Justin Madden

The following article takes the Victorian Greens severely to task . We at candobetter.org are very willing to publish a reply from the Greens explaining their failure to move a motion to replace or to vote against VC71.

Labor and Green MPs' condemned on VC 71

This week Protectors of Public Land Victoria and Planning Backlash both condemned Labor and Green members of Parliament for failing to act to remove the infamous Clause 16 of Planning Amendment VC 71.

VC71 clause 16 was to be challenged by the Liberals on 6 October. Greens were approached to support it and many people expected that support to be automatic. The Greens had voted against clause 16 in an earlier form[1] and it had now reappeared without significant changes. Many conservationists and planning activists throughout Melbourne have seen in the Greens some hope of an alternative to population growth and development uber al. They were aghast to realise that the Greens had finished up supporting the Brumby Government's ecologically unsustainable population growth and this crowning horror of Justin Madden's bad development laws.

But there were signs of this earlier. See "Are the Greens a real alternative?".

Mary Drost, of Planning Backlash, wrote that she was "devastated" to have to tell people that, when the partial debate took place on Wednesday night (the 6th):

Greg Barber, Planning Spokesperson for the Greens, talked so long that the time was up and there was no time for a vote, due to Standing Orders of Parliament. Reading his words in Hansard I am still not sure what he was saying. Some are calling it a "Filibuster" (to avoid a vote being taken). Hence it means that VC71 clause 16 was not challenged and remains in force."

"Even worse," Mary continued,

"On Thursday (the 7th) there was a motion that the Upper House return to Parliament next week to vote on deleting the clause from VC71 motion. The Greens voted with Labor against returning to Parliament, saving the Greens the decision whether to vote for deleting Clause 16 of VC71 and upsetting Labor or voting against the motion and upsetting the community. Well we are upset, we feel badly let down. We condemn those members of Parliament - Labor and Green – for allowing Clause 16 of VC71 to remain in force.

So VC71 stays in and is already being used in VCAT to help developers. It is pie in the sky for Greg Barber to say in his lengthy speech that it can still be got rid of in the new parliament.

Of Clause 16, Julianne Bell, of Protectors of Public Land wrote,

"PPL VIC has long campaigned against such high rise urban development along transport routes and also against the extension of the urban growth boundary. The community has not been consulted over VC 71 but it has been imposed on Melburnians by the Brumby Government despite the extraordinary community opposition demonstrated through Melbourne, including several rallies at Parliament. This plan to line public transport routes with multi storey apartments to accommodate the anticipated increase of one and a half million population had its genesis in the blueprint "Transforming Australian Cities" commissioned by the City of Melbourne and the State Government in May 2009. (This plan was said to have been derived from a South American architect who sought to house former shanty town dwellers in high rise/multi storey apartment units along bus routes.)

Atkinson's opening speech to the motion 6 October 2010

Liberal, Bruce Atkinson, despite the party's formal opposition to Clause 16,
summed up his party's spineless endorsement of Labor's laws to mandate land-speculation and profit at the expense of democracy through high density development, in this piffling piece of hairsplitting:

Mr. Bruce Atkinson (Liberal) speaking to the motion in the Upper House on Wednesday last 6 October : "What concerns us about the government's approach in planning amendment VC 71 is not higher density development per se but the fact that this particular provision is indiscriminate. This provision would suggest that higher density development could run along every major railway, every major bus route, every major tramline throughout the metropolitan area and could quite conceivably involve development along these major transport corridors to a level of five, six, eight or nine storeys and for a significant depth, some 400 metres in, from those transport corridors - those bus routes, tramlines or train lines. That is a very significant change to the character of Melbourne and its suburbs."

(...)

"We are not opposed to some of the objectives the government had in arriving initially at its Melbourne 2030 policy — a policy that became discredited in the community and needed to be re-badged as Melbourne @ 5 Million. "

Victorian Greens Greg Barber's hollow words

What did Greg Barber talk about for so long that everyone else ran out of time?

Barber canned both Labor and Liberal for their failure to care for the environment or to provide better policies. All very well, but completely hollow words, for the Greens simply failed to supply an alternative to clause 16. And they all went right along and voted against any further review of Clause 16.

Read the full text at the end of this article, [2] but here is a stirring and clever excerpt which unfortunately led from nowhere to nowhere and round and round and round until all the allocated time was gone:

[Ed. Excerpt reparagraphed for clarity.]

"Ms Mikakos described this proposal by the government as policy neutral, which is a very post-modern Labor way of saying, ‘The document actually does nothing’ — and I
agree.

This document, which appears to update and make changes to the highest level decisions and aims of our planning scheme, does nothing.

We all know with the sorts of environmental, social and economic pressures on our city that doing nothing right now is not really an option. In a way, doing nothing is making a decision.

It allows the invisible hand of the market to have its way, and when you intervene it is usually at the ministerial level, site by site, favour by favour.

Let us have a look at this policy-neutral document in front of us.

If we take Ms Mikakos at her word, it is policy neutral in relation to the supply of urban land, but in fact having just voted on an expansion to the urban growth boundary (UGB), which the Greens opposed, this material anticipates the next extension of the urban growth boundary. It is policy neutral in the sense that we will continue to have the oxymoron known as a growth boundary, which really means sprawl-for-ever.

It is policy neutral in relation to planning for growth areas.

When we debated the UGB and the growth areas infrastructure charge the Greens knew the major issue then was the failure of planning for growth areas, not just in the sense of structure planning but in all the matters that go along with a livable community on a greenfield site.

It is policy neutral — that is to say it does nothing in relation to structure planning, a phrase that first popped up when Melbourne 2030 landed on our city like a group of lost aliens and said, ‘Take us to your leader’, or more importantly, ‘We are in charge now’.

Structure planning was meant to indicate that councils would take control of how development was to occur in activity centres. The amendment is policy neutral in relation to open space, which is to say that the government will continue to chip away at it where it is most needed, where it is already underprovided.

Nothing in this will protect open space, particularly when even what we think of as open space turns out not to be zoned for public purposes. Nothing in this suggests that land used as open space and essential to the community must have an appropriate zoning, let alone the kind of zoning that can just be wiped away in an instant at the stroke of a pen by the minister. That is exactly what happened in relation to the Abbotsford convent until we fought the government back.

The document is policy neutral in relation to activity centre hierarchy because we just do not have one. Sure, we have different forms of activity centres listed in a document, but it does not tell us what will then be the fate of each of those activity centres.

The amendment is policy neutral in relation to employment corridors.

When I asked the minister in hearings with the Growth Areas Authority what the idea of the employment corridors was he could not really explain it to me. Mr Guy is not here and I do not want to verbal him, but I had the same conversation with him. What does it mean?

It says: Develop the following employment corridors: Avalon Airport to Werribee, Melton, Melbourne Airport and Donnybrook (Hume-Mitchell). Who will work there and what will they do? Who said that that will be a great place for a set of industries?

Under this same section transport networks are being provided that will allow circumferential in addition to radial movements. That means that you can be a metalworker living in Werribee and working in Warrandyte and every day on the Western Ring Road you can pass another metalworker who does the opposite and you can wave to each other on the freeway.

The amendment is policy neutral in the sense that the government will just keep on building roads and people will just keep on driving on them. The government will not ask us about how we want the city to develop. We will just follow the cars that have an asphalt truck in front of them.

The document is reasonably policy neutral in relation to central Melbourne because there does not seem to be a vision for central Melbourne. Between the two census periods central Melbourne added 25 000 jobs. Some of the CADs (central activities districts) have only about 25 000 jobs each. If in one census period central Melbourne added the equivalent number of jobs of a CAD, why did that happen? Is that what was intended? What will the government do about it?

Why did the government not buy enough trains to get those people to work?

If the government could not make provision for even those sorts of things, what chance does it have with other CADs in other locations across the landscape?

We absolutely know that the amendment is policy neutral in relation to green wedges because the government has done nothing for green wedges, to protect them and their values, since it has been in power. The green wedges have been there forever. As Mr Atkinson said, the city has always been there and the green wedges have always been there. The government has recognised them in policy occasionally. As with the CADs, the test is what the government did and what this document does to protect and enhance the values of the green wedges. The fact is that they are chipped away every year. "

Such reasonable observations. All talk apparently. The Greens offered up no new motion or recommendation. Perhaps they have some explanation - in which case, we want to hear it and publish it.

Three political parties or one big land-corporation?

