committee of Management (under DELWP) rangers usually don’t have equipment or manpower to supervise the seal. Rather than be supported, volunteers have been actively discouraged by DELWP from helping to supervise seals. DELWP have expressed concerns about e.g. lack of insurance coverage (a problem the AWPC found a solution for), lack of volunteer knowledge and ‘non-regulation’ stakes for signage.

According to Wildlife Victoria data there have been 171 volunteer call outs for seals from Edithvale to Portsea from December 2016- March 2018. With Wildlife Victoria being just one of the rescue services and receiving this many calls for seal help, it is very apparent that the need for seal protection is a regular occurrence.

So, whilst DELWP are very clearly the authority overseeing seals, they refuse to put systems in place, contract wildlife officers on the scene to ensure regulations are being adhered to and at the same time don’t want volunteers to help either. If they won’t or can’t do their job, why are they not supporting volunteers to do this important work?

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council Managed Beaches
Similarly, if a seal is resting on a beach managed by the Shire, shire rangers have no equipment or signage nor any current protocols as to who manages the protection of the seal.
The shire’s phone system currently redirects calls about resting seals onto local volunteers, who then have no equipment or support. Volunteers have no authority to enforce breaches of seal exclusion zones or uncontrolled dogs harassing seals, unlike DELWP or shire rangers.

Recent Cases

Wildlife groups are regularly called out to assess and supervise seals; here are accounts of just two recent cases to help illustrate the current issues we are faced with.

On Sunday the 11th of March 2018, a seal came to rest within a dog off-leash area of a Rosebud beach, a beach managed by the Mornington Shire Council. On the day there was a Kite Festival so there were hundreds of people on the beach. A member of the public who was worried about the number of dogs and people approaching the seal had called around some wildlife groups for help.

The AWPC had a volunteer attend the seal and we then immediately contacted the shire for assistance to erect signage and to help to keep dogs and people away.

Being a Sunday, we called the shire‘s after hours emergency phone line. The operator told us to contact volunteers (who we are); we had also reached out to other volunteer wildlife groups but no one else could attend. When we finally spoke to a shire ranger on duty we were told that rangers weren’t authorised to help with seals and that it was in fact Parks Victoria that managed the beach up to the ‘high tide mark’ (where the seal was resting).

So we contacted Parks Victoria, who told us that they didn’t deal with seals either and that seals were managed by DELWP, and so we went around in circles, as is the usual case. In the end we managed to rustle up some tape barriers and stakes and had volunteers supervise the seal until 10pm that night, the beach was still packed with tourists and dogs throughout the evening. The Shire failed to act and did not offer supervision for the seal, nor did they attempt to close off the beach to off-leash dogs or fine dog owners approaching the seal etc.

We sent a detailed account of this case to DELWP and the Shire but have had no response from either department about this particular case.

This press release giving rise to this article was made on 4/4/18. DELWP have still not responded.

"The proposed “Smart Planning” must not proceed in its current form. The Group does not support fast tracking development, weakening permit or planning triggers or referral requirements, or permit exemptions, or the removal of appeal rights." Inside find Port Campbell Community Group Inc's submission to the Victorian Planning Provisions Discussion Paper.

Port Campbell Community Group Inc. A0051688U
Submission to DELWP’s “Smart Planning” November 2017

In the interests of balancing the present and future interests of all Victorians (g) that “Smart Planning’s” so-called “Key Benefits” must better align with the P&E Act’s Objectives which requires all development (f) to foremost meet (a), (b), (c) and (d):
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;
(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;
(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;
(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;
(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co‑ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;
(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);
(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

Community Expertise

Community members and groups are crucial for their local knowledge and expertise which, if listened to, would save the State and public millions of dollars in wasted time and energy considering flawed planning proposals.
The Group has taken part in in many planning consultations – see Appendix A.

Four instances of poor planning decisions are listed below, some current:

The Southern Ocean Beach House
A major motel, retail development and excavation within meters of major caverns on Port Campbell’s fragile limestone headland cliffs.
The University of New South Wales Law Journal published a special edition on ‘Rethinking Climate Change and the Law’. A history of the Port Campbell Southern Ocean Beach House saga is part of this edition. It was launched by the Honourable Justice Brian Preston, Chief Judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court. An important part of the articles is an emphasis on community expertise and involvement in decision-making. See article attached and at: https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/.

The Shipwreck Coast Master Plan
There was extensive community consultation, but it seems the community was not heard. The proposed projected viewing platform at the 12 Apostles appears to be high risk. It is situated above an area where there has been a major recent cliff collapse – image below. Local knowledge, and geotechnical knowledge, would say this is high risk. This is just one of the problems with the Shipwreck Coast Master Plan, because community expertise has been ignored.

12 Apostles Cliff collapse August 2011

Montarosa proposal on Princetown Flood Plain
We must ask why this proposal was permitted by Council, as the risks are obvious. We must also ask why the proposal received a $650,000 federal government grant; State Government appears to have encouraged Corangamite Shire Council to approve the development.

The proposal is an 18 room residential ‘eco’-lodge, 20 cabins elevated on stilts, a restaurant, café, shop, briefing facilities, office, function rooms, 2 swimming pools/day spa, lookout tower, cycling and walking trails, boardwalks, a boat shed and jetty pontoon/boat ramp for pleasure activities. There is an estimated 278 car parks, 5 bus parks, and 480 visitors. Council notes the development will require Crown Land “to create road access and walking tracks”.

