Posted 17/9/07
The 2007 Melbourne 2030 audit provides Council with an important opportunity to voice its concerns with Melbourne 2030 and how it is implemented. Council should review the comments and recommendations below and incorporate these into its submission to the Minister. To assist with Council’s submission, the DPCD has prepared an online form with the following structure for Council’s response:
General comments
Council supports the broad principles, such as sustainability, liveability, reducing the number of car trips, urban growth boundaries and discouraging out of centre development, of Melbourne 2030. However, there is a lack of clarity and certainty about the role of Macedon Ranges in the context of Melbourne 2030 and which specific Melbourne 2030 directions and policies apply to rural areas. For example, urban consolidation policies are being applied in rural townships such as Riddells Creek and Romsey, when these towns are not identified within the Bendigo Transport Corridor or as activity centres in Melbourne 2030.
In addition, there needs to be greater recognition in Melbourne 2030 of varying local conditions including infrastructure capacity, community aspirations and values, environmental sensitivities and constraints that can have a bearing on development opportunities in rural and regional shires. Melbourne 2030 should not be used as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to planning throughout Victoria and rural/regional local issues should be better addressed in the document. The direct comparison between Melbourne suburbs and the regional/rural townships of areas like Macedon Ranges needs greater analysis. Consideration should be given to developing a regional/rural 2030 with specific regional responses and initiatives. Alternatively, given the similarity of issues in Councils on the metropolitan fringe, a peri-urban area strategy could be considered.
There should also be specific mention in Melbourne 2030 of the significance of Macedon Ranges’ role as a recreation, tourist, open water supply catchment and conservation area, which enhances the liveability and sustainability of Melbourne. The State had previously recognised this significance in State Planning Policy No. 8 (SPP8). SPP8 was introduced by the Town and Country Planning Board in 1975 and was in force as a state policy until the introduction of the Victorian Planning Provisions. The policy states that ‘an important reason for this policy program is that our community is increasingly recognising the importance of preserving rural environments to provide valuable ‘breathing spaces’ for its urban residents…it must be strongly emphasized that future planning should take full account of the surrounding countryside as a vital part of the metropolitan environment’.
These policy imperatives and the environmental and land use challenges in the shire should be identified in Melbourne 2030.
Direction 1: A more compact city
This direction seeks to:
1.1 Build up activity centres as a focus for high-quality development, activity and living for the whole community.
1.2 Broaden the base of activity in centres that are currently dominated by shopping to include a wider range of services over longer hours, and restrict out-of-centre development.
1.3 Locate a substantial proportion of new housing in or close to activity centres and other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport
1. Comment:
Council supports the broad objectives of this direction, but the extent to which this is to occur and apply in regional areas needs greater clarity and refinement in Melbourne 2030. The strong emphasis on urban consolidation is often used by developers and VCAT to justify developments which comply with ResCode and its metropolitan standards, yet are inconsistent with community expectations in the Macedon Ranges i.e. lots of 300m2. Strategic planning activities undertaken by the Macedon Ranges Shire Council have consistently highlighted the community’s desire to retain the rural character and landscape of the Macedon Ranges. This is often at odds with the outcomes Melbourne 2030 seeks to achieve. Melbourne 2030 needs to better acknowledge this important rural issue.
There are no major, principal, or specialised activity centres identified in the Macedon Ranges Shire. However, Council is under increasing pressure to plan for it’s townships as if they are activity centres. The robustness of any of Council’s plans appears to have to meet the structure planning standards recommended in Melbourne 2030, which are more easily implemented by metropolitan Councils with better planning and financial resources. In addition, Council’s township plans that may seek to protect the rural character of specific areas are facing difficulties being implemented through the planning scheme amendment process, often as a result of Melbourne 2030.