All three parties seem to have become completely subservient to the developers and their agenda of growing Victoria (and Australia's) population just in order to promote inflation of their assets and demand for their products. There is much evidence to suggest that the ALP is no longer a real political party but more of a land-development corporation (see articles here), but the absolute lack of real opposition from Greens or Liberals to the way that the Labor government promotes its party's own financial agenda makes observers wonder what the pay-offs are.

The "Greens"

Most activists realise now that they cannot expect any kind of democratic reform from the Liberal or the Labor party. But many still had illusions about the Greens.

Maybe Victorians need to realise that branding - as in calling a party "Green" doesn't make it green. I mean, do you buy a dishwashing detergent just because it comes in a green bottle and calls itself 'environmental'? or do you look at the ingredients? Do you vote for a politician because they are a member of the "Greens" or do you look at the politician's record on ecological fundamentals - population, development and democracy?

Parties and politicians need to be judged by their actions and inactions. All the parties have politicians who are only ever seen or heard around election time, often in a photograph with the party leader, endorsing some motherhood cliche.

Others, more sophisticated, have developed a technique of trailing enticing isolated soundbites on issues of significance - population, development and democracy - but if you look more closely, you see that their parties have policies not unlike those of the State Labor government. For instance, check out the Greens' policies on Land-use planning. Not a word about avoiding population growth. Tim Murray's comments here about 'The Green Contradiction' are very apt, even though he is talking about Canadian Greens.

Truly, we are in dire need of new independent candidates. More activists should step forward and give it a go - outside the parties. Consider forming alliances of community independents.

Victorians urgently need someone else to vote for besides the Greens, Labor and the Liberals, or we are doomed. Let us hope for an outcome at the very least similar to the Federal election outcome, which gave the public for the first time in many decades, the possibility of real choice over policy directions.

Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands writes:

"We consider that candidates standing in the forthcoming elections should be questioned on this issue and asked if they would consider acting to rescind Planning Amendment Clause 16, VC 71. We understand that the Liberal Party has recently advertised in a local paper that "a Coalition Government is committed to scrapping John Brumby's planning law changes." PPL VIC will circulate details of candidates election forums. Please send me details of any in your area for which you would like publicity."

REFERENCES

[1]
On Wednesday October 6th, the Coalition moved a motion to remove clause 16 from Amendment VC71 which Madden had signed 2 weeks earlier. This was a rewrite of the old clause 12 that had been sliced off VC67 earlier in the year, and resurrected in VC71 in the form of clause 16:

Link to the current clause 16 in VC71.

This will give developers an easy road to high density high rise development along tram train and bus routes and in and around all hundreds of Activity Centres. (see below quote from VC71 clause 16) This will allow indiscriminate development all over Melbourne. This will enable developers to win easily in VCAT, residents and councils would be rendered powerless in opposing high rise on transport routes and around Activity Centres, including even Neighbourhood Centres.

[2] Speech by Mr Barber

Hansard: Wednesday, 6 October 2010 COUNCIL PROOF 109 (pp.105-112 includes other speakers)

Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — It is amazing. It has taken four years and I never thought it would happen, but Ms Mikakos and I agree on something in relation to planning. Ms Mikakos described this proposal by the government as policy neutral, which is a very post-modern Labor way of saying, ‘The document actually does nothing’ — and I
agree. This document, which appears to update and make changes to the highest level decisions and aims of our planning scheme, does nothing. We all know with the sorts of environmental, social and economic pressures on our city that doing nothing right now is not really an option. In a way, doing nothing is making a decision. It allows the invisible hand of the market to have its way, and when you intervene it is usually at the
ministerial level, site by site, favour by favour. Let us have a look at this policy-neutral document in front of us. If we take Ms Mikakos at her word, it is policy neutral in relation to the supply of urban land, but in fact having just voted on an expansion to the urban growth boundary (UGB), which the Greens opposed, this material anticipates the next extension of the urban growth boundary. It is policy neutral in the sense that we will continue to have the oxymoron known as a growth boundary, which really means
sprawl-for-ever. It is policy neutral in relation to planning for growth areas. When we debated the UGB and the growth areas infrastructure charge the Greens knew the
major issue then was the failure of planning for growth areas, not just in the sense of structure planning but in all the matters that go along with a livable community on a greenfield site. It is policy neutral — that is to say it does nothing in relation to structure planning, a phrase that first popped up when Melbourne 2030 landed on our city like a group of lost aliens and said, ‘Take us to your leader’, or more importantly, ‘We are in charge now’. Structure planning was meant to indicate that councils would take control of how development was to occur in activity centres. The amendment is policy neutral in relation to open space, which is to say that the government will continue to chip away at it where it is most needed, where it is already underprovided. Nothing in this will protect open space, particularly when even what we think of as open space turns out not to be zoned for public purposes. Nothing in this suggests that land used as open space and essential to the community must have an appropriate zoning, let alone the kind of zoning that can just be wiped away in an instant at the stroke of a pen by the minister. That is exactly what happened in relation to the Abbotsford convent until we fought the government back. The document is policy neutral in relation to activity centre hierarchy because we just do not have one. Sure, we have different forms of activity centres listed in a document, but it does not tell us what will then be the fate of each of those activity centres. The amendment is policy neutral in relation to employment corridors. When I asked the minister in hearings with the Growth Areas Authority what the idea of the employment corridors was he could not really explain it to me. Mr Guy is not here and I do not want to verbal him, but I had the same conversation with him. What does it mean? It says: Develop the following employment corridors: Avalon Airport to Werribee, Melton, Melbourne Airport and Donnybrook (Hume-Mitchell). Who will work there and what will they do? Who said that that will be a great place for a set of industries? Under this same section transport networks are being provided that will allow circumferential in addition to radial movements. That means that you can be a metalworker living in Werribee and working in Warrandyte and every day on the Western Ring Road you can pass another metalworker who does the opposite and you can wave to each other on the freeway. The amendment is policy neutral in the sense that the government will just keep on building roads and people will just keep on driving on them. The government will not ask us about how we want the city to develop. We will just follow the cars that have an asphalt truck in front of them. The document is reasonably policy neutral in relation to central Melbourne because there does not seem to be a vision for central Melbourne. Between the two census periods central Melbourne added 25 000 jobs. Some of the CADs (central activities districts) have only about 25 000 jobs each. If in one census period central Melbourne added the equivalent number of jobs of a CAD, why did that happen? Is that what was intended? What will the government do about it? Why did the government not buy enough trains to get those people to work? If the government could not make provision for even those sorts of things, what chance does it have with other CADs in other locations across the landscape? We absolutely know that the amendment is policy neutral in relation to green wedges because the government has done nothing for green wedges, to protect them and their values, since it has been in power. The green wedges have been there forever. As Mr Atkinson said, the city has always been there and the green wedges have always been there. The government has recognised them in policy occasionally. As with the CADs, the test is what the government did and what this document does to protect and enhance the values of the green wedges. The fact is that they are chipped away every year. Land values, in farming, the landscape and biodiversity, are in decline in the green wedges. The document is certainly policy neutral in relation to wildfire. That in itself is a minor scandal given that members of this place have spent an awfully long time talking about wildfire and the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission and its recommendations. I go back to what the recommendations in relation to planning are so that we can remind ourselves that they are not being implemented, at least not through this exercise. The bushfires royal commission wanted a number of tasks done. In terms of actual strategic planning, these were the specific recommendations: The state amend the Victoria planning provisions relating to bushfire to ensure that the provisions give priority to the protection of human life, adopt a clear objective of substantially restricting development in the areas of highest bushfire risk — giving due consideration to biodiversity conservation — and provide clear guidance for decision-makers. The amendments should take account of the conclusions reached by the commission and do the following: outline the state’s objectives for managing bushfire risk through land use planning in an amended state planning policy for bushfire, as set out in clause 15.07 of the Victoria planning provisions — It is not there in this effort — allow municipal councils to include a minimum lot size for use of land for a dwelling, both with and without a permit, in a schedule to each of the rural living zone, green wedge zone, green wedge A zone, rural conservation zone, farming zone and rural activity zone amend clause 44.06 of the Victoria planning provisions to provide a comprehensive bushfire-prone overlay provision. The commission then goes on to talk about a number of other changing rules for various decision-makers and referral authorities, including the Country Fire Authority. It suggests some considerable changes being made to those, changes that cannot be seen in the document that is being considered here. It is possible that the government is working on this and it will bring forward another document, but there is no alacrity. There must have been some kind of momentum behind this particular document, which is a complete review, if you like, of the overarching state planning policy framework, but it seems to have overtaken the efforts that we are making in relation to bushfire, which I would have thought were urgent. I spoke about that at length in various responses to the bushfires royal commission, and I have spoken about it in relation to particular planning decisions that have been made since February 2009. I do not really need to speak to it much more but simply point out that the government has failed at that particular hurdle. In relation to the continuing chipping away of productive agricultural land, which is a problem at the urban fringe but also in those leapfrog growth areas such as the Macedon Ranges, again there is nothing in the amendment from the point of view of protecting productive agricultural land, which we can expect to shrink over time under the climate change scenario. Members of the coalition are looking very worried. On a matter of procedure I just want to tell people not to despair because there are two possibilities when we come back here in February. One is that the coalition parties are in government and Mr Guy is the planning minister, in which case they can rewrite this amendment however they want. The second possibility is that we are back here and where we started, at which point this amendment is still a disallowable instrument. The capacity to disallow this or any part of it, including the small part that Mr Guy is going after today, will still be disallowable when we get back here in February, and no doubt in our first sitting week in March, because the clock will not have run out on it. There is plenty of time; there is no shortage of time. I know that some members are looking at the clock. There is no shortage of time, firstly, for the coalition to put out an alternative vision to what is here and, secondly, for Mr Guy to become planning minister, if the planets line up. The worst-case scenario is that if the opposition is fair dinkum about what it is saying tonight, it can come back and make the same motion in February, and it will not have run out of time. It is policy neutral in relation to Aboriginal cultural heritage, but of most concern, I would have thought, to people thinking years down the track is the impact on our rural landscape, which has been under pressure ever since this new form of planning scheme has been in place. Having addressed Ms Mikakos’s issues I now want to pick up on what Mr Atkinson, the mover of the motion, said. He said he is worried that this provision is indiscriminate. Everything in the planning scheme is indiscriminate. ‘Nothing’ means ‘nothing’ under this planning scheme, and that is the way the Liberals, when last in government, designed it. That is the way that Labor, for 11 years, has kept it. It loves it. What we are really debating here is a by-law. There is the Planning and Environment Act, and then there is a by-law to the act, which this thing is. However, what we are told is that it is a wonderful form of law because it is performance-based; it is objective-based. The very things that Mr Atkinson is objecting to today, on behalf of Mr Guy, are in fact objectives; that is all they are. They are objectives to be achieved. We would never vote for an objective-based traffic law. Would we come in here and say, ‘We’re passing this new law and there will be some by-laws worked out later by the minister, but effectively what they will say is that the objective of the traffic law is “Don’t kill people”, and here is a table of preferred maximum speeds’. It would be like these preferred maximum heights that the Liberal-Labor coalition is so keen on when it comes to every other aspect, including the Windsor Hotel, which we could have had a crack at if we had had our chance. Preferred maximum speeds are designed to achieve more objectives. As a driver you can consider the different factors at play. There will be a list. There will be decision guidelines underneath that you have to check off. If someone says you are doing the wrong thing, you go to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, spin the wheel of fortune and argue about whether or not you were speeding. At VCAT you can bring in various kind of road consultants, perhaps physicists, mechanical engineers and so forth to prove that on balance — not as a matter of law, but on balance, when all the different parts of the decision-making guidelines are considered — that you were generally compliant with the preferred maximum speed on the Geelong Road. That is an extremely contrasting example, I have to say, but this is an extremely important issue. We are trying to do some really important things here — maybe not as immediately important as road safety, but important for the entire fate of all the people who live in Melbourne. It is sometimes their physical wellbeing, sometimes their access to buildings, if the question is accessibility and sometimes their ability to afford a house, if the question is affordability, which we can come back to when we debate this motion a bit further. It is very much their direct and daily welfare, but it is also our shared welfare. It is our social, economic and environmental future. It includes things such as biodiversity, which we want to pass on to generations to come and which in a way are not really ours to mess with. We might think we are the Parliament, that we are elected and that people gave us the job to make a lot of decisions, but there are certain decisions that I think should be virtually out of bounds because they are for future generations. We might pride ourselves on being in a liberal democracy, but it was a reasonably democratic liberal democracy that sat down and made the very considered decision to kill all the Tasmanian tigers. Unfortunately today’s Tasmanian Parliament does not get to vote them back into existence. When it comes to matters of biodiversity, environment and the future legacy we leave to our children and grandchildren for many generations to come we have to be extraordinarily careful in the way we exercise that power. Mr Atkinson said he was worried about consultation in relation to the way planning schemes were amended, if I understood him correctly. The mechanisms for consultation and having your say under amendments to the planning scheme I would say are fundamentally the same as they always were under the Kennett government that created this architecture. The bigger question, though — and there is no doubt that Mr Atkinson thinks very deeply about these things — is the proper planning of the city. He said it is the major issue. He said the opposition is not opposed to high density. He said it is not opposed to a number of other things as well. Unfortunately over the four years I have been here I have discovered to my cost that the opposition is not opposed to development assessment committees. It was opposed to them for a while. Then it got scared and decided they were all right. The opposition is not opposed to urban sprawl. It is not opposed to the growth areas infrastructure charge. It is not opposed to raking in the same sorts of donations from developers that the government of the day does, but the opposition thinks the donations are a bit cleaner in its hands simply because it is not the government writing these planning schemes at the moment. However, the opposition is writing them because ever since the Greens have been here we have been bringing these matters up for debate, and the opposition was never opposed to Mr Madden’s intervention on the Yarra River down there at Richmond or down there on the bay — — Mr P. Davis — Yes, we were, actually; some of us were opposed to that. Mr BARBER — No, you may have been opposed, but you did not vote that way, Mr Davis. And you were not opposed to Mr Madden’s intervention down there in Williamstown, despite the fact that the entire community, Joan Kirner, Steve Bracks and the local council were all opposed to that intervention.