The flood plain presents an unacceptable risk to the low-lying development, and the development presents an unacceptable risk to a non-resilient, fragile estuary environment which contains endangered and threatened species including Latham’s Snipe, Australasian Bitten, Southern Brown Bandicoot and Australian Grayling. The site adjoins the Great Otway National Park.

There will be major road and earthworks. Council notes that the 1 km long flood prone access road must be widened and raised to 2.1 metres AHD, but raising the road will create a barrier directing flood waters elsewhere which is unlikely to be resolved by culverts. The single-lane access bridge will need to be upgraded. Council notes: “The site is susceptible to flooding. The proposed buildings are located just outside or on the fringe of the 1% AEP floodplain. The finished floor levels of all buildings will be required to be no lower than 3.5 metres AHD which the application details will be achieved by placing buildings on stumps…”
The Great Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study lists the area as of State significance with a landscape objective: “To protect the valley floor from development” and “Potential Threats: Development on valley floor (unlikely)”, recognising it is unlikely a development would be put on the flood plain. The Victorian Coastal Strategy states to avoid development in low lying areas. Part of the area has an Environmental Significance Overlay “for the protection of watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands”.

There are serious concerns regarding the leeching potential of the sewer and waste water system and potential for catastrophe in floods. The submission recognises the likely presence of acid sulphate soil.

Ten sites were rezoned on the Corangamite Shire coast for large tourism projects. None of these sites have been developed as yet, and none would have these risks.

Decision-makers must take into account the effects of climate change and the precautionary principle: the combined effects of rising seas, storm surge, extreme rainfall events, and flooding. But now the community has withdrawn from VCAT, who is going to make this decision? Council does not have the expertise.

The State government must investigate and insist on an independent Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment and a full and inclusive public Environmental Effects Statement to assess the potential for flooding risk, and risk to the public.

Princetown Flood Plain. X marks site of proposed development with road linkages into and between the sites. Note the road into the area is flooded, and this was solely due to storm surge. A more extreme event would occur with a high rainfall event in conjunction with storm surge.
Original Photo: Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

1 Hennessy Street Port Campbell residential development
The height imposes on the public domain, overlooking a state and nationally significant headland’s walking trail. Any development is required to be a height of the vegetation and fit neighbourhood character. VCAT and Council ignored the community’s concerns and consequently failed to meet planning requirements.

1 Hennessy St does not fit neighbourhood character, nor does it meet the height guides, and it overlooks national and state listed heritage headland and walking trail. View from heritage listed Beacon Steps lookout.

Consultants

The only ones winning at the moment appear to be consultants who may conduct consultation but do not seem to listen to expert community advice. It is costing rate payers and tax payers billions.

Better Education for Planning Officers

The latest Corangamite Shire Amendment (C45) 2017 – changes to the MSS – demonstrated that planners do not understand the difference between Objectives and Strategies. Planning was advised by the Panel to rewrite them. The Panel members also noted the amendment could become irrelevant if Smart Planning proceeds. A lot of time and money had been spent on a document which could be irrelevant. Not smart planning.

VCAT

There needs to be a full review of VCAT’s inconsistencies and poor performances in decision-making which undermine the planning process.

Summary

For the benefit of Victoria there must not be weakened permit or planning triggers or referral requirements, or permit exemptions, or the removal of appeal rights.
Without real community input, the government will make many more mistakes which will cost the State billions.
Marion Manifold
Secretary on behalf of
Port Campbell Community Group Inc. A0051688U

APPENDIX A

• Shifts in Victorian climate law and policy and the planning system: Intersected views from the field and academy. Brad Jessup and Marion Manifold. UNSW publications, 2016
• Commonwealth Government’s Draft Referral Guidelines for the Southern Brown Bandicoot and the EPBC Act, 2015
• Western Regional Coastal Plan Draft, 2015 – provided submission and photos
• Corangamite Shire Draft Environment & Sustainability Strategy 2014-2019
• Victorian National Parks Association with Bioregional Profile Coastal Paper, 2014
• Amendment C36 for Heritage Overlay on Port Campbell headland, 2014. (Planning panel recommended this be implemented).
• Shipwreck Coast Master Plan, 2013-2015
• The Arts Bridge: Bridging Art, Community and the Coastal Environment, Regional Arts Victoria, 2013
• Drafted the South West Threatened Species Recovery Program which aims to provide a plan of action to recover threatened species in South West Victoria including liaising with Parks Victoria, Landcare, Conservation Ecology Centre Cape Otway and the Otway Community Conservation Network, 2013.
• Victorian Coastal Strategy Draft, 2013
• Port of Port Campbell Safety & Environment Management Plan, 2013
• Parliamentary Inquiry into Heritage Tourism and Ecotourism in Victoria, 2013
• Co-ordinated the Environment Defenders Office to assist writing and present a submission on Amendment C30 which has resulted in improved environmental outcomes, 2013.
• Corangamite Shire’s Port Campbell and Coast Amendment C28, 2013
• Corangamite Shire’s Port Campbell and Coast Amendment C29, 2012.
• The effectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities’ protection in Australia, 2012
• Plan to rehabilitate the remnant Great Ocean Road on Port Campbell headland to increase habitat for endangered species including Southern Brown Bandicoot, 2014
• Port Campbell Headland Management and Landscape Plan including Biodiversity Action Plan, 2012
• Port Campbell Headland Walking Track – Coastcare and Council Submission, 2013
• DSE Review of Land Stability at Sturgess Point, Port Campbell, 2011
• EPBC Act 1999 Draft Referral Guidelines for Southern Brown Bandicoot (eastern), Isoodon obesulus obesulus, 2011
• Review of Victorian Planning Provisions and Planning Scheme, 2011
• National Trust ‘State’ listing for the Port Campbell headland, 2008
• Parliamentary Inquiry into Use and Development of Public Land, Port Campbell Headland, 2008
• Heritage Victoria – Port Campbell Headland submission, 2008
• Victorian Coastal Strategy Draft, 2008
• Corangamite Shire Environmental Strategy, 2007
• VCAT submissions including organising expert witness reports 2003-2011
• Federal Government – Meeting the Challenge of Coastal Growth. Discussion Paper, May 2006
• Corangamite Shire’s Port Campbell and Coast Amendment C13, 2002
• Wannon Water / Parks Victoria panel to consider sewage options for the 12 Apostles
• Marion Manifold. High-risk coastal resort on flood plain. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. September. 2017.
• Marion Manifold. The Port Campbell Coast: Paradise Lost. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. June 2014. Pp.12-13.
• Marion Manifold. Port Campbell: Developments on a Fragile Coast. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. December 2014. Pp.18-19.
• Marion Manifold. Port Campbell headland still at risk. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. September 2009. P.23.
• Marion Manifold. At risk – Port Campbell headland and national park. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. March 2009. Pp.12-13

"Labor is developing what is meant to be the most fundamental restructure of the Victorian planning system since the 1996 introduction of the Victoria Planning Provisions, the new Smart Planning program. [...] A simpler, more efficient and certain planning scheme is long overdue, but Smart Planning is not the way to provide it. This is a $25 million program managed through the Smart Planning program Rules team. If the system is simply to implement five minor changes, along with online access, then the program is a massive waste of money. Alternatively, if future stages are to radically change the system, then the government is hiding its intentions, locking out community groups from the process, and intends to present the public with a fait accompli." (Professor Michael Buxton*)

Labor is developing what is meant to be the most fundamental restructure of the Victorian planning system since the 1996 introduction of the Victoria Planning Provisions, the new Smart Planning program.

For the first time, the government has issued a tender for significant private sector involvement in the development of this program. A private consulting company has been given the significant role in developing what is meant to be further privatisation of the planning system.

Nobody knows what the precise instructions to this firm are because few public criteria were provided. However enough is known to provide a broad outline of government intentions. Criteria include the need to reduce regulation and regulatory costs by simplifying planning rules particularly through code assessment, lowering the level of permit triggers, increasing ‘as-of-right’ approvals and reducing local variation. The result will be a new model planning scheme which includes a new structure for the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and new content including revised zones, overlays and particular provisions.

The new system is being promoted on the need to ‘simplify and modernise Victoria’s planning rules’, reduce complexity and increase efficiency. The rhetoric of ‘cutting red tape’ and ‘reform’ are used to sell an increasingly deregulated system.

Stages in the process

There are two main elements to the process:

• The Rules and Policy stream which is making changes to the regulatory content and structure of the VPP;
• The Systems Stream which will make substantial changes to online planning information including a single point of entry to information, an online lodgement system for permits and planning scheme amendments, the content of planning schemes, and interactive state-wide maps. At this stage, this component will not include a single online centralised portal for all planning applications.

Under the Rules and Policy stream, the government envisages four stages in the process.

Stage 1 was the addition of further categories to VicSmart focusing on residential zones

Stage 2 will comprise a first package of further changes to VicSmart, and allegedly minor changes to the VPPs..

Stage 3 is intended to include a major restructure of the VPP and implemented in mid-2018.

Stage 4 will ‘further reshape the planning system’ in even more fundamental ways. under a program titled Transform.

Consultation

The property industry is an enthusiastic advocate for Smart Planning. The Property Council, for example, stated that the new system “is exactly what the doctor ordered…to cut red tape…and accelerate decision making”.

However, community groups have been locked out of the entire Smart Planning process.

Property and professional groups are represented on the technical reference and advisory groups for the program but not residents. The following groups are represented on the advisory group:

• Municipal Association of Victoria
• Australian Institute of Architects
• Building Designers Association of Victoria
• Housing Industry Association
• Master Builders Association of Victoria
• Planning Institute of Australia
• Property Council of Australia
• Urban Development Institute of Australia
• Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association.

No members of relevant community groups of the public are represented on either the technical or the advisory group.

A Smart Planning presentation to industry organised by the Planning Institute on 31 October, proposed the following reasons for the exclusion of the public from consultation:

• Members of the public are incapable of understanding strategic planning
• Members of the public might initially object to changes to planning systems or specific developments but invariably ultimately accept them
• The large number of past reports into planning make further public consultation unnecessary.

A survey was released into potential VPP changes with a completion date of 10 July. Professionals made up most of the 688 respondents.

A discussion paper into broad proposals for Stage 1 changes was released on 16 October along with an online questionnaire with responses required by 24 November.

Stage 1 changes to VicSmart were introduced without the opportunity for public consultation in mid 2017.

Stage 2 changes will be presented to the minister and, if necessary, cabinet for approval in December for immediate adoption. This means that changes to the planning system will be immediately implemented without making the content of changes publicly available prior to adoption. The public will be presented with a fait accompli.

Stage 3 and 4 changes are expected to proceed in the same way as stage 2.

