Protectors of Public Land

Protectors of Public Lands say that notice has been received that the “Greens” Mayor Samantha Ratnam will, tomorrow at 4:30 pm, preside over a “Sod-Turning Ceremony” to mark the start of construction of a monster Moreland Council-funded community/medical centre on Rogers Memorial Reserve in Pascoe Vale. If you can come to the "sod turning ceremony" we will be having a silent vigil of protest. Bring a sign. Come to the Rogers Memorial Reserve on Prospect Street (off Cumberland Road) in the parking area near the Pascoe Vale Swimming Pool. Melways Page 17 A8.

In the eyes of residents and community groups this represents gross vandalism of public parkland and destruction of a heritage War Memorial and commemorative trees, including a “Lone Pine” of Gallipoli fame.

Moreland Greens’ Councillors apparently see Rogers Memorial Reserve as terra nullius, yet they were told by an independent consultant, engaged by Council, that the Reserve was of local heritage value in its entirety. (There was a viable alternative building site nearby.)

It was just ten days ago on 1 May 2016 that the Mayor of Moreland laid a wreath on the War Memorial at the RSL Commemoration Service in remembrance of the ANZACS and the fallen in World War I. PPL VIC regards this as hypocrisy on her part and insulting to those who served Australia in world wars and overseas missions.

Julianne Bell Secretary of PPL VIC comments that:

“This rubs salt into our wounds and those of local residents who have long fought to preserve the Rogers Memorial Reserve parkland and the War Memorial; it is extraordinarily insensitive of the Mayor. We consider that it represents a conflict of interest for the Greens Mayor, who is now campaigning as the preselected Greens’ Party candidate for the seat of Wills. PPL VIC understands that there has been no tender yet accepted for the construction of this planned community/medical centre on the Rogers Memorial Reserve, so any “turning of the sod” is premature. Our organisation suggests that the Mayor resign immediately in view of the fact the PM has now declared an election will be held on 2 July 2016” Over the past 2 years PPL VIC has called on a succession of Ministers under the past Liberal/Coalition Government and now the State Labor Government plus RSL Headquarters and Heritage Victoria to review War Memorials and their Memorial Parks to guarantee future protection and proper maintenance.

A deafening silence has resulted. Lip service only appears to be given to the memories of ANZACS and so we cannot expect any real action from government.

Sod-Turning Ceremony for the Pascoe Vale Community Centre

WHEN Tuesday 10 May 2016

TIME 4.30 – 5.30 pm

WHERE Pascoe Vale Neighbourhood Facility

7 Prospect Street, Pascoe Vale"

"The Victorian government appears to be bent on creating ‘rent-seeking’ opportunities for construction companies and financial institutions rather than meeting the transport needs of the community." (Kenneth Davidson) The following article is the text of a speech given by Kenneth Davidson at the Protectors of Public Lands Victoria AGM 10 May 2014 (Emphases and heading by candobetter.net editor.)

The last time I spoke to Protectors of Public Lands Victoria at the AGM in 2011 I made the subject of my talk ‘how PPPs can make you sick as well as poor’. I looked at the financing costs of building three hospitals – The Royal Children’s Hospital, the Royal Women’s Hospital and Bendigo General Hospital - and the difference between funding exactly the same hospitals, using exactly the same architects and builders but financing them with government debt rather than as a PPP would save the Victorian taxpayer $90 million a year or $3.5 billion over the 25 year life of the PPPs.

Those figures were based on official interest rates of 5.5 per cent. The cost would be even higher today when the state government could use its AAA rating to borrow at 3.6 per cent. I pointed out the $90 million in unnecessary payments compared to government borrowings would be sufficient to pay a salary increase to public hospital nurses an additional $3,000 a year – a 5 per cent increase. This is far better than chiselling their conditions and undermining hospital safety by increasing patient ratios and replacing professional nurses with nurse assistants in the name of productivity offsets.

When you multiply these sort of deals through the financing of government schools, the desalination plant, Southern Cross (Spencer Street) Station and roads and now prisons, rail links, rail corridors and Metro Rail Link (redesigned without a business case to facilitate Crown Casino and a new real estate development at Fisherman’s Bend), you are beginning to talk real money.

According to the budget papers, PPPs, listed under long-term borrowings as finance lease liabilities, now total $7.8 billion. The interest expense on these leases, listed as finance charges on finance leases, total $770 million. This is equal to an interest expense of just under 10 per cent.

In money terms this amounts to about $500 million or half a billion a year more than if the leases had been financed by the issue of state government bonds, currently yielding 3.6 per cent interest.

Neoliberal mythology

The banks and superannuation funds which profit from investing in PPPs rather than public debt promote the neoliberal mythology that governments can’t ‘afford’ debt, even though there are numerous examples of social and economic infrastructure which can yield returns well in excess of the cost of borrowing.

In their own businesses, if directors took the same approach to financial management as they demand from government, to minimise debt to the point where they were missing out on profitable investments, the directors and senior managers would be threatened with dismissal for running a ‘lazy balance sheet’ either through a takeover or shareholder revolt.

But, in Australia the politicians who facilitate the PPP industry are seen generally as wise leaders whose financial rectitude, while promoting ‘tough’ decisions, is in the public interest.

The former Member for Melbourne and Finance minister in the Rudd government, together with former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, are senior financial advisors with the investment bank, Lazard.

When Tanner joined the bank shortly after the 2010 election his job description included working on how to improve the PPP tender process. Lazard has already made one submission to the Victorian government offering to manage the PPP process for both sections of the East West Link Project last year. The proposal was rejected.

The peak industry lobby for the PPP industry, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, sponsored a conference in March 2012 at the Crown Casino on the subject “user pays, exploring the myths of free infrastructure”. As could be expected the conference wasn’t about the cheapest and most effective ways of financing infrastructure, but how to make PPPs risk free to the private investors to avoid recent losses, particularly involving toll roads.

Tanner was the Keynote speaker. He said that there have to be more innovative ways of financing PPPs to restore confidence in the PPP vehicle following the success of the City Link. He gave the example of the Peninsular Link which substituted an “availability charge” yielding an assured 11.5 per cent for tolls because there was no way the $760 million investment could be sustained on tolls given the likely traffic volumes.

His citing these two examples of successful PPPs makes it clear that the proponents of PPPs are primarily interested in a contract which guarantees a stream of earnings over two to three decades at interest rates two to three times the long-term bond rate without any risk to the proponents.

The background to these successful examples of the PPP method of financing infrastructure shows that PPPs amount to rorts.

It is a moot point whether City Link should have been built. A rail connection to the airport could have provided greater benefit to Melbourne at a fraction of the cost. In terms of passenger numbers Tullamarine Airport is the biggest in the world without a rail link to the city.

Toll charges are at least three times the level which would be needed if the road had been funded by government debt. City Link is one of the most profitable toll roads in the world. In 2012-13 City Link toll revenue totalled $499 million. The operator, Transurban, is allowed to increase toll rates by 4.5 per cent a year or the inflation rate, whichever is the greater. The toll growth compounds at a greater rate than inflation so that a Tulla 24 hour pass is 110 per cent higher now than when the tollway opened in 2000.

The project cost was $1.8 billion but $600 million was mainly capital costs associated with the PPP. For instance $171 million was allocated to Equity Infrastructure Bond distributions during the construction phase before one car had passed under a transponder. Another $350 million was allocated to items such as Consultancy and Sponsor Recovery Costs, Corporate Overheads and Marketing (during construction), and Capitalised Interest Expense.