The Greens were opposed to it too. The coalition and the Labor Party were not. There is a certain point when you need to be opposed to a few things. It is a good start to say what you are against, what you are not for. If you can go on from that, you can start talking about what you are in favour of. I am in favour of all the things the government lists in its table here. That is what planning is for — it is to allow for changing things we want to change and protecting things we want to protect. Unfortunately Ms Mikakos’s policy-neutral document does not give those sorts of things the protection they need, and therefore I am against it. I am against the lack of protection in Ms Mikakos’s planning scheme, inherited from those guys. Mr Atkinson quite rightly pointed out that in established areas we need infrastructure. He was talking about drains and sewers, but there is a lot more to that when you are running an inner city or even middle suburban municipality. It is very important. That is why the Greens support enhanced developer contribution plans, not just out in the greenfield areas where you have the growth areas infrastructure contribution now but also in established areas where the question of infrastructure provision is a lot harder. The densification builds up very quickly. You cannot simply create new open space. You cannot always shoehorn in community infrastructure such as child-care centres; it is very expensive to do so. What you are really doing is site-by-site development. You are supposed to be giving the money to councils so they can provide something for all of the residents, both established and new, but the trigger is new. If you have ever tried to deal with one of these developer contribution plans, you know it is an absolute nightmare. The way it is structured under the planning scheme and under the Planning and Environment Act makes it not worth doing. It is hopeless. Some councils have looked at doing them. I know the City of Darebin did one and it has barely collected any money from it so far. It probably has not even paid back the cost of going through the exercise, which the government forced it to do.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Midday: Anti Desal Plant Rally on steps of parliament, Melbourne. All supporters welcome. After that, go to the Upper House Gallery, Parliament House,and show your support to the Opposition's motion to Overturn Amendment VC71

Anti Desal Plant Rally, Wednesday 6 October, midday until 1.30

Watershed (formerly Your Water, Your Say) – those protesting the now infamous Desal Plant at Wonthaggi, ARE HOLDING A RALLY ON THE STEPS OF PARLIAMENT HOUSE, calling for the very expensive and deeply troubled project to be scrapped. You are enthusiastically invited to support them by being there – after all, its OUR money and OUR future too, not just theirs.

Parliament House – Opposition To Overturn Amendment VC71

Wednesday 6 October (time to be advised but likely afternoon)

Matthew Guy, Shadow Planning, will be moving a motion in the Upper House to get rid of the terrible Amendment VC71 that was approved by Planning Minister Justin Madden last week. VC71 is a terrible amendment and terrible planning which puts Melbourne 2030 across all of Victoria, forcing metro standards on country areas, and makes it obligatory to have high rise and high density across the metro area (these provisions could also be applied in country areas).

Please show your support for getting rid of this horrid amendment by being at Parliament House Upper House gallery if you can. If you haven’t been to parliament before, here’s your chance to see how our democracy works (or not).

Also, please encourage Greg Barber (Greens) greg.barber[at]parliament.vic.gov.au and Peter Kavanagh (DLP) peter.kavanagh[at]parliament.vic.gov.au to support Matthew Guy’s motion by sending a message to both.

Source: Christine Pruneau of Macedon Ranges' Residents Association (MRRA)

Click to go to New article 1 October 2010.
Photos by Jill Quirk added on 21 July. Latest Update 20 July: More Picket News! This will make you angry. In the first project to come under the notorious "Major Transport Facilitation Act," bulldozers move in to nationally significant heritage Westerfield before the Heritage Council Decision comes out. Picket line ongoing, since 5 July. Contacts for the picket site: S Walsh Mobile: 0405 380 312 Also Gillian Collins Pines Protectors 0414 309 960 and Jim Kerin Defenders of the South East Green Wedge Mobile 0409 501 764. Original notice was from Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197, Parkville 3052, Mobile: 0408022408

Update 16 September 2010: Urgent - Reinforcements required now!

THE SITUATION AT WESTERFIELD HAS BECOME DESPERATE. After the picket line holding them at bay all winter, the Heritage Exective Director has signed off the plan for destruction. So this Heritage property will be destroyed when they could take the road another route. Help now needed - an hour or two, to front up to the bulldozers which could arrive at any time.

"After the terrible meeting yesterday, LMA asked for another with the Welsh's today and broke the news that the Heritage Executive Director has signed off on the revised plan leaving a little more of the dam.

The plan they discussed was : 1) the dam would begin to be lowered so the aquatic animals can be rescued, then it would be drained completley.; 2) at the same time, the fence alignment will be cleared; 3) the construction fence constructed in its new location, and 4) the fauna sweep conducted. Carol Bartley of Southern Way said the nesting boxes will be set up 24 hours ahead of the tree removal so the animals can escape - we were speechless.

We believe LMA and Southern Way are in violation of their Incorporation Document, since they are not minimising the damage to Westerfield's. If the Heritage Appeal had not gone through, they would have made no changes at all - they are determined to destroy this magnificent piece of grassy woodland for the sake of the road. We are about to take an action against them.

The good news is that the Trades Hall Council and the CFMEU are supporting us, and they believe with us that no work should proceed until such time as all legal avenues have been exhausted.

To that end, we need every available supporter to join us on the picket starting tomorrow morning. If you were ever going to help us out - now is the time to do it. Give us an hour or give us a day - we do not know what day they are starting, but we have been notified, and "soon" is any moment from now on. Please distribute this call to action to all your networks.

Gillian Collins
Pines Protectors

0414 309 960"

Update 15 September 2010: Organising the picket up to Victorian Election time

Gillian Collins has led a picket on Westerfield for the last 10 weeks. This has been a deliberate and sustained effort to achieve a better outcome from the Government’s merciless push for Peninsula Link. Peninsula and Western Port need a vastly better, sustainable and greener future than the Brumby government plans for them. Many people have made enormous efforts put their considerable resources into different aspects of the same issue, and the efforts to draw the line at Westerfield are among the most remarkable and admirable.

Gillian, the Welsh family, and a couragous and reliable group have picketed seven days a week from early morning until the end of the work day. They have been visited by over 300 individuals and supported by nearly 30 environmental groups across the Peninsula and across Melbourne.

Their efforts have not been in vain: It looks like the road easement across Westerfield is still being negotiated, as there has been no clearing of Westerfield. Minister Pallas may be listening.

The amazing picketers are giving their utmost, but as in any concerted and long-term action in the face of vested interests in government and corporate enterprise, their numbers need constant supplement. The picket line needs a continuing supply of regular, reliable, individuals. They need tangible support and encouragement - both bodies and funding.

The Pines Protectors, a sub-committee of the Frankston North Community Group, Inc., and which Gillian chairs, have organised CMFEU support for the picket and have received help from The Greens Party. Supporters of the picket have established that the Abigroup construction was started before the legalities were complete and that the Native Vegetation Framework offsets are required before works start (despite information by government). DSE, LMA, LGA Councils and DEWHA must implement the full requirements our environmental laws. Gillian has made a major contribution to the community consultation process supporting the significant efforts of the Frankston community and the two local councils.

At a strategy meeting on Friday, the meeting recognised that a picket up to the elections is required. But that needs on-ground support.

Conservationists the Peninsula recognise that the 40 year-plan to industrialise greater Melbourne and Western Port poses serious threats, through incremental losses - large and small - on our remaining natural environment.

This infrastructure growth is deceptively portrayed by the media and government as a "part of our community’s vision." There needs to be a bolder plan for an environmental and sustainable future.

Tangible support to the picket could help this.

Help is needed to man the Westerfield Picket with more than 60 person days from now till Election day. Offers of help can be made to Gillian Collins and donations up to $1000 to The Pines Protectors are being sought to support further action on their behalf. (Contact Gillian or Pines Protectors)

More Picket News 20 July 2010

"A really cold start to the day was warmed by the presence of four beautiful children brought by David W. and Ted H. With Kate's lovely hairy Dachshunds, they brightened up the day no end. Then the team from the Friends of the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve came and did some weed pulling at Westerfields and joined us for lunch on the picket line. What a great
group they are!

In case you missed it, Bill Russell from the Centre for Urban Studies recommended on ABCs Stateline on Friday that:

"...we will probably see the metro rail tunnel funded in the next two or three rounds of federal funding. But as I say, the trucks action plan is quite small; it's only $380 million and the state could fund that from its own resources, really. And then, I think that both the WestLink and the Peninsula Link really ought to be postponed five or10 years into the future."

It is still on the web if you want to see it - Google "Stateline" and then click on Friday's program.

With a State and Federal election looming, we remain hopeful that this project will be stopped, the land repaired, and more public transport and an upgrade to Moorooduc Highway will be considered. It's not too late.

We're looking at a week of cold and cloudy weather - the Melbourne winters I remember from my youth - but we will still be on the picket line. Please come and give us what time you can."

Signed: Gillian Collins

UPDATE 16 JULY: PICKET-LINE ONGOING!

"Our picket day started with Michelle C. delivering the attached brochure to the Bayside Christian School. Michelle did a brilliant job of capturing the essential environmental values that, we assume, the school teaches. The school had a working bee today, and she delivered the brochure to parents, the Principal, and the "Light FM" radio station that was broadcasting from the school.

Later in the day, we had 4 visits from Grade 10 students asking about our picket. This evening I find that David M. from WPPC has sent an e-mail to the school asking that students be allowed to join us - an unplanned but great coincidence.

Greg Hunt, our Federal Shadow Environment Minister, paid a visit, and we are hoping for his support for an immediate halt to the destruction and a better solution for all of us, including the school.

Peter K. showed us the photo of the skink that he carried home unknowingly yesterday in his tea cup in his backpack. He only found it when he went to clean the cup last night. He called Mel, who told him how to keep the skink comfortable overnight, and he returned it, unharmed, this morning.

Such tender care in the face of such a brutal future for this tiny member of our ecosystem.

E.O. Wilson, famous ant biologist and author, wrote a book called "Consilience," in which he predicts that there will come a time soon when our individual scientific fields of knowledge will consiliate (jump together) and we will understand the nature of the universe. It feels as though we have a consilience of effort at the picket site, and that we are beginning to really have an effect.

We will continue. Hope to see you there some time this week-end."

Signed Gillian Collins

BACKGROUND AND EARLIER REPORTS

In the first project to come under the notorious "Major Transport Facilitation Act," bulldozers move in to nationally significant heritage Westerfield before the Heritage Council Decision comes out. Picket line ongoing, with effect. Work will probably start tomorrow (6 July) or Wednesday (7 July).

UPDATE: REPORT ON TODAY'S ACTION RESULTS BELOW. Contacts for the picket site: S Walsh Mobile: 0405 380 312 Also Gillian Collins Pines Protectors 0414 309 960 and Jim Kerin Defenders of the South East Green Wedge Mobile 0409 501 764. Original notice was from Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

(See contact information at end of article.)

Why is this picket-line so important?

Expression of public protest on this destructive and undemocratic process is of great importance because this project is the first to come under the "Major Transport Facilitation Act." For this reason it will attract a lot of interest.

UPDATE 3: REPORT FOR 7 JULY

Another amazing day today, and still no bulldozers. It would seem that Abigroup is now held up until a satisfactory resolution can be found to the outstanding issues about Westerfields. We feel strongly, however. that the picket should be maintained until that happens.

An exciting innovation will occur, we hope, tomorrow, when we go live with a computer camera from the Robinson's Road side. Craig Allen will be streaming the resulting images from our web site, www.savethepines.net

We had more [mainstream] media interest today, and some of the picketers stopped by to help because they drove by and saw our signs. Melanie Attard has done a brilliant job of making them, and the coverage in The Independent , we
think, caused lots of folk to hoot and wave encouragement all day long.

Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands drove from the City on Sunday to bring her "Community Picket" sign for us to use, and her brilliant strategic abilities have inspired a lot of what we are doing so successfully now.

Please join us whenever you can. We will be there every day until we get a more positive outcome than is now planned. There are so many interesting people stopping by, that we promise you won't be bored! And there will be
more singing tomorrow.

Gillian Collins, Pines Protectors

UPDATE 2: REPORT FOR 6 JULY

Another amazing day today. The situation is still incredibly fluid, and picketers hear that tomorrow (7 July) may be the day they try to bring the bulldozers in.

A "Community Picket" has been established on both sides of the site, and drivers of the equipment have been asked not cross the line until the unresolved issues with Heritage Victoria and wildlife rescue are resolved.

Today representatives from the CFMEU were on the site, thanks to Colin Long, Greens Candidate for South Eastern Metropolitan area. These union reps have been very encouraging about supporting the picket.

As many people as possible are needed to man the picket.

The picket is situated at Robinsons Road (MEL 103 C11) from 7:00am. Easy parking is at Bayside Christian College, just before the traffic signals that are closing one lane of Robinsons Road for gas line relocation. Walk on up to where the picket is and you will be assisted to get to the rear picket.

Today there were twice as many people as yesterday, and more tomorrow would be good. Some groups that have been
represented are:

Frankston City Council, Mornington Council, Protectors of Public Lands, The Greens, Green Wedges Coalition, Animalia Wildlife Shelter, Environment Victoria,The Connies, Western Port Protection Council, Friends of the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve, Pines Protectors group of the Frankston North Community Group, Inc., Australian Wildlife Protection Council, Inc., Blue Wedges, Friends of Banyule, and the Public Transport Users Group.

Mainstream media who have been present or are following are: Channel 7, 9, 10, ABC, The Independent and The Age.

Thanks to Peter for the chips, Ronnie for the coffee, Jenny for the tea and home made biscuits, and Joyce and Simon for the egg and bacon sandwiches and afternoon tea!

Source [edited]: Gillian Collins
Pines Protectors, 03-9782-5116, 0414 309 960

UPDATE 1: REPORT ON FIRST ACTIONS: Monday 5 July 18:24 p.m.

Gillian Collins of Pines Protectors reports that the community picket line was successful, and the bulldozers did not come on the site. They were parked across the street all day, and a lot of their folk stood around idle.

Volunteers showed up, brought signs and soup and chips, and generally kept the protestors feeling really positive all day.

Gillian writes that great thanks are due to the Mayor, Christine Richards, who stayed all morning and gave lots of interviews to the press. Similarly, she writes that thanks are also due to Neale Burgess, Member of Parliament for Hastings, David Morris, Member for Mornington, and Geoff Shaw, candidate for the seat of Frankston, who all stayed a long time and gave the picketers their support.

She adds that the picket starts again tomorrow starting at 7:00am sharp. There will be two locations, the one on Robinsons Road and on the west side of the property, where the bulldozers are now parked. (MEL 103 C11) If you can come, please come to the Robinson's road site and we'll send half of you to the other side. Bring a torch is you're really early, because it was very dark without street lights. Dress warmly, too!

There was strong mainstream media interest - Channel 7, 9, 10, and ABC were there, plus a reporter from the Independent.

Because this project is the first to come under the "Major Transport Facilitation Act" it is getting a lot of interest and is also very important. More people to support the picket line will be very welcome.

Source [edited]: Gillian Collins
Pines Protectors, 03-9782-5116, 0414 309 960

Background and earlier reporting

Today: 7 am Monday 5 July 2010 construction will start on the Westerfield bushland heritage property. It is being bulldozed for the peninsula Link freeway route. Local groups will be picketing the site.

Work is to start despite the fact that :

* The Westerfield appeal was heard in the Heritage Council on 25 June 2010 and no cldecision has been made. The Heritage Council was reported to have said that the members would not be hurried into making a decision.

* There still appears to be a dispute over the question of whether vegetation offsets has been finalised.

On Monday 28 2010 June a resolution was put to Frankston Council and carried unanimously that "That Council seeks the assurance of the Linking Melbourne Authority and the Department of Environment and Sustainability that Vegetation Offsets required of the Peninsula Link project and the location and detail of such offsets will be determined prior to further clearing occurring. That such offsets for Frankston native vegetation will be taken up within the municipality in consultation with Council to ensure that there will be a net gain of native vegetation within the municipality."

The Frankston Council is again considering the matter at a Council meeting tomorrow night.

* The owners were given less than 24 hours notice of the start of land clearing/construction and have not been given a time table for works .

If anyone in the area can help attend the picket the details are:

Time: 7 am start but it may well continue during the morning.

Date: Monday 5 July 2010

Place: Robinson's Road, Frankston South. See Melways Map Page 103 C 11. The site of the picket is next to Bayside Christian College and near the intersection of Mc Clelland Drive and Robinson's Road. As the road might be
blocked it is suggested that you approach via Robinsons Road and drive into the Westerfield property to park.

The driveway is opposite Robinsons Park and is just past a white water tower. It will be signposted. Then you will have to walk down to the end of the road. Note that the proposed route of the freeway is marked on the Melways map.

From the Victorian Heritage Database

Westerfield
Location

86 - 96 Robinson's Road,FRANKSTON, Frankston City
For further details, contact the local council or go to Planning Schemes Online.

Level of Significance: National

Statement of Significance

Designed in 1924 for Russell and Mabel Grimwade by Harold Desbrowe Annear, Westerfield is the most intact example of the series of houses Annear remodelled, or designed on the Mornington Peninsula in the 1920s which demonstrate the vitality of early twentieth century eclecticism. Moving away from the more formal urban Georgian style, Annear responds to the "playground" ambience of the peninsula with a range of formal attitudes. Westerfield itself is a Y plan half timbered house built on a granite base somewhat reminiscent of French country architecture.

However, the significance of Westerfield lies not only with its architecture but also its owners and its place in a particular Melbourne culture of the 20th century.

Conceived as a working farm as well as a retreat, Westerfield's grounds are planted with the euclypt species Grimwade cultivated and recorded in a photographic study. With his friend Charles Lane-Poole, first Principal of the School of Forestry at Canberra, Grimwade was ahead of his time in matters of conservation and land use, seeking a workable alliance with industry. During the war, the property was given over to growing crops for medicinal drugs; poppies, lavender, foxglove and belladonna. The house, garden and grounds are included in the classification of Westerfield which is considered to be of national significance.

First Classified 12/12/90
Revised: Classified National 3/8/98

CONTACT DETAILS

Contacts for the picket site: S Walsh Mobile: 0405 380 312 Also Gillian
Collins Pines Protectors 0414 309 960 and Jim Kerin Defenders of the South
East Green Wedge Mobile 0409 501 764

The above article was based on a notice from Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197, Parkville 3052, Mobile: 0408022408

"The Windsor Hotel redevelopment scandal will go down in history as a bid to corrupt Victoria's Planning and Heritage laws.

What is not so clear yet, however, is whether the Windsor scandal is an isolated incident linked to a 'Rogue Trader' in the State Government's Media Unit, or whether it is part of a wider conspiracy designed to help undermine the rule of law, and the regulation of property developers in Victoria," says Brian Walsh, leader of the Kew Cottages Coalition in Victoria.

A 'must read' from Kew Cottages Coalition leader, Brian Walsh

The Windsor Hotel redevelopment scandal will go down in history as a bid to corrupt Victoria's Planning and Heritage laws.

What is not so clear yet, however, is whether the Windsor scandal is an isolated incident linked to a 'Rogue Trader' in the State Government's Media Unit, or whether it is part of a wider conspiracy designed to help undermine the rule of law, and the regulation of property developers in Victoria.

Ombudsman's Inquiry into Windsor Hotel Affair

As the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Windsor Hotel affair now waits for the Ombudsman to complete his own investigation, the Inquiry will find the Ombudsman's recent report on the Probity of the Kew Cottages and St Kilda Triangle developments helpful in addressing the wider question, and Government decision making involved.

For example, the Ombudsman records that early in the Kew development process the then Executive Director Heritage Victoria, Mr. Ray Tonkin, recalled feeling some pressure from the Government owner (DHS) to advise them informally on the Heritage status of Kew Cottages, rather than to go through the public consultation and State Heritage nomination process required by the Victorian Heritage Act.