VicSmart changes

The government introduced a dual track approval system into Victorian planning with the enactment of the Planning and Environment Amendment (VicSmart Planning Assessment) Act in September 2012. Clauses 90–95 inserted into the VPP implement the VicSmart system. The Act establishes a different approval procedure for a separate class of applications but does not define this class or specify these applications. These are listed in clause 92 and initially comprised relatively minor and uncontroversial applications for various zones including subdivision to align a common boundary; construction of a fence, carport or garage; and construction of buildings and works of less than $50,000 in value not within 30 metres of a residential zone.

Clause 91 sets out the process for VicSmart applications. Applications must be processed within 10 business days and are exempt from notice, decision guidelines and review rights, policies or other provisions, although applicants may appeal a decision by the responsible authority; the responsible authority cannot request further information; authorities cannot act as referral authorities for comment on an application; environmental impacts cannot be considered; and councillors are excluded from decisions.

The government justified the introduction of a separate track by the need for a streamlined permit process aimed at ‘straightforward, low impact development proposals’, intended to ‘reduce frustration and unnecessary red tape for families wanting to make simple improvements to their homes’ and reduce ‘unnecessary delays and costs in Victoria's planning system’. However, the failure of the legislation to list the class of applications and conferring on the minister the power to develop and alter the list without further reference to parliament has allowed the progressive extension of the system by expanding the classes of applications. The then Shadow Minister for Planning, Brian Tee, commented in the parliamentary debate on the VicSmart Bill that ‘we all know that this legislation is much broader in its scope; the sky is the limit’.

The 2017 changes to VicSmart were introduced through Amendment VC137. This allowed extensions to dwellings in residential zones without a permit, and doubled the class of applications for buildings and works in a range of zones to $100,000.

These VicSmart changes have helped double VicSmart applications to 8 per cent. Further Stage 1 changes are expected to increase them to 14 per cent, ultimately rising possibly to one third of all applications. The 2016 budget estimates states that the Smart Planning program “will enable an extension to the VicSmart process, including the targeted removal of permit requirements in commercial and industrial zones, allowing faster approval times for certain development proposals….[its] proportion of planning permit applications will increase over time as reforms aimed at streamlining the planning system take hold”. It is likely that this process will reduce or remove existing rights to notice and appeal against classes of medium and high rise developments.

Stage 2 changes

Vicsmart will be integrated into particularly provisions and overlay schedules and other provisions. At present, VicSmart operates as a separate section at the end of planning schemes. Its integration into other provisions will entrench it structurally, providing codified assessments, uses and developments exempt from permits and applications exempt from notice or review. This integration will make further increases to VicSmart applications inevitable. A list of five new classes of applications is proposed at present.

Local and State planning policy will be integrated. Since local policy cannot contradict State policy, this will probably weaken local policy.

Streamlined assessment pathways will be provided by amending specific provisions to add building and works exemptions, reduce permitted applications by increasing ‘as-of-right’ uses and developments, and reduce the number of prohibited uses.

Drafting and procedural changes will be made.

Stage 3 and 4 changes

The discussion paper does not outline these. However, it is clear from the October 2017 discussion paper, Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions, and other Smart Planning material, that radical changes to the planning system are envisaged under stages 3 and 4.

A revealing indicator of the government’s approach is the reference to the Leading Practice Model for Development Assessment prepared by the Development Assessment Forum in 2005. This influential model prepared by a body composed primarily of development and professional groups has been progressively implemented by all State governments to deregulate planning systems. The paper also refers to the use of code assessment and exemptions in New South Wales and Queensland systems. These are the most deregulated in Australia. Yet the government’s overall aim for Smart Planning is to “make Victoria’s planning system the most efficient and responsive in Australia”.

The government provides little detail of how radically the Stage 3 and 4 changes will further deregulate the planning system. However, the documentation provides a sense of what is envisaged. A progressive process of change is envisaged through “successive VPP and planning scheme amendments”. The program “seeks to deliver long term, transformative changes to the planning system”. The discussion paper proposes code assessment for multiple dwellings in defined locations, increasing code assessment to remove “entirely from the need for assessment” more applications, and applying VicSmart to complex applications. The Transform process would “further reshape the planning system” for the next 30 years.

Some proposed more detailed amendments to provisions include:

• Exempt single dwellings on lots above 300 square metres.
• Increase exempt uses in commercial and mixed use zones
• Make office an exempt use in the Industrial 3 zone.
• Increase exempt commercial uses in the Farming zone.
• Review the need for permits under all overlays and liberalise Floodway and Land Subject to Inundation overlays.
• Exempt car parking requirements in nominated zones
• Exempt premises in commercial zones from planning permits for licenced and gambling premises
• Further deregulate the Heritage Overlay by removing the need for permits for dry stone walls.
• Remove clause 57 providing greater control over uses and developments in green wedge land.
• Remove the powers of referral authorities
• Review the role of Section 173 agreements and decision guidelines.

Omissions

A simpler, more efficient and certain planning scheme is long overdue, but Smart Planning is not the way to provide it. This is a $25 million program managed through the Smart Planning program Rules team. If the system is simply to implement five minor changes, along with online access, then the program is a massive waste of money. Alternatively, if future stages are to radically change the system, then the government is hiding its intentions, locking out community groups from the process, and intends to present the public with a fait accompli.

The Smart Planning process addresses none of the major problems associated with the VPPs. These problems all arise from the lack of effective regulation, not the need for further deregulation. In particular

• The recent deregulation of the residential zones should be reversed
• Height controls should be added to the commercial and mixed use zones to protect historic strip and local retail centres
• The extensive out-of-centre development allowed in commercial zones, which allows further unfair competition with traditional centres and entrenches car based centres, should be controlled.
• The few prohibited uses in commercial and mixed use zones should be expanded
• Greater heritage protection should be provided to historic industrial areas to require building reuse not demolition.
• The former rural zones should be reinstated
• Commercial uses should be prohibited in Green Wedge zones and all uses not listed in section 2 prohibited.
• Vague and contradictory decision guidelines and objectives should be rewritten in a clear, regulatory manner.
• The widespread inadequate application of standard provisions to land by local councils should be addressed to better match provisions to local conditions and need.