The Design and Construction Contract was $1.2 billion. This is the main cost which would have been associated with the building of exactly the same road, using the same designers and construction contractors, if City Link had been let out to public tender and financed by public borrowings at the long-term bond rate.

The gross return of $499 million in 2012-13 on $1.2 billion is about 42 per cent. On the assumption that operating expenses, maintenance and taxes more than halved the gross return to 20 per cent, this is still five times the return from tolls needed to fund public borrowings at 4 per cent.

In 1999, Alan Stockdale, Treasurer at the time of City Link negotiations, later announced his retirement from Parliament and his intention to join Macquarie bank as the chairman of the bank’s asset and infrastructure group after the election but before he handed in his commission as Treasurer to the Victorian Governor.

The Australian Financial Review (7th October 1999) said: “As a non-executive director, he was likely to receive a remuneration package in the order of $500,000 a year. Mr Stockdale joins an inner circle of executives at Macquarie whose main role has been described in the banking fraternity as to essentially ‘meet and greet’.”

But PPPs became on the nose after a spate of infrastructure projects financed as PPPs in Queensland, NSW and in Victoria’s case, the EastLink, failed to live up to the optimistic forecasts of toll revenues and investors in the Connect East franchise (set up to build, own and operate EastLink) lost money.

In order to restore investor confidence in these vehicles, the main rationale for the higher returns on PPPs compared to the cost of financing infrastructure with government debt, namely that the ‘risk’ would be transferred from the taxpayer to the private partners, was turned on its head.

The Peninsular Link PPP was developed in the wake of the failure of the EastLink to meet its traffic projections. EastLink was the road from nowhere to nowhere.

It was clear only months after EastLink began operations that the franchise was dying under its burden of debt. Hence the urgency to connect EastLink up to additional traffic to keep its backers from pulling the plug, as had occurred with toll roads financed as PPPs in Sydney and Brisbane. The banks refused to finance the construction of the bypass unless the risk was transferred from the private partners to the government.

Instead of the PPP revenue being derived from tolls it was decided the revenue would be paid by the government via an ‘availability charge’ This meant that providing the Peninsula Link is fit for purpose - i.e. it is maintained in a condition sufficient to carry the volume of traffic for which is was designed - an ‘availability’ payment of $92 million a year will be paid over the 25 years of the franchise, irrespective of how many vehicles use the freeway. It is equivalent to a return of 11.7 per cent on the $760 million cost to build the bypass.

The reader might ask why the government did not borrow the money itself at the long-term bond rate, which was about 5 per cent at the time the road was built and saved $54 million a year or $1.4 billion over the 25 year life of the PPP. The savings would have been sufficient to finance borrowings of $800 million, sufficient to build a public hospital or finance 5,000 elective surgery operations in public hospitals.

But there’s more. The capital cost of $760 million of the four lane tollway, mainly over flat reserve land, works out at $28 million a km. The Abigroup built the Peninsular link. The Abigroup also built 41 km four-lane Geelong Bypass freeway for $19 million per km and it includes a railway station and 100 metre bridge over the Barwon River involving major earthworks. The construction cost of the Peninsula Link is 67 per cent more expensive per km than the Geelong Bypass. Why?

The reason is the Commonwealth put up most of the money for the Geelong Bypass. It refused to put up money for the Peninsular Link because it couldn’t pass a Benefit Cost test required by Infrastructure Australia. As the Commonwealth put up the money for the Geelong Bypass, it ensured it got value for money.

The Victorian government appears to be bent on creating ‘rent-seeking’ opportunities for construction companies and financial institutions rather than meeting the transport needs of the community.

The Mornington Peninsula and the Hastings area are public transport deprived and both the catchment areas include some of the poorest households in Greater Melbourne with acute, unmet public transport needs. But there is already a further study extending the road capacity to relieve congestion on Point Nepean Road completed in 2013 with no consideration of mode shift to public or active transport. Remember, the Peninsular Link was set up by a Labor government.

'Sovereign risk'

Labor has not changed its spots in opposition. In a desperate attempt to win back the Melbourne seat from the Greens it promised to oppose the EWL but it would not refinance the debt because it would create ‘sovereign risk’. Garbage! There is no difference between a government refinancing debt to take advantage of lower interest rates than a mortgagor taking advantage of lower interest rates to refinance the house mortgage.

The major parties were as one in refusing to consider refinancing the AquaSure desalination PPP contract on the grounds of ‘Sovereign risk’.

To add insult to injury, Aquasure received permission from the government to renegotiate the debt for its own interests. It has taken advantage of the lower rates to increase its own profits.

Shadow Treasurer, Tim Pallas, has since backed down in the face of the talk by adjunct professor of Law at the ANU College of Law and author of a standard text on government contracts, who pointed out anybody, including governments, can break contracts subject to damages.

The cost of damages would be miniscule compared to the cost of going ahead with an EWL PPP, especially if the Labor opposition made its intentions clear before any contract is signed so that the private partners would know the risks before entering into the contract.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In her submission to the Victorian State Department of Planning and Community Services, Julianne Bell, Secretary of Protectors of Public Lands, quoting Professor Michael Buxton of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) shows how the proposed changes to Victoria's urban planning laws will destroy the quality of life and sustainability of Melbourne.

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

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

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

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

The new zone proposals will:

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

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

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

In particular, the zones will:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mobile: 0408 022408

Email: jbell5 [ AT ] bigpond.com

Threats to Royal Park: East West link, Children's Hospital expansion onto public land under Royal Children’s Hospital (Land) Act 2007, large new obtrusive metal public toilet known as "Doyle's dunny" after the Lord Mayor prioritised its installation. Meaningful community events planned to combat proposed outrages. Turn up to meet an energetic and politicised crew of public land activists with a taste for local environment and democracy.

ROYAL PARK PROTECTION GROUP INC. NEWS BULLETIN – JUNE 2012

Royal Park Yet Again Threatened by East West Link

Royal Park Protection Group Inc. (RPPG) members would have experienced a sense of déjà vu on 18 May 2012 when Premier Ted Baillieu launched a “review” of the East West Link (EW Link.) In a hard hat (a requisite for politicians in front of cameras) he started up a huge mechanical drill beside the Eastern Freeway not far from Hoddle Street in Clifton Hill, purportedly to obtain earth samples from the area designated as the start of the EW Link Tunnel.

The Premier appears unaware that the State Government has conducted two reviews of the EW Link, namely, the 2003 Northern Central City Corridor Study and the 2008 Eddington Review which found that most traffic is travelling north-south, not east-west. For the past 13 years RPPG has been ever vigilant over the likely destructive impact of a tunnel tollway/ freeway through Royal Park and inner suburbs. On 26 July 1999 Dr Paul Mees, then President of the Public Transport Users’ Association (PTUA), spoke at RPPG’s AGM on the topic “Implications for the inner city of a Royal Park Freeway Link”. Since then under the regimes of Jeff Kennett (Liberal) then Bracks and Brumby (Labor) we have fought extension of the Eastern Freeway, now known as the “EW Link”.

On 18 May when Ted Baillieu flicked the switch on the EW Link, Adam Bandt, Federal Member for Melbourne, called a protest mobilising more than 50 people within 2 hours “to send a clear message that Melbourne residents want more trains and trams over dirty private roads to keep Melbourne liveable.“ The snap protest got coverage on all major news channels and on 774 Drive and 3AW Radio. Rod Quantock (RPPG Deputy Convenor) and Julianne Bell (Committee member) attended and spoke on Channel 10. RPPG is campaigning together with allied groups - Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC); Yarra Campaign for Action on Transport (YCAT); and the PTUA not only to oppose the EW Link but to support the Doncaster Rail Link (but down the Eastern Freeway not through Balwyn and Kew.) (See YCAT and RPPG websites at http://www.ycat.org.au and www.royalparkprotect.org.au )

On Saturday morning last the Hon. Terry Mulder MLA, Minister for Public Transport and Roads, was interviewed on 3AW about the EW Link. While this and rail projects were discussed at length, no mention was made of the Doncaster Rail Link. Hence it seems that the EW Link will get priority.