The Ombudsman concludes that,

"the heritage issues led to uncertainty, considerable delays and significant additional costs for all associated with the project. It is unfortunate that a nomination was not made by the Department of Human Services (DHS) at the beginning of the exercise.." (295)

and that

"in my view it was unfortunate that the Executive Director, Heritage Victoria, provided informal advice on the site early in the project." (297)

The Kew Cottages Coalition subsequently successfully nominated the site for State Heritage listing. The nomination ensured that public consultation eventually took place.

Mr. Brian Walsh, President, Kew Cottages Coalition, today said that:

"What the Ombudsman has now revealed doesn't look like a simple bureaucratic stuff up. It looks too well planned for that. It looks to me more like the Windsor affair, more like an orchestrated bid by someone in authority to corrupt the Planning and Heritage laws."

"Mr. Tonkin, himself, may have made an honest mistake under pressure, but as with the Windsor Hotel affair, it beggars belief that all of those concerned did not know what was at stake here."

"I hope that the Ombudsman will help the Inquiry to unravel the details of the Windsor scandal," Mr. Wash said, "and I hope the Parliament will get to the bottom of any attempt to corrupt Victoria's Planning and Heritage laws."

Kew Cottages Coalition was formed in 2003 to defend public ownership of public land containing building and plant for the care of people with developmental problems. This public estate, overlooking sweeping views of parkland and the Yarra River all the way to the city of Melbourne, has since been sold-off by the government to private development, without democratic consultation.
For details on KCC Media Releases please contact:

Brian Walsh,
President,
Kew Cottages Coalition
PO Box 2317
KEW
Victoria 3101
Australia

Reg # A0044698H

M: 0414 979 300
E: [email protected]

www.kew.org.au

Release Date: 20100723

Libs give in to Madden

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

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

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

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

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

Julianne Bell Secretary of PPL VIC: points out :

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

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

Madden planning more nightmares to come

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

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

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

Urgent Appeal to all Victorian activist groups

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

This amendment must not be passed.

Please join the rally 1 - 2 PM

June 22

On the steps of Victorian Parliament, Melbourne.

Details from Protectors of Public Lands:

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

Rationale for Rally:

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

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

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

The Minister for Planning has approved and is now seeking parliamentary ratification of Amendment VC55. Subject to Parliament’s approval of the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution legislation it will then come into operation.
25 May is the date on which the government will probably try to bring this bad law (Amendment VC55) in. Mary Drost of Planning Backlash has called these proposed laws, "diabolical".

Planning Minister now seeking ratification for these bad laws

The Minister for Planning has approved and is now seeking parliamentary ratification of Amendment VC55. Subject to Parliament’s approval of the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution legislation it will then come into operation.
Amendment VC55

Crucial information about diabolical proposed laws which would change your life and Melbourne forever

If this legislation goes through, it will change Melbourne forever. It will, furthermore, certainly change your life and there will be nothing you can do about it.

This proposed legislation is many times more radical than Melb 2030 - it is diabolical.

Open it up and especially open up "Explanation"
also "Clause 12".

"Explanation" is endless detail about the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary and all the acquisition of land for transport.

"Clause 12". spells out the cramming in of more buildings into existing Melbourne. The detail includes Rob Adams proposal of building high density along the tram routes, as well as adding yet more "Activity Centres" and connecting them all up.

The contents or intent of the clause is quite fiendish and assumes we will keep adding people to Melbourne as fast as Brumby can attract them to come.

Timeline for passage of proposed legislation

THIS VC 55 WILL BE BROUGHT TO PARLIAMENT AS SOON AS THE GROWTH AREA INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTION (GAIC) IS PASSED THROUGH PARLIAMENT.
(Probably the 25th May - in the afternoon)

VC55 MUST BE OPPOSED VIGOROUSLY.

It looks as though GAIC will be passed. The Coalition has decided that it is a better deal for the fringe landowners to go with the amendments they were able to get through this Labor dominated committee. These amendments mean that there will be no tax on about 90% of the land when sold, i.e. land under 10 hectares . On land bigger than that, tax will be paid by the purchaser in stages: 30% to start and the balance on subdivision.

The Coalition have committed that if they take over government in November they will change it so that nothing is paid until subdivision and paid by the developers. They feel this is better than refusing the Bill outright because if Labor retain government they are then committed to this instead of reverting to what Labor really want which is the seller pays the tax on point of sale.

I know I would love to urge them to vote "No," but they appear to be convinced that they are doing the best for the landowners with this system. It is important, however, to get them to VOTE NO to VC55. Without VC55 there will be no GAIC anyway because no extension to the UGB.

Greg Barber of the Greens has suggested that a committee be formed about VC55. This would at least have the effect of delaying this legislation until the election. If it were delayed until the election, the electorate would be in a position of more power and should then try to dissuade the opposition from giving this legislation any support in any form

IF YOU WANT TO WRITE TO MPS URGE THEM TO SUPPORT GREG BARBERS MOTION SO THAT VC55 WILL BE DELAYED. (Mary Drost)

"Believe me this is a very tricky issue and you need to be Solomon to find the right way to handle it. There are so many details and so many opinions. For better or worse this is my considered opinion after hours of discussion and agonising over details. Plenty of you will have different ideas, but I think we can all agree that the whole thing should be delayed and in time things will become clearer."

Adapted from information provided by Mary Drost, of Planning Backlash.
Thank you Mary.

For background to this public protest see "Save Williamstown requests help..."

Help requested by Williamstown Saturday 10th at 1pm

Save Williamstown Meeting and Workshop at Seaworks Tavern this Saturday 10 April at 1pm

Seaworks is on Nelson Place, parking entry on Ann St.

This is an important meeting.

See below video from 29 March, which gives the story up to the most recent outrages:

Arbitrary rezoning tramples democracy

The Minister, Justin Madden, has already rezoned the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site residential, preventing any mixed use which could have benefited the community and protected the shipyards. Hobsons Bay Council has been excluded from the rezoning decision and was not informed until minutes before the Minister's press release on 26th March. The rezone was on the request of the developer, Nelson Place Village Pty Ltd with no reference to our council or the community or the industrial stakeholders.

The council had NOT delayed the decision on the development application, the developer had only submitted the application in August 2009 and the Council considered it in December 2009.

The Minister has set up an advisory committee to report to him on what is suitable development criteria for the site BUT individuals in the community will not be permitted to make submissions to the Minister's committee. The committee's report is to be provided within 8 weeks of submissions closing.

see: http://www.savewilliamstown.net/Save_Williamstown/NEWS/Entries/2010/4/8_Draft_Terms_of_Reference_for_the_Ministers_Advisory_Committee.html

Community locked out of consultations - outsider developers indulged

The community needs to be aware that the Minister's draft Terms of Reference for his advisory committee do not include third party responses or open community consultation. Only community based groups such as Save Williamstown, WNSRA and POW are to be invited to submit to the Minister's advisory committee. Therefore attending Save Williamstown meetings will be your opportunity to tell Minister Madden what our community believes is appropriate development.

Issues such as:

Heritage,

Impact on Williamstown jobs,

Heights and

Impact on Infastructure of an increasing Williamstown population

will be discussed in preparation for the Save Williamstown submission.

Please make sure that everyone who wants to be on our emailing list gives us a contact email address. Lists will be available at the meeting. People not at the meeting who needs to add their name to the list should send an email to [email protected].
If you know people to telephone, please establish telephone trees to let as many people know what is happening.
Funds will also be needed for letterboxing.
If you have skills or time please also let us know on the lists at the meeting or by email to [email protected].

AND FOR THOSE WHO THINK RESIDENTIAL ZONING IS OKAY AS LONG AS THE HERITAGE OVERLAY AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS APPLY.. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE DEVELOPER STILL WANTS AT LEAST 46.5 METRE TOWERS (OR UP TO 17 STOREYS) AS SHOWN IN DESIGN OPTION 5.

THE DEVELOPERS ARE NOT MEMBERS OF OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY AND THEY ARE SEEKING WHATEVER MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND PROFIT THEY CAN OBTAIN OUT OF THIS SITE.

AND THIS WILL BE A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS.

Thanks,

Save Williamstown

--

Save Williamstown Working Group
Website: http://www.savewilliamstown.net
Email (General): info[AT]savewilliamstown.net
Planning and Design Issues: [email protected]
Communications and Media Issues: [email protected]
Legal Issues: legal[AT]savewilliamstown.net
Strategy Issues: strategy1[AT]savewilliamstown.net

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

Article adapted from original report by Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands.