* About Michael Buxton

Michael Buxton is Professor of Environment and Planning at RMIT University and former head of the RMIT planning program. He spent 12 years in senior management in planning and environmental agencies in the Victorian Government and has written widely on urban form, peri-urban development and environmental policy.

This is dismantling planning schemes, removing impediments to what developers want, and allowing development on developers’ terms. What is happening under “Smart Planning” has no relationship to either of those words. Read it and weep – or get angry, and loud. This is essentially about making a single planning scheme for Victoria, controlled by the State government (and whoever may have its ear). You are having YOUR planning scheme stolen from you.

We have all been through the Elaine Carbine’s “Making Local Policy Stronger” farce 10 years ago, when all that happened was significant loss of local policy. Local policy, particularly “old” policy (i.e. something that says what it means and has teeth – like our Statement of Planning Policy No. 8) is intended to be weeded out to fit into the new format. This single planning scheme will comprise primarily State policy, which as we have all lately seen, can be changed by a stroke of the Minister’s pen.

There is also substantial cost to councils involved. To get to where so-called “Smart Planning” is intending to take us, planning schemes will have to be re-written, and if your council is currently doing a planning scheme review, they will have to start again.

Other niceties include:

• Moving the peri-urban areas from “Regional Victoria” to “Urban Growth”,
• Moving “Open Space” to “Community Infrastructure”,
• Deleting Municipal Strategic Statements [MSS], and “simplifying” what used to be in them.
• The whole section on Metropolitan Melbourne is deleted, with some parts transferred to other State policies, meaning these are now applied across the State instead of just metro Melbourne.
• Local policies will also have to be justified by identifying in the policy (“Policy Context”) the local issue that triggered the policy.
• There won’t be a policy-neutral translation of existing policy to this new format, local policies will have to be changed or deleted to fit with the format.

Local policies will have to fit in with State policy themes. If you’ve got some other issue locally – too bad. Can’t have a policy.

Watch out as well for a second attempt to introduce that idiotic “verbs matrix” that surfaced circa 2013/14 which restricts the use of verbs with which policy statements can begin, and dictates verbs that can be used.

All along the way, VicSmart infiltrates every part of the State Planning Policy Framework, together with “streamlining” permit triggers (i.e. primarily to remove them).

The whole thing is “user” (read developer) driven, and Professor Buxton’s information exposing who is making these decisions, confirms why the public has been shut out of the so-called “Smart Planning” processes.

A new Departmental unit to “vet” local policy is to be set up – ‘policy police’?

They haven’t even shown us what they are intending to do.

From our perspective, we are asking if it’s time to say the government’s promise to protect Macedon Ranges is a broken one. It can’t be protected with all of this going down, and Green Wedges are also under direct attack.

AND FINALLY, THIS IS THE ONLY TIME YOU WILL BE CONSULTED. FROM HERE THIS RUBBISH GOES STRAIGHT INTO PLANNING SCHEMES – AFTER IT HAS BEEN THROUGH THE ‘REFERENCE’ GROUPS.

Some additional specific issues for change include:
• Removing permit triggers for houses on lots between 300 and 500 sqm and use the building code to assess instead of planning system.
• Making more commercial uses to not need a permit in the Mixed Use zone
• Making motor repair shop and convenience shop as-of-right in the Industrial 1 zone.
• Making takeaway food premises, indoor recreation facilities and motor repair premises as-of-right in the Industrial 3 zone.
• Replacing the Urban Floodway Zone.
• Automatically rezoning land in the Urban Growth Zone when a precinct structure plan is approved, instead of requiring a planning scheme amendment to change the zones.
• Reviewing the use of Environmental Significance Overlay to identify ‘buffers’
• Increasing permit exemptions for single dwellings in Environmental Significant and Significant Landscape Overlays
• More permit exemptions in Heritage Overlays for ‘minor buildings and works’
• Review whether the Neighbourhood Character Overlay should be deleted.
• Review merging all current flood controls (Urban Floodway Zone, Floodway Overlay and Land Subject To Inundation Overlay) into a single control
• Increase permit exemptions in the Land Subject To Inundation Overlay
• Increased use of VicSmart where the Special Building Overlay is the only permit trigger for an application
• Amalgamate all Airport Environs Overlays with the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay -
• Car Parking – provide car parking exemptions in selected zoned (commercial, mixed use and industrial) sor section 1 uses in existing buildings
• Consider making all car parking applications (Clause 52.06) exempt from notice requirements in all circumstances.
• Review (again) all separation distances (Clause 52.10) for uses with amenity impacts.
• Review requirements for service stations.
• Review provisions for car washes to ensure they reflect current practices and “modern” car wash designs, including crossover dimensions
• Review removing liquor licensing from the planning scheme, and no permit in Commercial 1 and 2 zones.
• Review the role of the planning scheme in gaming applications.
• Review permit triggers in the Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1 or Public Acquisition Overlay
• Review removing the particular provision for post boxes and dry stone walls.
• Clause 57 Green Wedges – assess whether would be more “transparent” if deleted and requirements (and restrictions?) transferred to zones.
• Consolidation of planning scheme General Provisions – this means moving them all to one place at the back of the scheme (where they are now). The change is to have a single set of application requirements, and a single set of decision guidelines – a generic version to apply in all circumstances instead of being tailored to the specific issue or requirements they apply to.
• Reviewing referral requirements (currently determining or recommending) and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens.
• All planning scheme DEFINITIONS – review. Be less prescriptive by removing ‘overly specific’ terms.

These thoughts come from Christine, of MRRA.

"The MEG Committee expresses its anger at the entire lack of contact between DELWP and residents’ groups such as ours. DELWP’s actions re the Discussion Paper seek to exclude residents from being informed of the proposed changes and from taking part in the decision-making process about the area in which we live." ..."VicSmart must not be broadened. It is quite clear that there is enough of the ‘fast tracking’ for so-called ‘simple’ planning applications. The Discussion Paper indicates that “the sky’s the limit.” When VicSmart was introduced the then Opposition (now the Government) vigorously opposed it saying that it really meant “the sky’s the limit” with regard to fast-tracking Planning Applications and this was to be deplored. The same Party (now in Government) has put aside such quibbles and enthusiastically adopted fast-tracking of applications and the Discussion Paper is mere tokenism."

Submission re …Reforming the Victorian Planning Provisions…November 2017

The MEG Committee expresses its anger at the entire lack of contact between DELWP and residents’ groups such as ours. DELWP’s actions re the Discussion Paper seek to exclude residents from being informed of the proposed changes and from taking part in the decision-making process about the area in which we live.

Community groups have been locked out of the entire Smart (so-called) Planning process and we are informed that this is because we (the people) are….

(1) incapable of understanding strategic planning
(2) likely to object initially to change and subsequently accept it…(as if there is ever a
choice!)
(3) further public consultation is unnecessary.

In other words, DEWLP and its Minister view the community with contempt!

MEG is left breathless at the sheer arrogance of this Government.

MEG has taken part in a number of Strategic Planning issues. We have attended Information Sessions and Consultation Sessions. We have lodged written submissions to Council and to Planning Panels Victoria re a number of Planning Scheme Amendments . We have made oral submissions to Panel on a number of occasions.

We have NEVER stopped our opposition to a particular Panel decision which allowed “no height limits” in one section of the area covered by Amendment C173 … a decision which has resulted in construction of an 18 storey development with 322 apartments bang up against single storey houses. The sheer ignorance and stupidity of that Panel decision makes us wonder if that particular Panel “was capable of understanding strategic planning.”

It would seem that “strategic planning” actually means State Government and those it employs “going where the dollars are.”

The Discussion Paper sets out to remove any impediments to the ambitious schemes of developers though considering the decision cited above we wonder if there has ever been any real Impediments. In Stonnington it has long been ‘development on developers’ terms.’

The Discussion Paper proposes ‘getting more development more easily.’ Given the evidence of our own eyes we wonder just how easy can it get? Clearly DELWP’s purpose is to achieve more and more development at the expense of all environmental and health issues.

The Discussion Paper suggests the ways and means to accelerate development.

(1) Broaden VicSmart
(2) Use Code Assess
(3) Removal of what developers call ‘barriers’ to their plans…(residents call
them’ safeguards’ though they do not save us from much.)

VicSmart must not be broadened. It is quite clear that there is enough of the ‘fast tracking’ for so-called ‘simple’ planning applications. The Discussion Paper indicates that “the sky’s the limit.” When VicSmart was introduced the then Opposition (now the Government) vigorously opposed it saying that it really meant “the sky’s the limit” with regard to fast-tracking Planning Applications and this was to be deplored. The same Party (now in Government) has put aside such quibbles and enthusiastically adopted fast-tracking of applications and the Discussion Paper is mere tokenism.

Some of the suggestions DELWP makes for expediting development are:-

…using the building code to assess an application instead of ResCode on lots between 300 &
500sq.m. (N.B. there are no amenity issues considered in the Building Code.)

Mixed Use Zones to have more commercial uses that do not need a Permit.

…more permit exemptions in Heritage Overlays for ‘minor’ works….whatever that means.

review the existence of Neighbour Character Overlays.

car parking….provide exemptions in selected zones

consider making all car parking applications exempt from notice requirements.

no environmental impacts to be considered.

The list is endless. “The sky’s the limit,” said the Government when in Opposition.

To introduce ‘Code Assess’ to the mix would sound the death knell for our suburbs as we know them. (Remember when Victoria was called ‘The Garden State?’) Please note that the correct term for ‘Code Assess’ is ‘Free Reign for Developers.’ Code Assess is a system in which the applicant assesses his/her application, ticks the boxes and pronounces “full steam ahead.” There is no resident input and residents’ groups such as MEG vigorously oppose it.

The Property Council is apparently delighted with the proposals from DELWP. We are told that such a system “will cut red tape and accelerate decision-making.” As they are well-represented on the Advisory Council (and residents’ groups are not represented at all) of course they are delighted with the fact that DELWP has done exactly what developers’ representatives advised …i.e. the impediments to development are to be removed. It follows that with this ‘top down implementation’ any consideration of residential amenity at local level is to be forever consigned to the archives.

The impact of the proposals on Councils will be significant. Stonnington’s entire Planning Scheme will have to be re-written just as a Review of the Planning Scheme has commenced. This will have to be restarted … and to what purpose? Whatever we want in our Planning Scheme will be over-ridden by the revised VPPS. As Local Policy cannot now contradict State Policy our Local Policy might as well not exist under proposals in the Discussion Paper so any re-writing or requests from Council for residents’ views will be mere tokenism.