“Return to Royal Park” Project with Demolition of Old Royal Children’s Hospital Buildings

In March/April last consultations were arranged by a “community engagement consultant” hired by the Department of Health and orchestrated by the City of Melbourne who said they were going to ask people “what they wanted” on the 3 hectares of land on the corner of Gatehouse Street and Flemington Road. RPPG and other community organisations recommended for this land being reclaimed under the old RCH buildings an extension of open woodland of Royal Park and plantings, as specified in the Royal Park Master Plan in keeping with indigenous bushland. We said that account must be taken of the location – surrounded by gridlocked traffic - therefore the dense treed barrier in Gatehouse Street must be continued along the street frontages. The question of what people “want” (suggestions given included a maze and sports facilities) appears irrelevant as under the Royal Children’s Hospital (Land) Act 2007 this land, which is to be declared “surplus project land”, will be reserved by an order of the Governor in Council “as a public park to form part of Royal Park.”

PPL VIC and RPPG representatives met Health Minister David Davis on 30 March 2012 to raise our concerns about the above issue plus Stage 2 of the RCH redevelopment including: construction of the hotel; the second car park extension under Royal Park; the operation of the helipad; and the disposal of the mountain of spoil left in Royal Park after excavation for the first car park. In addition it was pointed out to the Minister that there was no community representative on the RCH “Reference Group”. We thank him for appointing our nominee, Kevin Chamberlin, President of the North & West Melbourne Association and past President of PPL VIC, to represent the community on the Reference Group.

Saga of “Doyle’s Dunny” at Entrance of Australian Native Garden, Royal Park

Most RPPG members will know that the Lord Mayor has, most ill advisedly in our view, attempted to fast track installation of a toilet block at the entrance to the Australian Native Garden in Royal Park. In addition to threatening the environment – 5 heritage pepper (peppercorn) trees and mature eucalypts - and being extraordinarily obtrusive (a huge 3 cubicle stainless steel model), this public convenience dubbed “Doyle’s Dunny” is to be constructed in an unsafe location as it is on a mulched garden bed; directly under the massive upper branches of a 100+ year old pepper tree; on the edge of a bike path; and directly in line with the driveway out of the Gardens. In addition, it is regarded as unwise to locate a toilet in an obscured glade of trees as it is an open invitation for “anti social behaviour”.

See http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/toilets-create-bit-of-a-royal-park-stink/
We thank members for the on-line comments on this article (still on display) and for your support over this important issue for Royal Park. We will keep you posted as we are still corresponding with Council!

Coming Events:

RPPG General Meeting Saturday 2 June 2012
Time: 10:30 am. Date: Saturday 2 June 2012
Venue: Walmsley House, corner of Gatehouse St. and Royal Parade Parkville. Enter off Gatehouse St.
Transport: Parking on Gatehouse St. Tram along Royal Parade. Melways 2A B4 All welcome!

Community Planting on World Environment Day Royal Park Sunday 3 June 2012
Time: 1 to 3 pm. Date: Sunday 3 June 2012 - World Environment Day. Great activity for families!
Location: Ross Straw Field, Royal Park. Enter and park off Oak St., West Parkville. Melways 29 C 11.
Activities: Native planting to help create a natural habitat for our native birds and insects (tools provided); bush tucker tasting and an indigenous plant walking trail; a free multicultural afternoon tea; and an interactive animal pen with native reptiles and other animals from “Wild Action”.

Good news! The Federal Budget did not provide funds to Premier Baillieu for the East West Link. Julianne Bell thanks those 16 community groups for supporting PPL VIC and the Royal Park Protection Group for Ian Hundley's and her mission to Canberra on 27 March 2012 to present their submission to Infrastructure Minister Albanese in which they requested the Federal Government NOT fund the EW Link but support public transport projects. Ian Hundley and Julianne briefed staff. Thanks also go to the Greens "for their principled stand against the East West Link and for their advocacy for Doncaster Rail Link."

Article by Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

I. Good News from Federal Parliament Budget - No Funding for EW Link!

See below the message from Adam Bandt, Federal Member for Melbourne, with the good news that the Federal Budget did not provide funds for the East West Link, as requested by Premier Baillieu. We thank Adam and the Greens for their principled stand against the East West Link and for their advocacy for Doncaster Rail Link. We again thank those 16 community groups for supporting PPL VIC and the Royal Park Protection Group for our mission to Canberra on 27 March 2012 to present our submission to Infrastructure Minister Albanese in which we requested the Federal Government NOT fund the EW Link but support public transport projects. Ian Hundley and I briefed staff - the Minister's Chief Advisers on Transport - on the history of the extension of the Eastern Freeway/EW Link and on the public transport needs of greater Melbourne.

II Policy of City of Melbourne Re EW Link

On Tuesday 8 May 2012 at the City of Melbourne (CoM) Future Melbourne Committee meeting the City of Melbourne Transport Strategy was tabled. Under City of Melbourne Transport Strategy 2012 were the headings - Flexible and Adaptable - Private Transport - City Driving Page 52 of the attachment Objectives and Actions - East West Link 28. The text read: "Priority Action: Consider the Government’s proposed East West Link when details are known to make sure that it achieves the City of Melbourne’s transport plan for access to and through the central city hub." In 2008 in response to huge community opposition Council totally opposed the EW Link. It looked as though the Council was fence sitting last night. The Transport Strategy was, however, amended, to include reference to Council's resolution of 2008, which includes: That Council: 1.1. oppose the Eddington East West Road Tunnel and the use or reduction of any parkland and disruption to the community 1.2. oppose the use of parks for any works associated with an East West Road Tunnel...etc (This is only second hand information, please check it.) The City of Melbourne is certainly not going all the way to oppose the EW Link.

Unjustified complaints from Ted Baylieu

Ted Baillieu, the Liberal Premier of Victoria, is already complaining about underfunding for transport. Huge funds have already been given to Victoria by the Federal Government for the Regional Railway Project, however, so it is difficult to see what his problem is here.

III Media

See Age article Wednesday 9 May 2012 "Doncaster Rail Link may lead to more buses."
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/doncaster-rail-study-may-lead-to-more-buses-20120508-1yb0e.html

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

Subject: Congratulations - a blow to Ballieu's East-West toll road.

Dear friends,

I am writing with some good news fresh from the federal budget lock-up.

The Federal Government has heeded our call and refused to fund Ballieu’s dirty and expensive toll road. It’s a great win for our campaign – congratulations!

We know the State Government is ready to start drilling but it’s going to be a lot harder and take a lot longer without federal backing, as Baillieu said himself tonight.

It’s a boost to our campaign to bring smarter and cleaner transport infrastructure to Melbourne.

We know there is a problem with transport in our city but the last thing we need is a private toll road from Hoddle Street right through Fitzroy, Carlton and North Melbourne to the Kensington, Docklands and Footscray area. Whether it’s above or below ground, it will disrupt our communities without relieving the congestion.

Building the Doncaster rail link would go some way to alleviating the congestion coming in from the East and help transform Melbourne into a world-class public transport city. That’s where I want our federal infrastructure dollars being spent and that’s what I’ll continue to campaign for.

We’ve still got a lot of work to do to win this campaign but I wanted to share this great with news as soon as I could.

Looking forward to continuing to work with you to keep Melbourne liveable,

Adam Bandt MP
Tuesday, May 08, 2012 8:10 PM

Adam Bandt MP

Federal Member for Melbourne

Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens

Call for Victorians to write to the Hon. Anthony Albanese, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport at A.Albanese, to oppose funding of the East West Link and to support funding public transport instead, especially the Doncaster Rail Link along the Eastern Freeway.
The Baillieu Government has resurrected Sir Rod Eddington’s discredited road transport project and the Premier now has it as the centerpiece of his recently announced transport plan. The Victorian State Government has asked the Federal Government to provide funds of $30 million for a “review”. This would be the third review in the last 10 years. Victorian citizens, members of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, working free on behalf of the public, and representing 16 democratic groups, traveled to Canberra recently to put the case for public transport. Here is their report. [Headings inserted by cdb editor.]
Also published by Yarra Campaign for Action on Transport

Grassroots Delegation to Canberra

Yesterday representatives of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc (PPL) and the Royal Park Protection Group Inc. travelled to Canberra to put the case to the Federal Government NOT to fund the Baillieu Government’s proposed East West Link (EW Link) but to improve public transport. Sixteen community organisations supported our delegation and our message - “Say Yes to Public Transport – Say No to More Freeways/Tollways”.

Raising the dead - an expensive process

The Baillieu Government has resurrected Sir Rod Eddington’s discredited road transport project and the Premier now has it as the centerpiece of his recently announced transport plan. The Victorian State Government has asked the Federal Government to provide funds of $30 million for a “review”. This would be the third review in the last 10 years. This extension of the Eastern Freeway in a tunnel through the inner city suburbs cannot be justified on economic grounds and would impose colossal environmental costs on Melbourne. It would actually generate additional road congestion at a time when we should be encouraging greater use of public transport.

Message delivered personally to Federal Minister Albanese

Julianne Bell, PPL Secretary, who attended the meeting at Parliament House Canberra yesterday with Federal Infrastructure Minister Albanese’s staff on the proposed EW Link commented:

“We were anxious to ensure that Minister Albanese is made aware that the EW Link project is not economically viable. I quoted Kenneth Davidson, a regular contributor on economics to the Age and co-editor of ‘Dissent’, who said in his article of 27 November 2011 entitled ‘Why the east-west road tunnel is a stinker’ that ‘the benefit-cost ratio is 0.5, according to the traditional measure, and 0.7, according to Eddington’. We pointed out that, if constructed according to the Eddington Plan, the EW Link would destroy heritage streetscapes and residential amenity of inner Melbourne suburbs, in addition to causing widespread traffic chaos. Plus it would devastate major parks namely Royal, Holland and Travancore Parks along its route.”

Public transport the only sensible priorty

Ian Hundley a PPL representative and a member of the Hoddle Street Transport Study (now suspended) said:

“I raised the point at the Canberra meeting that we actively support extension of rail services to Doncaster, which is currently being studied by the Baillieu Government. This project would be potentially jeopardised by any decision to fund the EW Link road tunnel. The future viability of Melbourne depends upon getting people out of cars onto public transport. This is what a Doncaster Rail Link would do, as would a rail service to Melbourne airport.”

Public funds are already dedicated

PPL members learned from Minister Albanese’s staff that the Commonwealth infrastructure fund for “Nation Building” has been fully committed for the period up until 2013-14. If the Victorian State Government’s East-West Link is to be funded during this period, “money would have to be found elsewhere”.

It is our view that the Commonwealth Government should only fund projects which provide sustainable transport and protect and preserve the built and natural environment.

We are calling on PPL members and the general public to write to the Hon. Anthony Albanese, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport at [email protected] Please send a submission or even a simple message opposing funding of the EW Link and supporting funding of public transport, especially the Doncaster Rail Link along the Eastern Freeway.

Media Contact:
Julianne Bell Secretary Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. Mobile 0408022408
Source: Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC), Media release 28 March 2012.

The guest speaker at the AGM will be Kelvin Thomson, Federal Member of Parliament for Wills and advocate of sustainable population. He will speak on: "A bigger Melbourne is not a better Melbourne”. All are very welcome to the meeting.

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc (PPL VIC) Annual General Meeting Saturday 28 January 2012 Flemington Community Centre

Here are the arrangements:

Time: 1:45 pm for a 2 pm start

Date: Saturday 28 January 2012

Event: PPL VIC AGM 2011. (It had to be deferred from 2011)

Venue: Flemington Community Centre, Debneys Park, Mt Alexander Road, Flemington.

Transport: Parking is available at the Centre. There is a tram along Mt Alexander Road. (Note, however, that you will have to get off the tram at Stop 22 before the Centre OR at tramstop 25 further up the road beyond the Centre, as there are works in progress on a supertram stop outside the Centre.) There is a nearby train station and cycle trail along the Moonee Ponds Creek which comes out at Mt Alexander Road under the 'Sound Tube" connection with CitiLink. Melways Map Reference: 29 12 A .

Speaker: Kelvin Thomson, Federal Member of Parliament for Wills and advocate of sustainable population. He will speak on: "A bigger Melbourne is not a better Melbourne”. All are very welcome to the meeting.

Topics for Discussion: In addition to the overpopulation crisis, we can discuss of the looming threat of revived State Governmet plans for the East West Link and other sections of the freeway network plus the need to advocate for public transport improvements, in particular railways.

Nomination of PPL VIC Committee: Attached please find a nomination form for the Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. committee positions. Note we are required to circulate the form under incorporation regulations before the meeting. Please return via email or send a hard copy to our post office address (see below)

Please Circulate this notice to members of your group (if you have one) plus anyone interested in the key issues of the day which are to be discussed at the meeting.

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

Mobile: 0408022408

This threat to clearfell half of Melbourne's street and park trees because they are supposedly "nearing the end of their lives" is an unprecedented threat to Melbourne's heritage. I regard the threat to Melbourne's trees as one of greatest threats to Melbourne and its livability. Plus the revival of the East West Link tollway-in-a-tunnel through the inner suburbs and parks. Can you imagine what this tree clearance of elms and plane trees will do to tourism? And what about living conditions in the city - the "heat island effect" will be extraordinary if half the city's trees are to be removed. Just as they are looking fantastic with recent good rainfall! - Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria

Julianne Bell (of Protectors of Public Lands Inc.) writes:

I appeared at the Future Melbourne Committee on Tuesday last and spoke on the agenda item on the Draft Urban Forest Policy. I was the only person to speak and PPL VIC the only group apparently to make a submission.

This threat to clearfell half of Melbourne's street and park trees because they are supposedly "nearing the end of their lives" is an unprecedented threat to Melbourne's heritage. See my submission below. Also the Herald Sun report of 5 November 2011 with comments from the Lord Mayor in case you think I am making this up.

"Stately elms going in city tree change"

I did not make a submission on the Committee of Melbourne's (CoM's) Open Space Strategy which was raised the same night but am following this up. I would not have been allowed to speak anyway as there were hundreds of residents there to hear the result of resolutions regarding a review of the CoM's electoral system and Occupy Melbourne protests.

Note that there are supposed to be "consultations" on the "Draft Urban Forest Policy" and the "Draft Open Space Strategy."

I regard the threat to Melbourne's trees as one of greatest threats to Melbourne and its livability. Plus the revival of the East West Link tollway-in-a-tunnel through the inner suburbs and parks. Can you imagine what this tree clearance of elms and plane trees will do to tourism? And what about living conditions in the city - the "heat island effect" will be extraordinary if half the city's trees are to be removed. Just as they are looking fantastic with recent good rainfall!

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc (PPL VIC)
The Chair
Future Melbourne Committee
Town Hall,
Melbourne 3000

8 November 2011

Dear Chairperson

Submission on Item 5.3 Draft Urban Forest Strategy

I am speaking for Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC) in commenting on this draft strategy.

I wish to make the following points:

Our organisation applauds the objectives expressed in the document of the Draft Urban Forest policy. The trendy name tends to conceal the fact that we are dealing mostly with street trees.

We recognise that the drought has impacted badly on Melbourne’s trees and that it was the intransigence of the Bracks Government for refusing to assist the City of Melbourne to drought proof the trees by, for instance, building a sewer mining project in Princes Park which would have supplied water to Melbourne’s parks and street trees.

We are alarmed, however about suggestions that there will be a wholesale felling of trees classified as “nearing the end of their lives.” In particular we are concerned over the fate of avenues

Staff of the City of Melbourne appear to have a purist view about removal of avenues of trees and maintain that the entire avenue should be removed rather than attempting removal of failing trees and interstitial planting of the gaps. At a recent hearing on the World Heritage Management Plan of the Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens held by Heritage Victoria, the spokesperson for the CoM suggested that as the Plane Tree avenue in the Carlton Gardens was nearly the end of its life then the whole avenue should be removed. Our arborist who gave evidence, was of the opinion it was the finest avenue of plane trees in Victoria: that the trees are healthy; and that they have another 20 years or so lifespan.

Several years ago we had the unfortunate example of the avenue of Camperdown elms - 550 elms in the main street – which a Committee of representatives including Heritage Victoria and Friends of the Elms, with I believe the support of the City of Melbourne arborist, recommended the whole avenue be felled. The Corangamite Shire Council accepted the recommendations of our consultant arborist that the few gaps be filled by interstitial plantings. Consequently a moratorium has been placed on the destruction of the elm avenue and elm avenues in side streets. They have adopted a policy of interstitial planting in any gaps. between trees.

We would request that the City of Melbourne identify exactly what trees you are proposing to remove and what species you are proposing to plant in their stead. Additionally with regard to avenues we would like explanations as to why healthy trees cannot be saved and replacement trees of the same species planted in the gaps. (We realise that there may be problems with this approach in St Kilda Road.)

I have heard that Council has a questionnaire on the Draft Urban Forest policy. I can’t locate it on the website.

Signed Julianne Bell Secretary PPL VIC Mobile: 0408022408

Article adapted for candobetter.net from emails and announcements by
Julianne Bell
Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 3052

Mobile: 0408022408

Overspending Brimbank City Council is trying to sell off 14 - yes, fourteen- parks and open space against the reasonable objections of Brimbank Residents, who they are supposed to serve. Have you ever heard the like? How dare they? If other Victorian fail to stand up to support the residents of Brimbank on this, such processes could be normalised - and we will all be living in a concrete wasteland, not just Brimbank residents. For some history of Brimbank profligacy and corruption, see ""Local Government Corruption & Brimbank: focus too narrow says Marilyn Canet" See also www.protectorsofpubliclandsvic.com.

Yet another issue of democracy and environment in Melbourne

"In June Brimbank residents heard of plans to sell "surplus land" i.e. 14 parks/open space by the cash strapped Brimbank City Council (now administered by "Administrators" since the Brumby Government sacked the Councillors.) Since then residents have conducted a great campaign to oppose sale of their parks," writes Julianne Bell, of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria (PPL VIC).

"We urge you to support residents of the Western suburbs to help save their parks. PPL VIC members will remember the appalling plan advanced by Corangamite Shire Council several years ago to fell the avenue of 100 year old 550 elms along the main street of Camperdown (plus elm avenues in surrounding streets.) . The CEO at the time was a Mr. Paul Younis. Mr. Younis is now the "general manager for infrastructure and environment" in Brimbank advocating the sale of parks. Need we say more!"

Which public spaces and natural areas are threatened?

The proposed sale of “Surplus Land” under Section 189 Local Government Act 1989, involves the following open spaces and parks across the municipality, particularly the 14 sites at:

• Trickey Avenue, Sydenham
• Kealba Pre-School, Kealba
• 16A Cobb junction, Sydenham
• 3A Lewis Court, West Sunshine
• 8 Vasa Place, Keilor Lodge
• 66-77 Nordic Avenue, Keilor Lodge
• Stevenage Crescent, Deer Park
• 7A Patterson Avenue, Keilor
• Ulmara Place, Keilor Downs
• 2 Zagreb Court, Keilor Downs
• 147 Alfreida Street, St Albans
• 10-12 Marchant Crescent, West Sunshine
• McCourbrie Avenue, West Sunshine
• Cohuna Court, Taylors Lakes

What these sales will cost the community if they go ahead

These properties are publicly owned open spaces which are well utilised by local residents who enjoy the open space/parks for “passive” recreational purposes and socialising. The parks provide safe recreation areas for residents including children and the elderly. There is an epidemic of childhood obesity in Victoria – one third of children are overweight or obese. It is discriminating against the children of the Western suburbs to remove their accessible neighbourhood play areas. The sale and “development” of park land will mean high density housing (units) which will over-shadow and overlook established neighbours. Elderly people need natural spaces too, to maintain health and to socialise. Sale and "development' of such areas will lead to over parking of local streets and an increase in local traffic. This will mean a general decline in residential amenity. Given the rapid increase in population in the Western suburbs, Commissioners should be significantly increasing areas of parkland in the municipality not selling it off. Increasing population density and activities where parkland once was will cause additional stress on already over the already strained local infrastructure and services.

Residents have made passionate statements in defense of these parks, some of which have been reported in the mainstream press, here and here.

What you can do to stop this public land-grab

Write to Mr Peter Lewinsky
Chair, Panel of Administrators
City of Brimbank
PO Box 70
Sunshine 3020
Email: PeterLE [AT] brimbank.vic.gov.au

Tell him what you think. Use this article to help you form your comments.

Please also send a copy to us (by, for example, posting a comment to this article) and to Protectors of public Lands (Victoria) Inc by e-mailing jbell5 [AT] bigpond.com .

Boroondara Council has proposed development of 48 “Neighbourhood Activity Centres” (NAC’s) over, on and around strip shopping centres or villages throughout the municipality of Boroondara. This is a fatally flawed policy having been developed before the last election and is based on the Brumby Government’s Housing Capacity Strategy under which each metropolitan Council was given a target population figure to accommodate. The new Coalition Government has renounced this policy and has scrapped the Brumby blueprints - Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne @ 5 million. Boroondara Council is proceeding regardless.

High-rise Enterprise corridors

Our organisation joined Planning Backlash and Boroondara Residents’ Action Group plus 18 local community groups to save our strip shopping centres from proposed density of 3 to 7 storey developments; to protect surrounding residential areas from development “creep”; to protect heritage buildings from inappropriate development; to protect suburbs from high rise “Enterprise Corridors”; and to guard against traffic congestion. At a meeting of the Council’s Urban Planning Special Committee on 21 March 2011, attended by over 150 residents, 40 speakers spelt out concerns to Councillors with only 4 giving support to the NAC Grand Plan.

Carpark connundrum

PPL VIC has become increasingly alarmed over the fact that, in 10 of the proposed NAC’s, public car parks are shown on plans as designated development zones with buildings of 3 to 4 storeys. Shopping Centres which stand to lose public car parks are: Ashwood, Ashburton, Burwood Village, Hartwell, Middle Camberwell, Canterbury Village, Glenferrie Hill, Maling Road Village, Upper Glen Iris and East Camberwell.

"Suspect rationale"

Julianne Bell PPL VIC Secretary commented,

"The suspect rationale for dispensing with large public car parks appears to be that the NAC is modelled on a village and that people - according the Council strategic planners - are to be encouraged to walk to shops. While this might have been good enough for folks in pre-war suburban Melbourne, it hardly fits modern life. It is evident that to traders loss of car parking means loss of customers and clients; it will undermine families who rely on cars for mobility e.g. doing shopping on the way to and from work and taking children to school; and will disadvantage the elderly and disabled. Boroondara Mayor Nicholas Tragas said on 4 April 2011 that he ‘does not support the sale of public carparks for the construction of Residential/Commercial /Office Buildings’. But will other Councillors agree with him and how will they vote on the total package of the implementation of Neighbourhood Activity Centres?”

This looks familiar

Rod Binnington, PPL VIC Committee member, said,

“It appears to me, after having attended several ‘information’ sessions run by the Bayside Council, that plans for implementing Neigbourhood Activity Centres on Bayside strip shopping precincts have a great deal in common with City of Boroondara. It seems that they both follow an economic model of village life as propounded by planning guru Mr Marcus Spiller of SGS Economics & Planning Pty Ltd. (His company was said to have been commissioned by the Brumby Government to draw up plans to accommodate Melbourne’s population boom.) Even the Bayside plans for disposal of carparks are similar to those of Boroondara. At a Bayside Council ‘walk and talk’ session regarding proposed NAC sites on 10 April 2011, Ms Roz Hansen, a noted planner who led the tour, commented: ‘Car-parks are a development opportunity’. In my view, Bayside traders should be alert and alarmed over NAC plans in their suburbs.”

Residents, traders, urged to attend next urban Planning Special meeting

Boroondara community groups are urging residents and traders to attend the next Urban Planning Special Committee meeting at 8 pm on Monday 30 May 2011 at Council Chambers in the old Camberwell Town Hall where Councillors will vote on the Draft Activity Centres Strategy.

Source: Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC), Media Release 20 April 2011
Contacts:

Julianne Bell Secretary PPL VIC Mobile: 0408 022408, jbell5[at]bigpond.com

Rod Binnington PPL VIC Mobile: 0403 750303 TruePlanning[at]gmail.com

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.:

General Meeting on "Population Growth and Car Usage in Melbourne"
Saturday 22 May 2010

Members and friends welcome.

Ever wondered why you are increasingly being trapped in traffic jams and gridlock on Melbourne's roads? Ever wondered whether construction of monster freeways/tunnels will alleviate the problems ? Then come to hear our speakers and ask questions.We really need your support in holding a public meeting on this important topic.

Time: 1:45 pm for 2 pm start.

Date: Saturday 22 May 2010

Venue: City of Melbourne Bowling Club, Flagstaff Gardens, Corner of Dudley and William Streets, West Melbourne. (Opposite the Queen Victoria Market Car park)

Transport: Tram - William, Peel or Victoria Streets and get off at the Queen Victoria Market. Parking in Queen Vic Market metered car park opposite or on street parking in the neighbourhood. (Melways 2 F A2)

Speakers:

Dr Ernest Healy, Research Fellow of the Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University will speak on

"Population Growth and Car Usage in Melbourne."

We will follow up with short reports from PPL VIC representatives on advisory committees on freeway/tunnel road projects planned for Melbourne. I [Julianne Bell] am on the Community Reference Group for WestLink and Ian Hundley for the Hoddle Street Development. We are committed to getting feedback from the community to take back to the Community Reference Groups so would like comments about your concerns, either by email or at the meeting.

Note that in the Victorian Transport Plan (December 2008) the rationale given for construction of these major projects is to cope with unprecedented population growth.

A number of people have criticised PPL VIC for appointing representatives to these committees. We are of the view that it is essential to find out what's happening. If need be we can withdraw at any stage in the proceedings or write a dissenting report at the conclusion of the projects.

Afternoon Tea: All are welcome at the meeting. Stay to afternoon tea.

Contact:

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

Email:jbell5[AT]bigpond.com

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

The Victorian Government is turning Melbourne into a junior version of Los Angeles without a proper cost-benefit analysis. Photo: Jason South

Before the 2002 state election I was asked to chair a meeting of Banyule citizens who had good reason to believe the Bracks government was planning to build a freeway connecting the Metropolitan Ring Road to what is now EastLink.

The Heidelberg Town Hall was full. The audience was sufficiently large and threatening that the then transport minister, Peter Batchelor, and local ALP state member Craig Langdon each promised that it wouldn't happen. From the platform, I saw the tension go out of the audience.

How easy it is to gull the electorate. The freeway was on the VicRoads agenda even before the first stage of the ring road was built. It was classic salami tactics - one slice at a time.

In parliament in 2001 Batchelor was even less circumspect. Hansard records he said: "It is not on our radar ... there is no truth in the suggestion. It is a tragic and sleazy attempt by a conspiracy of the deluded to try and frighten people living and working in this area. I need to set the record straight once and for all, and these people will have no basis for making the suggestions in the future."

Of course, Batchelor knew that by the time the plan was public, he in all probability would be responsible for a different portfolio (he is) and Langdon would know he would be on the point of retirement (he is).

Now VicRoads is seeking $15 million for a feasibility study for the road Batchelor swore wasn't even on the government's radar. On the other side of Melbourne, the government wants to fast-track Westlink, a road tunnel linking the Port of Melbourne with West Footscray and, ultimately, the Western Ring Road in Sunshine West. As usual, the further incremental transformation of Melbourne into a junior version of Los Angeles is being undertaken without a proper cost-benefit analysis to see whether there are cheaper, better public transport alternatives or a public environmental impact study. They aren't even on the radar.

And why should they be? Last October the Parliament passed the Orwellian Major Projects Facilitation Bill. The president of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, Brian Walters, SC, said the legislation was designed to bulldoze freeways through residents' rights.

Once a project is "declared", it can be sped up and the community will have no rights of objection.

According to Walters, the hastening of big projects of developers, at the expense of the community and good planning, appears to be legislation for millionaire mates rather than the good government of Victoria.

The Brumby government appears most sleazy when it attempts to justify the handover of public land that morally belongs to the most disadvantaged groups in the community.

The government justified the sell-off of 3.5 hectares of Carlton public housing land to a developer by claiming it was essential for the social integration of public housing tenants into the broader community. Rubbish. The plans show the private development will be in the form of two gated communities, secured against public tenants by a 2.5-metre wall.

According to the Carlton Residents Association newsletter: "The much-heralded Public Housing Estates redevelopment is mostly about private housing for sale into the buoyant Carlton real estate market for private profit, and very little about desperately needed public and affordable housing. Despite 40,000 people waiting for public housing, there will be no net increase in public tenant numbers on the Carlton Estates following the $200 million development."

The redevelopment of the 27-hectare Kew Cottages site that displaced 400 intellectually disabled residents was justified on the grounds that they should be reintegrated into the community - a bogus argument that ignores the evidence that most prefer to be integrated with their peers rather than the general community who, in the main, reject them.

It was also a cruel argument because it ignored the needs of some 4000 disabled on the waiting list for institutional care and their increasingly desperate, ageing carers. Building more cluster housing on the Kew site offered the best hope of an increase in institutional care and a serious effort to reduce waiting lists.

Even worse, instead of making money for the government, the development has somehow lost $17 million from building and selling the first 55 up-market homes on one of the most valuable sites in Melbourne.