Macedon Ranges is within an hour's drive of Melbourne and provides a pivotal role as one of Melbourne’s key day trip destinations for tourism and recreation purposes, places such as Hanging Rock and the green flintstone quarry at Mt William also add to the tapestry of culturally significant sites in the area which must be protected from indiscriminate development impacts. These issues combine to determine the regional and State significance of the area in the context of Melbourne 2030. There is a lack of recognition of these factors in the current Melbourne 2030.
The area lies exposed to inappropriate development and the advances of developers seeking to avoid developer contribution levies in key designated growth areas and this vulnerability creates unnecessary tensions in our community.
Recommendation:
Direction 2: Better management of metropolitan growth.
This direction includes to:
2.1 Establish an urban growth boundary to set clear limits to metropolitan Melbourne’s outward development.
2.2 Concentrate urban expansion into growth areas that are served by high-capacity public transport
2.3 Manage the sequence of development in growth areas so that services are available from early in the life of new communities
2.4 Protect the green wedges of metropolitan Melbourne from inappropriate development
1. Comment:
It is Council’s belief that the prominence of the Urban Growth Boundary and protection of Green Wedges has resulted in a ‘leap frog effect’ with developers perceiving cheaper land available in the shire as a significant development opportunity. Compounding this issue is that Council does not have the capacity, like its metropolitan counterparts, to levy developer contributions and therefore is forced to provide new infrastructure to these out of sequence developments. New developments are also placing added pressure on existing infrastructure such as roads, drains, public open space, sport and recreation facilities, preschools, and maternal and child health centres within townships.
The current system of specific developer contribution plans is cumbersome and costly. Council has estimated that approximately $1.9m per year based upon lots approved in 2003 and 2004 is being lost as a result. In addition, a whole-of-government response is required in growth areas to ensure the forward planning of all service providers (e.g. water and sewerage) and government agencies (e.g. education department, health facilities and police) is interconnected.
Recommendation:
2. Comment:
The Shire’s southern boundary abuts the Green Wedge Zone, yet the Macedon Ranges is not identified as environmentally significant in Melbourne 2030. This appears to contradict with the protection offered to the Macedon Ranges under SPP8. This State Policy provided the planning and management necessary for the conservation and utilisation of the area as a water supply catchment and as a location of State, metropolitan and local importance for leisure activities and nature conservation.
Recommendation:
That this Direction be reviewed to acknowledge the State protection provided by SPP8 and the environmental and land use challenges of the Macedon Ranges.
Direction 3: Networks with regional cities
This direction seeks to:
3.1 Promote the growth of regional cities and key towns on regional transport corridors as part of a networked cities model.
3.2 Control development in rural areas to protect agriculture and avoid inappropriate rural residential development
Initiatives associated with this direction include:
1. Comment:
Gisborne, Macedon, Woodend and Kyneton are identified as major towns that are located on the Bendigo regional transport corridor. Melbourne 2030 acknowledges that these towns may come under more pressure for commuter or lifestyle-related development. Pressures are to be focused on towns that are best able to accommodate increased growth, while also protecting conservation and heritage values and the surrounding natural resource base. Melbourne 2030 goes on to state that these towns will already have the physical, social and cultural infrastructure to support expanded populations, or they will be able to accommodate it.
It is difficult to see how Melbourne 2030 has or will direct growth pressures to particular towns in the Macedon Ranges. This is a particular concern when strategic planning work has not been completed for these towns. In addition, there are environmental constraints in all four townships including wildfire risk, topography, land subject to inundation, water supply catchments, significant remnant flora and fauna that may impact on growth and development opportunities.
Recommendation:
2. Comment
The integrated action plan for the Bendigo Corridor has not been completed. In fact, development of this plan stalled for a significant number of months and has only recently recommenced. However, growth pressures have not stopped whilst this document is being prepared. It is Council’s belief that DPCD would have been more proactive in assisting regional shires address the strategic planning initiatives associated with this Direction.
Recommendation:
3. Comment
Although Policy 3.2 applies to the ‘network city’ concept, the plan (figure 33) of significant agricultural resources does not include the Macedon Ranges. There are some areas of high quality agricultural land in the shire that warrant designation on this plan.