There is, of course, no indication of additional resources from State Government for all the additional work. The ratepayers will be forced to pay even though we were not to be consulted by DELWP …. and we have to wonder if that was a Ministerial direction!

MEG is grateful for the ever-active grapevine in our network that permits us to discover at least SOME Government scheming.

The entire Discussion Paper is, in essence, a dismantling of all Planning Schemes in Victoria.
What is proposed under “Smart Planning” is neither ‘smart’ nor is it ‘planning.’

It proposes “getting more development more easily” and in doing so silencing the voice of residents while residents propose “getting planning in a regulated way.”

The residents’ way is “smart planning.” The Government’s way is a massive free kick to the development industry.

Ann Reid (MEG Convenor)
C/- 14 Chanak Street,
Malvern East Vic 3145
Phone/Fax 9572 3205
Email [email protected]
Web http://www.chezsamuel.com/meghome.php

We need stronger not weaker planning controls at the level of local government and more community involvement. We need to empower local government and communities by ensuring that projects other than minor modifications to existing properties are scrutinized by council in consultation with the community. It might be more time consuming and cumbersome however it will be well worth the additional effort if we can avoid a planning disaster while at the same time achieving better planning outcomes. To achieve a good result, we need to give Councils the right to veto or modify a proposed development application and in the case of a disputed application that cannot be resolved at the level of local government, I would like to recommend that we replace VCAT by appointing a democratically elected community jury with the power to veto or modify a project. Overpopulation, planning and overdevelopment and building safe, attractive and cohesive communities will be the over-riding themes in the upcoming election campaign. Any further action in relation to the proposed changes should be deferred until we elect a new government in 2018 to allow the people to decide whether or not they support further deregulation and privatisation of the planning process and the removal of appeal rights. (A. Walker, Ashburton Residents Action Group)

23 November 2017

In confidence and without prejudice

Submission – Smart Planning Initiative

Attention: Smart Planning Team

Introduction

I am a ratepayer and a local resident and I have major concerns that unwelcome and unwanted high-rise, high-density over-development poses an existential threat to our city and suburbs, living standards and quality of life.

The community must be given a greater say as to how their suburbs will be allowed to develop and this will translate into better planning outcomes and happier communities. Ratepayers elect councillors to represent them at the local government level and our councillors must be allowed to do their job.

We need tougher restrictions and more community input to help preserve Melbourne’s ranking as one of the most liveable cities in the world as this is under threat.

Neighbourhood Residential Zones

The neighbourhood residential zones were originally introduced by the Baillieu/Napthine government to protect our suburbs from the ravages of inappropriate over-development. These changes were welcomed by local ratepayers.

The height and density limits were designed to give local residents and investors, certainty and protection and ensured that those seeking to push the boundaries could no longer appeal to VCAT to achieve the planning outcomes that they desired for non-compliant projects. Since then there has been some pushback and the Andrews government has already removed mandatory height limits and replaced them with discretionary height limits in certain areas making the sky the limit. We cannot afford to further weaken the controls governing neighbourhood residential zones and mandatory height limits need to be reinstated as soon as possible.

Stage 1, 2, 3 and 4

I can understand the arguments in favour of simplifying the planning rules to allow minor modifications to properties such as erecting a fence, garden shed, carport, adding a small extension to a house or a bay window without a permit, however, when it comes to larger projects, we need stronger regulations, adequate scrutiny by local government and stronger appeal rights for local residents who value the liveability of their suburbs.

For the reasons stated above, I disagree strongly with the smart planning initiative (stages 1, 2, 3 and 4) as I believe it will open the door to a proliferation of unwelcome and unwanted overdevelopment projects in many of our suburbs and that local government and the community will be disenfranchised and excluded from the planning process. That is not acceptable by any measure. I also take offence at the statement that members of the public are incapable of understanding strategic planning. The public who are living with the consequences of unsustainable population growth and over-development understand the implications of strategic planning better than anyone.

Simplifying the planning process to allow larger projects to proceed without adequate scrutiny by local government is inherently dangerous as it would open the door to over-development, poor quality projects and we would run the risk of creating the slum precincts of the future with all the associated problems.

Conclusion

We need stronger not weaker planning controls at the level of local government and more community involvement. We need to empower local government and communities by ensuring that projects other than minor modifications to existing properties are scrutinized by council in consultation with the community. It might be more time consuming and cumbersome however it will be well worth the additional effort if we can avoid a planning disaster while at the same time achieving better planning outcomes.

To achieve a good result, we need to give Councils the right to veto or modify a proposed development application and in the case of a disputed application that cannot be resolved at the level of local government, I would like to recommend that we replace VCAT by appointing a democratically elected community jury with the power to veto or modify a project.

2018 Election

Overpopulation, planning and overdevelopment and building safe, attractive and cohesive communities will be the over-riding themes in the upcoming election campaign. Any further action in relation to the proposed changes should be deferred until we elect a new government in 2018 to allow the people to decide whether or not they support further deregulation and privatisation of the planning process and the removal of appeal rights.

A. Walker
Committee Member
Ashburton Residents Action Group
PO Box 45
Ashburton Vic 3147.

[Address for submissions. ]The discussion paper fails to acknowledge fundamental truths about our modern society and how we live. The built environment profoundly affects residents, visitors, and indeed other species every day. As such, as in other disciplines, it is incumbent upon government to exercise the “Precautionary Principle” in how it plans for Victoria’s future. A fundamental part of proper planning is to acknowledge the importance of local input and longstanding local knowledge of an area. From the discussion paper on “Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions” residents have been excluded from the both the technical and advisory groups to the “Smart Planning” process. Long standing and hard fought for citizens’ rights, previously accepted and adopted into our Planning provisions have been swept away. What is proposed is government and developers operating as a combined growth machine pitted against the residents without residents even being given a seat at the table as a minority voice. Where has our democracy gone? [Candobetter.net editor: For a history of how this has come about in Victoria, check out our 'bad laws' section.]

The Victorian Planning Provisions Discussion Paper - Submission for Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch

The discussion paper fails to acknowledge fundamental truths about our modern society and how we live.

The built environment profoundly affects residents, visitors, and indeed other species every day. As such, as in other disciplines, it is incumbent upon government to exercise the “Precautionary Principle” in how it plans for Victoria’s future. A fundamental part of proper planning is to acknowledge the importance of local input and longstanding local knowledge of an area. From the discussion paper on “Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions” residents have been excluded from the both the technical and advisory groups to the “Smart Planning” process. Long standing and hard fought for citizens’ rights, previously accepted and adopted into our Planning provisions have been swept away. What is proposed is government and developers operating as a combined growth machine pitted against the residents without residents even being given a seat at the table as a minority voice. Where has our democracy gone?

We note the following property and professional groups are represented on the Advisory group

· Municipal Association of Victoria
· Australian Institute of Architects
· Building Designers Association of Victoria
· Housing Industry Association
· Master Builders Association of Victoria
· Planning Institute of Australia
· Property Council of Australia
· Urban Development Institute of Australia

Most of these Industry groups and associated organisations benefit directly or indirectly from the growth trajectory adopted by the current government, and the proposed changes further strengthen the influence of these vested interests. As residents, the largest and most diverse group to be impacted by proposed changes have been excluded, this cannot be described as an objective group to “strategically” plan for Victoria and Melbourne’s future.

A Smart Planning presentation to industry organised by the Planning Institute on 31 October, proposed the following reasons for the exclusion of the public from consultation:

· Members of the public are incapable of understanding strategic planning.

· Members of the public might initially object to changes to planning systems or specific developments but invariably ultimately accept them

· The large number of past reports into planning make further public consultation unnecessary.”

We address these three claims below.

1. This egregious slur on residents is outrageous. We question the need for the public be required to “understand strategic planning” in order not to have their environment eroded. However we also observe that many residents are extremely well informed about planning issues, especially as applied to their own areas, and the technicalities and imperatives involved. Indeed, we suggest that well informed residents probably number into the tens or hundreds of thousands of people – multiples more than the hand full of planners and other vested interest entities involved in the introduction of these proposed changes.

2. This claim is not supported with empirical evidence. Whilst it may be true that some members of the public might eventually accept changes to the planning scheme or local projects, this does not prove that they “invariably accept” those changes. Indeed, what you call “invariable acceptance” may actually be exhausted and dispirited resignation. Members of the public have other jobs – they are doctors, nurses, teachers, small business owners , retailers, physiotherapists , dentists- working long hours at their jobs with their own various areas of expertise. Why should they have their rights to peacefully enjoy where they live taken away without even being heard?

3. Whilst previous planning scheme iterations have usually included substantial public consultation, this should not mean that all of a sudden consultation can stop. Public opinion is not static, nor is the demographics and changing needs of various communities. As society changes and matures it is the government's job to ensure that measures to protect resident’s amenity, safety and peace continue to be effective. To do otherwise is an abrogation of this responsibility. The discussion paper gives the sense of urgency because of the scale and volume of change envisaged for Victoria which is of course driven by population growth welcomed and lobbied for by the development industry. This augers very badly for all Victorians. Government is riding roughshod over the people of Victoria who in 2014 handed them the responsibly of governing the state. With safeguards in place and a more normal rate of growth (rather than the turbo charged population growth that Melbourne in particular has experienced over recent years) residents should be able to trust local and state authorities to make changes largely in the interests of residents. It should not be necessary for residents to have to spend their time and energy on trying to maintain their quality of life. But, as things stand with no input from residents they will be certain to get exactly what they don’t want.

In summary:

Planning should be no different to other modern disciplines, where logic and reason is used to predict outcomes and develop strategies. However, in this discussion paper government has abandoned reason and logic and has instead embraced an ill informed and primitive view that infinite growth on a finite planet is possible and indeed even desirable (for those few ill informed, short sighted and primitive thinkers). Our planet, and by extension all national and local systems, are part of the “closed system” on planet Earth where water, soil, rare earth and other mineral resources are finite. The local and regional planning targeted in this discussion paper is fundamentally reliant on these finite resources. Building, transport, telecommunications, food production, power supply etc., indeed all of modern society’s activities, rely on systems which rely on these finite resources. It is therefore incumbent upon government to adopt a planning model which acknowledges that Earth’s resources are finite and so too must growth be finite. Your discussion paper ignores fundamental truths which is to all our detriments.

So, rather than members of the public being incapable of understanding strategic planning, we suggest that it is government, its planners and other vested interests responsible for the proposals outlined in this discussion paper, who are demonstrating a lack of strategic thinking and planning.

This discussion paper heralds massive changes to the built environment and massive population increases over which residents will have no control. The more change that is anticipated , the more say residents need to have. It is not the other way around as envisaged by this discussion paper.

Jill Quirk
Secretary, Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch
P.O. Box 556 Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122