Hysteria in Victorian Parliament disrupts Hearing on Finance and Administration

In Parliament yesterday (12 March 2010) television cameras from several stations caught a remarkable fracas when Planning Minister Madden gatecrashed the hearing of the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. Madden's staff member, Peta Duke, was subpoenaed to attend but was apparently instructed by the Attorney General NOT to attend. ALP MP Matt Viney disrupted proceedings and effectively took over, upon which the Chair Gordon Rich Phillips left and then Peter Kavanagh, which meant that there was no quorum so the meeting collapsed.

What democratic Planning activists said to the Press

Following an interview with Madden there were excellent interviews with Peter Kavanagh, David Davis and Greg Barber. Community representatives, Mary Drost for Planning Backlash, Brian Walsh for Kew Cottages Coalition, and Julianne Bell for Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, made brief statements to the press. They spoke of their dismay at revelations that public consultations over planning developments had been revealed as sham and said that the farcical proceedings at the Parliamentary Inquiry were an insult to Parliament and hence to Victorians.

See the the "Inquiry into Victorian Government Decision Making, Consultation and Approval Processes."

Purpose of the Hearing

On 3 March 2010, the Committee agreed to the following resolution: To inquire into and report on Victorian Government decision making, consultation and approval processes, and any knowledge and/or involvement of Ministers, Ministerial staff and/or Victorian Government officers since 1 December 2006 and, in particular, issues arising from media plans prepared within the Victorian Government since 1 December 2006.

The Public Hearings were scheduled for today in relation to the Inquiry. In particular the Windsor Hotel redevelopment planning process was to be looked into. These hearings were to have included one with Ms Peta Duke, Media Advisor to Planning Minister Justin Madden.

Public Submissions invited until 26 March 2010
For display on Parliament Website

However your submissions are treated in the Inquiry, having them on the Parliamentary Website is your opportunity for a real democratic voice. Tell people what you know and have seen and suffered through the planning and population push by big business and government in Victoria.

The Committee is inviting any individuals and organisations, wishing to express views on the terms of reference. Instructions are on the Inquiry website Guidelines for submissions may be downloaded here. Submissions will close on Friday, 26 March at 5.00 p.m. Once submissions are received, they will be displayed here: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/SCFPA/PC/Submissions/Index.html
Other contact details for this very important inquiry are as follows:

Inquiry into Victorian Government Decision Making, Consultation and Approval Processes
Council Committees Office
Department of the Legislative Council
Parliament House
Spring Street
East Melbourne, 3002
Phone: (03) 9651 8696
Fax: (03) 9651 6799

Parliamentary Press Release 3 March Terms of Inquiry

Here is a press release from the Inquiry dated 3 March 2010. In it we can see that the terms of the Inquiry were frustrated. This may be an indication of what is often said, that Victorian laws make it impossible to get answers from politicians so that corruption is unstoppable unless we change those laws.

Source was: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/SCFPA/PC/PRESS%20RELEASE.pdf
PRESS RELEASE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION INQUIRY INTO VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT DECISION MAKING, CONSULTATION AND APPROVAL PROCESSES

The Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration today met and resolved to inquire into and report on:
Victorian Government decision making, consultation and approval processes, and any knowledge and/or involvement of Ministers, Ministerial staff and/or Victorian Government officers since 1 December 2006 and in particular issues arising from media plans prepared within the Victorian Government since 1 December 2006.

The initial focus of the inquiry will be on the Windsor Hotel redevelopment process. The Committee has resolved to conduct public hearings and take evidence from the following witnesses:

• Hon. Justin Madden, MLC, Minister for Planning
• Mr Yehudi Blacher, Secretary, Department of Planning and Community Development
• Mr David Hodge, Department of Planning and Community Development
• Ms Peta Duke, media adviser
• Mr George Svigos, Premier’s media unit
• Ms Fiona Macrae, Premier’s media unit

Hearings are scheduled to commence on Friday 12 March 2010.

The Committee has also resolved to seek access to the ‘Minister for Planning Justin Madden Media Plan’ document and similar media plan documents.

GORDON RICH-PHILLIPS, MLC
CHAIRMAN
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
3 March 2010

Exposure Draft Planning and Environment Amendment (GAIC) Bill

I understand that the exposure draft legislation for the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) has been released for public comment. I am totally opposed to the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and with it the destruction of Green Wedges and imposition of a land tax - the GAIC. My reasons:

1. The proposed GAIC is a grossly unfair tax and is fundamentally flawed. Although it has been substantially amended prior to drafting the legislation, landowners are still significantly disadvantaged. The tax is now to be levied on the purchaser rather than the seller. This will mean the price a landowner receives from the sale will be reduced by the amount of the tax. Only developers are likely to purchase land with a tax liability. I advocate that the State Government withdraw this proposed tax and only impose land taxes at the point of development, as in other Australian States. Fair and equitable taxation is a basic tenet of our democracy.

2. The imposition of a complex taxation system on land sales is likely to expand the bureaucracy of the Growth Areas Authority, thus reducing funds available for infrastructure of new settlements and defeating the purpose of the legislation.

3. The cost of building new homes on the rural fringes of Melbourne is double that of constructing infill dwellings in the inner city. This is the hidden cost of suburban sprawl. The added costs include extra infrastructure. (A report, commissioned by your Department and released in July, cites research that found "for every 1000 dwellings, the cost for infill development (in existing suburbs) is $309 million and the cost of fringe developments is $653 million".) As you stated in Parliament, the funds to be raised by the $95,000 per hectare GIAC tax will cover only 15 per cent of total infrastructure costs of new growth areas.

4. Expansion of the UGB and the rezoning of land from rural to residential will mean Green Wedges land will be engulfed by suburban sprawl. The Government must abandon the Green Wedge land grab as destructive of the environment, a threat to wildlife, including endangered species, and as a major contributor to green house gas emissions. Around the urban fringe is concentrated of some of the most endangered eco-systems in Australia, including the Western Basalt Plains Grasslands and Grassy Woodlands in the Darebin, Jackson and Merri Creek valleys and habitat for a range of threatened species. These will be lost if the UGB expands.

5. Expansion of the UGB will mean reduction of arable land for farming and food production with urban sprawl.

6. Expansion of the UGB will mean increased risk of bush fires with urban sprawl in new fire-prone areas.

7. Expansion of the UGB will mean increased car dependency and increased green house gas emissions.

8. Construction of the E6 through Wollert and Woodstock is destructive of these townships and their landscapes.

9. The State Government has failed to consider the question of what is a sustainable population for Victoria, given scant water supply, peak oil crisis coming up and climate change.

10. As the Prime Minister has just announced the Federal Government’s involvement in planning of Australian cities and provision of infrastructure, the State Government’s move to raise infrastructure funds for new growth areas appears precipitate and premature.

The above was a Submission made on November 2 2009 by Maryland Wilson,President Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc, to:

The Hon Justin Madden MLC
Minister for Planning
Parliament of Victoria
Spring Street
East Melbourne 3002 Date:

Sent to: Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution Comment, GPO Box 2392, Melbourne Victoria 3001 or email to GAIC.comment[AT]dpcd.vic.gov.au

Through incompetence and neglect 110 ha which was recently added to the Pines Flora and Fauna reserve was mismanaged by Parks Victoria and Department of Sustainability Victoria to the point where nearly all the species it contained have become extinct. Now this land is due to be separated by a huge tollway from the rest of the reserve, despite many bitter protests and submissions from residents and other concerned people, whose hearts are nearly broken. See also related articles

The death of the DARA land.

110 ha of land once belonging to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, known now as 'the DARA land" was recently added to the Pines Flora and Fauna reserve. Through incompetence and neglect it has been mismanaged by Parks Victoria and Department of Sustainability Victoria to the point where nearly all the species it contained have become extinct. Now, in a crowning act of environmental vandalism,[1] this land is due to be separated by a huge tollway from the rest of the reserve. This is to go ahead, despite many bitter protests and submissions from residents and other concerned people who do not want it.

Here Hans Brunner describes the process by which the species became extinct and pleads for the area to be rehabilitated. It is the least that the State government and SEITA (now renamed the Linking Melbourne Authority) can do. This time there should be transparent aims to increase the fauna species representation to its optimum and reproducible methods to test the success of the operation, so that the public may monitor the effectiveness of it.

Hans Brunner sends a plea to Department of Sustainability and Environment and to Parks Victoria to bring the Dara land back to life again. It can and must be done.

The future of the DARA land can be so much brighter than its past

The Dara land is the 110 ha that has been added to the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve. It borders on Ballarto Rd and McClelland Drive and joins on to the golf course, North-East of the original Pines. The proposed Bypass will separate the two parcels of land.

Some twenty years ago the Dara land, then occupied by the Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, was teaming with wildlife. There were large colonies of Swamp Rats, lots of Bandicoot diggings everywhere, there were Wallabies, Ringtail- and Brush-tail Possums, Echidnas, an occasional Koala and Sugar Glider and only a very small number of Rabbits. This was the result of regular poisoning of foxes and rabbits and the total absence of dogs. Boundary fences were inspected weekly and repaired immediately.

After a large wildfire, it took about two to three years for these animals to recover to their original numbers, but they did so with the help of ongoing fox and rabbit control and the absence of dogs.

After Dept of Agriculture left, Parks Vic and DSE allowed ferals to run amuck

After the Dept, of Agriculture vacated the Dara land Parks Victoria was appointed to manage this land. Immediately fox and rabbit poisoning stopped, a number of gates were erected to allow people with their dogs to enter as well as foxes and cats. The bandicoots were the first to suffer. It took only about twelve months for them to totally disappear from the whole of the Dara land. Where there were once large colonies of Swamp Rats one could find only the mounds of soil where they used to be. Rabbit numbers increased and fox and dog foot prints became prevalent not only along the walking tracks but also throughout the bush land off the tracks.

20 yrs ago foxes' and domestic dogs' scats revealed diet of endangered fauna

During my many visits, I collected scats of foxes, cats and dogs containing hairs and identified them in order to determine the prey species.

Since we know already too well what foxes prey on I concentrated on dog scats with hairs of prey species. It is well known that some people encourage their dogs to hunt for rabbits in the Reserve and the dogs will than go for anything that moves including native animals. Bandicoots are especially vulnerable to predation as they have to dig deep holes to get to their food and then can easy be ambushed while doing so. They also have not got large ears like the rabbits have to hear predators approaching. Subsequently I established what the contents were of twenty four dog scats. Of these, 8 had Rabbit, 4 had Wallaby, 4 had Bandicoot, 3 had Brush-tail Possum, 3 had Ring-tail Possum and 2 had Swamp Rat. Fox scats had a higher proportion of Rabbits but preyed on all the other animals as well and included some Sugar Gliders and lots of lizards.

Now the same scats show diet of mostly rabbits

Fox and dog scats now contain manly rabbit and a few ring-tail possums as all the other small native animals have almost totally disappeared.

This was not helped when Parks Victoria control burnt a large area of prime bandicoot habitat and before this area could recover an adjacent area was also burnt. This resulted in the absence of all the animals that used to live there and consisted of about fifty percent of the whole Dara bush land.

Active fox dens are now distributed throughout the whole area and there is no hope for the native animals to become re-established again.

The ultimate blame lies with DSE and PV

The ultimate blame lies with DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment)[2] and PV (Parks Victoria)[3]. They both were unwilling to protect the nationally endangered bandicoots and with it all the other native mammals, birds, lizards and frogs. How can they completely neglect and mismanage this prime habitat for not only this rare bandicoot but also for Koalas, Sugar Gliders, Swamp Rats, Echidnas, Brush- and Ring-tail Possums and all the other native wildlife! We have to urgently go back to the way the Dara land was managed by the Agriculture Dept.

In the absence of dogs, the control of foxes, cats and rabbits could than be carried out completely un-restricted and efficiently.

I plead with the DSE and PV to bring the Dara land back to life again. It can and must be done. If I had time, exactly the same story could be told about the Western half of the Pines where beside the predators and rabbits motorbike riders cause havoc to Wallabies, birds and other wildlife.

Hans Brunner

[1] Works undertaken by the Linking Melbourne Authority (once called SEITA) with the support of the Brumby government and your taxes.

[2] The Department of Sustainability and Environment has almost no staff devoted to actively protecting and sustaining healthy biodiverse fauna populations. DSE seems to be far more interested in pushing human population growth by stimulating high immigration, providing land to developers and pushing through infrastructure programs to the detriment of our indigenous fauna and the loss of green spaces. DSE is dominated by agriculturalists and property development oriented planners and technicians.

[3] Parks Victoria is a public authority (akin to a government department), funded from three major sources; payments from the State Government Budget (your taxes), an annual charge based on a property rate levied on all metropolitan properties, and user fees.
It is managed by a board with the following members:
Rob Gerrand, BA, FAMI, FAICD
Lois Appleby
Clarice Ballenden, BA (Hons) M.Ed.
Damien Bell
Rod Gowans, PSM.
Ken King, Dip. For., B.Sc (Hons)
Noel Harvey, OAM, MAICD
Jennifer Labourne, B.Bus, FCPA
Jan Mahoney BA, PhD, FAICD

What are these people doing with our money?

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

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

Melbourne is under attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Demolition of Lonsdale House, Lonsdale Street

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

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

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

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

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

Letter specific to the Windsor

This letter should be addressed to Heritage Victoria

Email : [email protected]

Copies to the Minister and the Trust

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

Dear Executive Director,

RE: Windsor Hotel redevelopment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter specific to 80 Collins Street

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

Email : [email protected]

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

Dear Mr Madden,

Re: Proposed 40 storey office tower, 80 Collins Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you can do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email :
[email protected]

The Age, June 25th

Planning Minister Justin Madden should consult the people of Victoria if he wants a planning strategy with the needs of individuals and Victorian families at its heart. He would discover that a bulging Melbourne population is not in the interests of Victorian families at all, and adding to our urban obesity without considering what the people want is actually snobbery on his part! Why isn’t there a debate?

With 2000 new people entering Victoria each week, "sustainability" has become a throw-away word with no meaning, and “affordability” is something that most families are struggling with!

A burgeoning population will not bring "economic benefits" to the average person. Most people know that the contrary is true. As natural resources become increasingly scarce, they also become more expensive. Land and housing prices have soared, and water prices are set to sky-rocket.

We already have had the fatalities due to people choosing to live in more open outer suburbs, close to Kinglake National Park! Most people don't want to live in sterile and car-dependant outer suburban housing estates, and high density living is not "family friendly". Our parks and reserves are under threat from human impacts and fires due to the urban sprawl, and people seeking more open spaces.

Fertile farming lands closer to Melbourne are being consumed for housing, and vulnerable wildlife and biodiversity habitat will be become more threatened. Our connection with Nature will further diminish, and so will our ecological life-support system!

Adding more people to Victoria will not solve one problem , and the growth will continue to destroy our biodiversity and remaining wildlife habitat. Population growth with not stop at 5 million but will keep blowing-out to 6, 7...10 million!

Marvellous Melbourne, one of the most "liveable places in the world", under our Brumby's Melbourne@5Million plan, is under threat! Justin Madden’s accusations of “cultural snobbery” are because he wants to grow Melbourne boundaries, and our suburbs, as resources for land developers and the building industry, guaranteed Labor supporters!

Community members of a small green wedge, rural-residential township south east of Melbourne have won their fight to relocate industrial infrastructure for the Wonthaggi Desalination Project to a more suitable location, away from residences and their local primary school.

Unfortunately Wonthaggi itself has lost its battle against the actual desal plant.

Last November as the Environmental Effects Statement (EES) panel hearing began, Cardinia resident Catherine Manning stumbled across plans for a massive Booster Pump Station and possible chemical dosing facility. Horrified, she pulled together a petition and thorough presentation of the impacts to the local community.

Her submission to the EES hearing prompted the panel to personally visit the site. Their visit resulted in their recommending relocation of the Booster Pump Station. This was one of the panel's forty two final recommendations made to Planning Minister Justin Madden.

However, to Ms Manning's dismay, that recommendation was rejected by Minister Madden.

"I had followed what I was told was 'proper process' and felt vindicated when the panel wholeheartedly agreed with our community's concerns, but was alarmed that the Minister had missed the point of our submission and rejected that recommendation', Ms Manning said. 'I felt that the process was flawed and undemocratic, and that as a small community, we were being ignored and our concerns overlooked.'

Delegation to Parliament House

Not to be deterred, Ms Manning contacted Eastern Region Upper House MP Johan Scheffer. She requested a meeting with Minister Madden's office and the head of the desalination project Peter Sammut, to outline her concerns. Local primary school principal Allan Armstrong, and adjoining landholder Udyta Clark helped form the delegation to Parliament House.

'Having not been consulted properly in the first place, then feeling let down by the process, this final result is a real victory for us and an example of what can be achieved by ordinary people determined to seek an appropriate outcome,' said Ms Manning.

Source: Media Release from residents of Cardinia township. Thu, 11 Jun 2009
Contact: Catherine Manning by contacting us at candobetter.org