In addition, this policy stance has proved difficult to implement in practice. The Macedon Ranges Shire contains more than 6000 small rural properties that are less than 40ha in area. Given the increasing pressures for rural lifestyle development within commuting distance of Melbourne, statements in Melbourne 2030 are unlikely to assist Councils make planning decisions to reduce the proportion of new housing development in rural areas. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has also failed to recognise this policy and associated Clause 12.03-2 in the State Planning Policy framework in a number of decisions affecting the shire.
Policy 3.2 also encourages consolidation of existing lots and discourages development on isolated small lots. However, there appears to have been no work completed on this significant issue and current planning schemes are not able to facilitate these outcomes. There has been significant community criticism of Council as a result of the introduction of the new rural zones and this has resulted in Council decisions to support most isolated dwellings in rural areas
Recommendation:
Direction 5: A great place to be
This direction includes the following relevant policies:
5.1 Promote good urban design to make the environment more liveable and attractive
5.2 Recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place
5.3 Improve community safety and encourage neighbourhood design that makes people feel safe
5.4 Protect heritage places and values
5.5 Promote excellent neighbourhood design to create attractive, walk-able and diverse communities
5.6 Improve the quality and distribution of local open space and ensure long-term protection of public open space
5.7 Improve the environmental health of the bays and their catchments
1. Comment:
These principles are central to Council’s current Local Planning Policy Framework and strategic planning work program, which includes Urban Design Frameworks for Kyneton and Gisborne, Outline Development Plans for Romsey and Kyneton and a Heritage Review.
Direction 7: A greener city
This direction includes the following policies:
7.1 Ensure that water resources are managed in a sustainable way
7.2 Reduce the amount of waste generated and encourage increased reuse and recycling of waste materials
7.3 Contribute to national and international efforts to reduce energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions
7.4 Reduce the impact of stormwater on bays and catchments
7.5 Protect ground water and land resources
7.6 Ensure that land-use and transport planning and infrastructure provision contribute to improved air quality
7.7 Protect native habitat and areas of important biodiversity through appropriate land-use planning
7.8 Promote the concept of sustainability and develop benchmarks to measure progress
7.9 Lead by example in environmental management
1. Comment:
The environmental focus of this Direction is supported, however it is unclear if these policies apply to the Macedon Ranges. The southern half of the Shire is located within the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Area. In addition, the Rosslynne Reservoir which is an open water catchment in the Macedon Ranges provides town, stock and domestic water to areas located within the urban growth boundary, including Sunbury. As a result, the type of land use and development in the Shire can impact on both water quality and quantity in the metropolitan region. These issues should be recognised in Melbourne 2030.
The importance of water quality and catchments is currently addressed in the State Planning Policy Framework. However, there is only an ‘Interim guideline for planning permit applications in open, potable water supply catchment areas' to assist Council’s with this decision making responsibility.
Initiatives such as completing salinity and biodiversity asset mapping are strongly supported by the Shire. However, Council has struggled to undertake this work within its limited resources and requests assistance from the relevant State Department to complete such mapping in the Macedon Ranges.
Recommendation:
Direction 9: Better planning decisions, careful management.
This direction intends to:
9.1 Achieve better planning decisions
9.2 Speed up resolution of appeals
9.3 Keep Melbourne 2030 up to date
9.4 Develop a strong partnership with local government
9.5 Implement Melbourne 2030 in an integrated way that involves the community.
1. Comment
Initiatives associated with Policy 9.1 to reduce the number of matters that need planning approval have had minimal impact on planning permit applications numbers in the Macedon Ranges Shire. Amendment VC40, which was introduced on 30 August 2006 to reduce various minor works from requiring planning permits made no difference to planning permit numbers in the Shire. This is primarily due to the particular environmental and land use planning challenges the Shire faces and the resulting number of overlays and rural zones.
Recommendation: