Posted 23/11/10 

MRRA Comments On Labor's Response To MRRA Re State Protection

Labor Response from GAYLE TIERNEY MP, Member for Western Victoria, received 22/11/10, 2.20pm

Note: the same response has now also been received from Jaala Pulford, Western Victoria Region ALP candidate and Kay Darveniza, Northern Victoria Region candidate. 

Thank you for your letter and your strong advocacy on behalf of the Macedon Ranges Residents’ Association.

Labor shares your passion for the unique environmental values of the Macedon Ranges and agrees that they are worthy of protection.

MRRA

• That 'passion' and 'worthiness' hasn't been evident in the way the government insists Macedon Ranges is already protected, and the way it hasn't given Macedon Ranges the help it needs (and the government promised) to keep and protect its unique environmental values, its water catchments, heritage, landscapes, rural character, etc. 

• Local residents battling damaging planning applications and VCAT know all too well how worthy, and unprotected, Macedon Ranges is.  

To this end the Macedon Ranges are referenced in the “Significant environment and landscape” section of the State Planning Policy Framework (Clause 12.04). This policy recognises the importance and attributes of the Macedon Ranges, and explicitly aims to protect this environmentally-sensitive area from any development that would diminish its conservation or recreation values. All relevant planning decisions must have regard to this policy.

MRRA

• The Kennett government introduced this statement.

• This is the policy statement the government deleted from the State Planning Policy Framework as part of its review of the SPPF earlier this year.  MRRA (and Macedon Ranges Shire Council) objected, and this statement was only re-instated in October.

• The statement equally applies to Yarra Ranges and Mornington Peninsula (and other places), both of which areas have other specific State level policy that Macedon Ranges does not.

• We wish the government would tell VCAT it must have regard to this policy and to stop approving development that does diminish environmental, conservation and recreation values, not to mention rural character and amenity.

• There is no way of implementing this policy through zones and overlays, and those don't give this policy priority over other generic (suburban) controls. 

I also note that Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 – Macedon Ranges and Surrounds 1975 continues to be referenced, in its entirety, as a local policy in the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme (at Clause 22.01).

MRRA:

• This is the same policy the Department of Planning and Community Development said had to be removed from Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme in 2008. 

• Amendment C62, which takes Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 (currently Clause 22.01) out of Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme,  is believed to be on the Planning Minister's desk, and has been for some time.

• As with Clause 12.04, there is no way of implementing this policy through zones and overlays that gives this policy priority over other controls. SPP8 says 'no' and 'must', but local sections of planning schemes can't say 'no' or 'must' if State policy doesn't. That's why this policy has to be State policy if it is to prevail.

The Brumby Labor Government does not support the Macedon Ranges as being an outer suburb of Melbourne. We have clearly articulated the limits of Melbourne’s metropolitan growth in the positioning of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and in our metropolitan planning strategies, namely Melbourne 2030 and its update Melbourne @ 5 Million.
 

MRRA:

• The government has designated the north and west as the next growth areas for Melbourne. 

• Big business, real estate agents and developers are pushing growth and demanding it be taken further.  Land outside 'clearly articulated limits', where Labor says growth won't be going, is already being snapped up for future development.

In line with these strategies, approximately 46,000 hectares of land was brought within the UGB earlier this year, in order to meet Melbourne’s projected housing needs. The Brumby Labor Government has no plans to expand the UGB any further in the foreseeable future. To clarify, the expanded UGB does not extend to the Macedon Ranges as suggested in your letter. The new suburb you have referenced, Toolern, is located to the immediate south-east of the township of Melton.

MRRA:

• The new Urban Growth Boundary is almost on Macedon Ranges'Shire boundary at Clarkefield, and is also very close to Darraweit Guim, and substantially moved closer to Macedon Ranges. 

• A new freeway is to be built to Sunbury.

• The new suburb of Toolern places another 60,000 people on Macedon Ranges' doorstep. 

• Areas just outside the metropolitan boundary (like Macedon Ranges) are being picked off as cheaper development options, and Macedon Ranges has no way of stopping that from happening, as is seen in VCAT decision after VCAT decision. 

If re-elected, the Brumby Labor Government would continue to support the protection of the Macedon Ranges through appropriate planning policy.

MRRA:

• Continue to support the protection...?  Appropriate planning policy?  When and where?

Labor is also committed to the autonomy of local communities creating their own future in the context of State planning policy, and to that end we encourage the local community and council to develop its planning scheme accordingly.

• Local sections of planning schemes can't say 'no' or 'must', can't over-ride State policy.

• Neither Council nor the community can create their own future with the State government saying we can't have what we need in Macedon Ranges. 

• An example of this is the recent loss of the Urban Growth Zone at Gisborne (exhibited in amendment C67 - Gisborne Outline Development Plan), another is the Department's instructions that Statement Of Planning Policy No. 8 be removed from Macedon Ranges planning scheme, and yet another is the insistence that the Macedon Ranges draft Settlement Strategy must push population growth into the Shire (especially Gisborne and Riddells Creek, coincidentally towns along the Shire's southern boundary, closest to the metropolitan area).

A range of mechanisms are available to assist Council in managing the location, form and scale of future development.

• What and where are these mechanisms when Council approves substandard subdivision and development because a refusal will get over-ruled at VCAT - and usually is?  When developers tell residents (a) they have no rights, and (b) they won't win? 

It is MRRA's belief, from Labor's response, that if the current government is re-elected, nothing will change.  Macedon Ranges will not be empowered to resist the suburbanization of its towns, diminishment of its environmental values and on-going residential development in its rural land, because the current government seems to think Macedon Ranges is already 'protected' and these problems don't exist.   It will just be another 4 years of the same things happening as happen now...