The Kew Cottages Coalition of parents and concerned citizens want the development stopped immediately, at least until the Ombudsman's inquiry into the fiasco is completed and its results published, hopefully before the election.

But this coalition is a tiny organisation with just a small bank deposit. It is up against powerful Sydney developer the Walker Corporation, which employs former Labor senator Graham Richardson as its government lobbyist. Between 1999 and 2007, the Walker Corporation donated $205,000 to the state ALP, $300,000 to the federal ALP and $300,000 to the Coalition parties. In Victoria, money talks.

Kenneth Davidson (kdavidson [AT] dissent.com.au) is a senior columnist for The Age newspaper and, with Lesley Vick, one of the two co-editors of Dissent Magazine. (see, also, below). Article originally published as "Projects built at expense of community" in the Melbourne Age of 15 Feb 10.

kdavidson [AT] dissent.com.au

What you can do:

Attend the "Transport for Sustainable Cities" forum
3.00-4.30pm, Thu 18 February at BMW Edge, Federation Square, Melbourne (off Flinders St).
Speakers:Professor Ross Garnaut, eminent economist, The Hon Greg Hunt MP, Federal Shadow Minister for Climate Action, and Kelvin Thomson MP, Federal Member for Wills

This is part of the Sustainable Living Festival (SLF) from 15-21 February 2010 which is well worth attending as there are many sites and events of interest. Visit the stall of Sustainable Population Australia - a PPL VIC member. It will be near the "Think Area". Collect a sticker with the message "Say No to Melbourne @ 5 Million". Contact is Jill Quirk Mobile 0409742927. The full festival program can be viewed on www.festival.slf.org.au.

(Thanks to Julianne Bell (ph 0408 022408) of Protectors of Public Lands (PPL) for providing this notice.)

In the current edition (No. 31, Summer 2009/2010) of Dissent magazine

Editorial: The National Water Initiative is based on the lie that water use efficiencies and water licence buybacks can save the Murray-Darling-Goulburn basin which supports the production of 22% of Australia's GDP. In fact state and federal governments' real aims are to create a water market fit for privatisation rather than focusing on security of supply at the lowest possible cost to users and the environment. Clinton Fernandes questions the John Howard version of Australia's role in bringing about East Timor's independence in 1999. Howard's view is used as the basis for Paul Kelly's interpretation of events in his latest book The March of Patriots.1 Trevor Cobbold describes how the Rudd Government is undermining public education by subjecting schooling to the market forces of competition, choice and privatisation, even though, thanks to the GFC, markets are under question now as never before. Joanne Knight applies a human rights framework as a counterweight to neoliberal market amorality which is frustrating the right to adequate housing for households whose low incomes exclude them from the market. Dirk Baltzly reviews Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice. Sen advocates a historical and comparative approach to political philosophy to discover which system offers more justice, as compared to John Rawls' A Theory of Justice which offers a thought experiment that would reveal an ideal system of justice to which society should aspire. John M. Legge reviews Simon Jenkins' Thatcher & Sons: a revolution in three acts to show that Thatcherism was built around a false view of human motivation that voters are driven entirely by self-interest. This was used to coerce people into acting like greedy automatons of economic theory but Blair went further when he trashed the conventions of cabinet government, the separation of powers and the independence of the civil service. Jeff Richardson dissects the three myths which underpin the powerful private health lobby, namely that private health insurance is a major factor in financing total national health expenditure, that a health crisis is looming because of the ageing population and that public hospital queues are evidence of inefficiency in the public system. Margaret Swieringa points out the hypocrisy of Australia's complaints to the Chinese about their incarceration of Australian citizen Stern Hu on national security grounds without due process when the Rudd Government has made no effort to revoke similar laws passed by the previous government to counter perceived terrorist threats. Melody Kemp discusses the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation's role in planning the development of a dam in Western Nepal. The growing local opposition to the project on social and environmental grounds looks likely to cause the Asian Development Bank to withdraw funding support for the project. Stanley Schaetzel looks at human development through the prism of the history of science and finds that despite the unprecedented expansion of scientific knowledge in the last half of the 20th century the period has been characterised by growth in uncertainty because the new knowledge has generated more questions than answers. Julia Thornton argues that if ordinary people are to deal positively with climate change they must be given a picture of a sustainable future with a detailed path to it and not be depressed into inaction. Dianne Proctor looks at the connected issues of sustainability and population growth from the perspective of her life time involvement in NGOs dealing with family planning and women's health and reproduction. One of the biggest barriers to a sustainable population is organised religion while the best solution involves investment in reproductive health and the education of women and girls as a development priority.

NOTE FOR EDITORS AND PRODUCERS: For permission to reprint articles, or for interviews, contact Kenneth Davidson or Lesley Vick on tel/fax 03 9347 7839 or email dissentmagazine [ AT ] dissent.com.au . D!SSENT is published 3 times a year, is available on subscription and is on sale nationally at newsagents and major bookshops.

Footnotes

1. ↑ See also 'Interview' with Paul Kelly yet more free ABC advertising for Rupert Murdoch of 21 Sep 09.

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

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

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

Julianne Bell, of Protectors of Public Lands writes:

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

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

Why you should make yet another submission

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

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

The Government is seeking public feedback on the following proposals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Dave the Developer" at the Restore Residents' Rights protest rally, June 10, Photo: Progress Leader

Development Assessment Committees' Legislation Stopped In Upper House

Ed. The following story is adapted from the MRRA Macedon Ranges' Residents Association site: It describes a really important battle in the ongoing war for democracy in Victoria which will probably be reported on in other articles at candobetter.

Where to from here?

'Where to from here' depends on whether government finds a way around needing parliament's consent to change the law

The day after the "Restore Residents Rights" rally at parliament house on June 10, which was attended by 600 [1] people, Victoria's upper house rejected changes to the Planning and Environment Act that would have introduced Development Assessment Committees [DACs] to the State.

Initially proposed for a limited number of metropolitan areas, the government's aim is to have this system of decision-making apply more broadly. The DAC system takes planning powers off Councils and hands them to majority government-appointed committees which then make planning decisions in Council's place, while Councils and community carry the financial costs of having DACs make the decisions for them.

Lack of transparency key concern for democracy

Key concerns with DACs include a lack of clarity about accountability and transparency mechanisms, the breach of fundamental democratic principles and the community's right to know, and the potential for planning decisions to be driven by party politics, and implementing specific development agendas without any obvious ability by the community to express their views to the decision-makers.

In their present proposed form, DACs are vulnerable to being 'stacked' politically, while cutting off Councils and communities from decisions that affect them. Another concern is the inadequacy of the current planning system to produce outcomes that the community, as opposed to the developer, wants.

DAC Ideology

The whole DACs ideology captures and builds on a belief held at governmental level that all it takes to make a "good" planning decision is some 'tick boxes' and for applicants and decision-makers to settle it between themselves - no such thing as "no", just "whatever it takes". You get to know about it when it happens. So much for community ownership of decisions that affect the community! And they wonder why we are all getting peed off!

As "Dave The Developer" said at the RRR rally, this a fantastic government - when us developers go in with 12 storeys in a 5 storey area, all they say is, is 12 enough?!!

Chris Gaffney played the part of Dave the Developer and put on a great comedy act. The whole show was the idea of the Darebin Appropriate Development Association and they had working bees to make the little houses and garden that were knocked over by the Bobcat. In the photo you see the splendid high rise blocks called Brumby Towers and Villa de Maddening that rose in their place.

[1] A reestimation based on the known number of people carrying balloons (300) plus the number of people not carrying balloons, puts the total around 600 people, which is huge for the sprawling, socially disorganised and transport-disconnected city of Melbourne, where, although population is growing, democracy and communication are shrinking.

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

CTAG Rally 26/10/2008 “Sustainable Public Transport - No Road Tunnels or Freeways” From a photo by Cory Baudman

Melbourne Campaign Opposing Road Tunnels

The frenetic pace of events held since mid September concerning Melbourne’s Transport system indicates community support for improved public transport and opposition to new freeways/road tunnels. Events include:

Wednesday 24 September:

State wide Freight Conference attended by Royal Park Protection Group (RPPG) and Protectors of Public Lands Victoria (PPLVIC) representatives at which RPPG asked a question of Victorian Minister Tim Pallas re the wisdom of spending $9 billion on road tunnels instead of rail freight.

Zoo animals' conditions compromised for sporting events, now threatened by tunnels

Wednesday 5 November 2008: RPPG Representatives Met Melbourne Zoo Director:

Julianne Bell and Dr Barry Clark met Dr Jenny Grey, Director of Melbourne Zoo, to warn of the threat to the Zoo animals if the proposals to construct a tunnel next to the Zoo in Royal Park proceed as planned in the Eddington Review and to request that she make representations to her Minister. Barry also raised our continuing concern about the adverse impact on Zoo animals of the effects of light at night. Two thirds of the Zoo is illuminated at night by light spill from the State Netball and Hockey Centre hockey fields light towers. Bell raised the issue of the new inappropriate supermarket-style carpark at the Zoo’s north entrance. It was opposed and lost by RPPG at VCAT.

Saturday 15 November 2008: Walk Against Warming: Numbers of anti tunnel/pro public transport campaigners took part in the Annual Walk against Warming, a protest against climate change and need for action. YCAT and RPPG attended with “No Tunnels" banners and placards. It was disappointing that we were not warned that the Myers Christmas parade had blocked off most of the city and many did not get to the event.

Tuesday 18 November 2008: Meet the Candidates for Melbourne Council Election: The North and West Melbourne Association held a meet the candidates’ forum which gave us the opportunity to quiz them on their position re Eddington’s road tunnels. All except Robert Doyle’s team were unequivocally opposed to the tunnel. In view of the fact that Lord Mayor John So sacked virtually all the Parks and Gardens staff as a cost saving measure, I asked would candidates guarantee that proper staffing levels be restored to save our parks?

Final Battle Looms in War over Road Tunnels and Freeways through Melbourne

Royal Park Protection Group Inc. (RPPG) has joined other disaffected community groups to form CTAG - the Coalition of Transport Action Groups. These include (in addition to RPPG): Brimbank Transport Action Group, Flemington Association, Frankston Bypass Group, Kensington Association, No Freeways 4 West Footscray, South Morang Rail Alliance, Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association and Yarra Campaign against the Tunnel (YCAT). Meeting regularly at Trades Hall, they are coordinating action against Eddington’s road tunnels and freeways/tollways and are demanding sustainable public transport.

Their first action was to organise a rally held under The Clocks at Flinders Street Station on Sunday 26 October 2008 with the theme "Sustainable Public Transport – No more Road Tunnels or Freeways”. The rally was a great success with more than 600 attending. Among a great diversity of participants were many young people. TV coverage was good.

Daniel Bowen, President of the PTUA, was an impressive keynote speaker. He told how Victoria’s public transport system urgently needs reform and more funding.

Julianne Bell spoke for RPPG and read out messages of support from about 25 groups from Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (See YCAT website for reports and photos.)

After the ralley CTAG met and reviewed objectives. The following “pledge” was renewed:

“That this meeting reaffirms that CTAG supports sustainable, equitable and accessible public transport and remains opposed to the proposals under the Eddington Report for construction of road tunnels and elevated tollways in Melbourne. Additionally, we consider that there should be no negotiations entered into with the State or Federal Governments over the Eddington project.”

Premier Brumby says he will unveil the Melbourne Transport Plan in mid December 2008 (it was to be November.)

Incredibly, in the face of community opposition and despite the financial downturn and uncertainty of federal funding, the State Government may press ahead with the Eddington tunnel projects.

Quotable Quote:

Mr Peter Mc Mullin, a Lord Mayoral candidate in the Melbourne Council election, when answering a Herald Sun online question as to whether he opposed The Tunnel said :… “if the state government's response to the Eddington Report is to accept the recommendation regarding the tunnel, I will vigorously protect JJ Holland Park from being a staging ground or exit point. Parks like JJ Holland Park are an indispensable community asset and must be protected at all costs. If there has to be an exit in that area, I would advocate for it to be via Paddy's Brickworks in Kensington Rd.” This is all news to “Paddy” who doesn’t know that a tunnel might be coming through his brickworks! Watch our lips Mr Mc Mullin and Council candidates - NO TUNNELS!

Royal Park Protection Group Inc.

Media release, 24 October 2008

Opposition to proposals in Sir Rod Eddington's Transport Review to construct road tunnels through inner Melbourne and elevated roadways through the western suburbs has been steadily mounting over the past three months. On Sunday next community groups from across Melbourne, who have joined forces as the Coalition of Transport Action Groups (CTAG), will rally at 12 noon under the clocks at Flinders Street Railway Station to demand "sustainable public transport – no new road tunnels or freeways". The anger growing in Collingwood and Clifton Hill plus West Parkville over the possible compulsory acquisition of whole streets of house for tunnel construction has spread to Sunshine and Footscray where it is feared that up to 1,000 houses will be lost if elevated roadways are built. The Royal Park Protection Group has been at the forefront of opposition to the extension of the Eastern Freeway for many years fearing, not just the loss of residential amenity and increased traffic congestion, but the destruction of Royal Park itself with open cut and cover methods of construction. Not only precious open parkland would be lost but these gigantic engineering works would destroy the wetlands, an important source of water for Melbourne, obliterate State sports grounds for 5 to 10 years, impact on the operation of the State Netball and Hockey Centre and badly affect the Melbourne Zoo.

Julianne Bell Convenor of the Royal Park Protection Group commented: "We have obediently attended the so called public consultations - the State Government's Transport Forums, had representatives attend the Premier's Transport Summit and Freight Forum and met with the Minister for Roads. We - together with many inner Melbourne groups - have been vocal in expressing our opposition to the proposed construction of new tunnels and freeways and in expressing our concerns over the failure of the State Government to invest in public transport and rail freight projects. Everyday there is evidence in the news that the public transport system is in a state of collapse. But has the Brumby Government been listening? We think not. Now the PM's Infrastructure Australia Committee will be considering funding these super-size projects. It is hoped that committee members will heed expert opinion which counsels against backing further mega road projects. These include Professor Ross Garneau, Climate Change expert, and Professor Peter Newman of Murdoch University and Infrastructure Australia Committee member, who says that Sir Rod Eddington's proposed $9 billion east-west tunnel should not be built and that it does not provide enough economic benefit to be justified."

The Coalition of Transport Action Groups, including the Royal Park Protection Group, will rally at 12 noon for a 12:15 pm start on Sunday 26 October 2008 under the Clocks at Flinders Street Railway Station, corner of Flinders and Swanston Streets Melbourne. (Note that we are not encouraging people to disrobe as happened at the Pensioners' and Taxi Drivers' Rallies at this location.)

Media contacts: Julianne Bell (Royal Park Protection Group) on 98184114 and 0408022408 & Freda Watkin (Yarra Campaign against the Tunnel) on 0403526342

See also: www.royalparkprotect.org.au, VCAT "Community Forum highlights problems fixes none" of 17 Oct 08.