Red Alerts Red Alerts Red Alerts |
(Updated 24/12/11) |
Go-To:
Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy / Villawood
Committee For Melbourne Plans Suburbs In Macedon Ranges
(24/12/11 - C) Will 2012 be better or worse than 2011?
Early December saw the election of the final Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the current Council term, at a Special Council meeting at the Gisborne Administration Centre. Immediate past incumbents in those positions were (respectively) Henry McLaughlin and Joan Donovan (both of East ward).
Thus far in this Council term (2008 - 2012), John Letchford (2009), Rob Guthrie (2010) and Henry McLaughlin (2011) have been Mayors.
This time around, a split 5/4 vote got Henry McLaughlin over the line as Mayor again in 2012. Henryka Benson was elected as Deputy Mayor.
MRRA Says:
Ah, the annual 'great race' for the Mayoral role, lobbying for which has been known to start six months out from the election and continue almost up to when hands are raised in the air!
With Cr. McLaughlin back again, what can we look forward to? Well, a lot of improvement in the transparency and accountability of Council would be a great start!
There have been some memorable disappointments around Council's performance in the last twelve months. Some big decisions were made, not for the better. For example, Council:
Got rid of Planning Committee meetings and have now gone from four public meetings monthly a couple of years ago, to only one each month, apparently preferring the comfort zone of closed briefing meetings;
Gave officers more delegated power to make planning decisions;
And, at the only Council meeting left standing, started racing through agenda items by approving lumps of them in a single 'block' motion without debate, even when there were objections to some of those items and when not all Councillors supported the items being so moved.
Then there was the shaky 'we can't do anything to stop it' McDonalds' approval, despite 10,000 signatures saying don't do it; kafuffles over the Macedon place of last resort and kinder; and will anyone ever forget Council's ghastly attempt to gag the public at a public meeting in Woodend...
An additional wave of uneasiness comes from the growing perception that Macedon Ranges Shire seems to have a Council (or perhaps a majority of councillors) which seems too amicable to allowing officers a freer and freer - but less and less accountable - hand in making decisions for Council. Hmmm... could be a problem there. It surely could be said that most voters elect Councillors in the hope that they represent and protect community interests, and make decisions on the community's behalf? We wonder if a 'finger off the pulse' attitude delivers that, or is prudent, since such an attitude has been known historically to dramatically bite practitioners on the bum?
You don't have to be uber-observant to sense a "don't let anyone rock the boat" approach has crept in. Just tell 'em the good news... or is that no news? People are remarking how little Council tells us these days. It's more a perception than an established fact - the sort of thing that isn't easy to nail down, but which evokes an edgy feeling in your water that's something's going horribly wrong. It's a familiar feeling. It's happened before in Macedon Ranges.
2012 is going to be a busy year, not only because it's a council election year, but because all of the above - and more - dictates that a close watch must be kept on Council practices and performances, and critically, on whether there is any further deterioration in openness, accessibility and accountability, and yes, democracy.
Still, all credit to Cr. McLaughlin for taking it on, despite the last-year 'poisoned chalice' theory. He must be a brave soul because a number of Macedon Ranges Shire's 'last-year-of-term' Mayors have been voted out at the Council election later that year.
(24/12/11 - P) New Bushfire Management Overlay [BMO] takes consideration of fire hazard further
In November the State government introduced new (and significantly changed) planning regulations in amendment VC83 relating to bushfire hazard, which resulted in changes to 17 planning scheme clauses.
State policy at Clause 13 Environmental Risks is greatly changed, with a stronger emphasis on strategy, and a new focus on prioritizing protection of human life, refusing unsuitable development (in terms of existing or creating bushfire risk) and building community resilience.
The new Bushfire Management Overlay (Clause 44.06) introduces an ability to add Schedules to the Overlay. This means areas with different hazard and different requirements can be identified, instead of universal application of the same 'rules'. There are also changes to Environmental Significance, Vegetation Protection, Significant Landscape, Erosion Management and Salinity Management Overlays, with Schedules being introduced for the last two.
Changes are made to several Particular Provisions at Clauses 52.16, 52.17, 52.32, 52.40, 52.43. New Provisions for Bushfire Protection: Planning Requirements and Bushfire Protection: Exemptions are inserted as Clauses 52.47 and 52.48 respectively. Clause 52.47 sets out new subdivision and development requirements in bushfire-prone areas, in a format which mirrors ResCode, and Clause 52.48 sets out where planning permit requirements may not apply for Accommodation proposals.
To help explain these changes two new Advisory Notes are available (Advisory Note 33: Community fire refuge and private bushfire shelter exemptions, and Advisory Note 40: Bushfire planning provisions).
There are also new Practice Notes 64 Local Planning for bushfire protection which identifies what's needed for planning applications, and Practice Note 65 which explains the Bushfire Management Overlay and bushfire protection planning requirements.
At this stage, the existing Wildfire Management Overlay [WMO], which identifies risk areas based upon narrow criteria, is retained but now the new VC83 planning provisions apply to it. The new Bushfire Management Overlay will go further than the WMO. The BMO is based on recently released Bushfire Hazard mapping, which identifies some 85% of Victoria as being at risk, so the BMO will be applied more extensively over larger areas than the existing WMO. The WMO will be replaced in planning schemes over time with the Bushfire Management Overlays.
An additional feature of the BMO is that it comes with schedules, which allow differences in risk level, requirements and actions to be taken to be differentiated and included on separate schedules within the BMO overlay itself. The 'old' WMO has no schedules and so the same standards apply universally. In addition, the new planning provisions (Clause 52.47) are reminiscent of ResCode with a fundamental difference - there are MANDATORY standards to be met for subdivision and development in bushfire prone areas. The provisions also recognize development may not be possible in all situations.
These changes respond to the Bushfire Royal Commission recommendations, and affect most parts of the State.
For more information on the new provisions, go to the Department of Planning and Community Development's website, http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/plansandpolicies/bushfire-planning-and-building/planning-for-bushfire-protection
To access the new planning scheme provisions go to VC83: Approved Documentation at Amendments Online:
Practice Note 65: Bushfire Management Overlay and bushfire protection planning requirements:
MRRA Says:
These are bold steps - and a new way of thinking - which radically change how the planning system addresses fire in Victoria. They deliver new standards and better define risks, outcomes, roles, requirements and responsibilities.
The changes are complex and comprehensive, and importantly come as a 'complete package' of integrated controls, all of which need to be read and used together. They are also a substantial change from the controls introduced after the Black Saturday bushfires.
It will pay everyone to read and understand the changes and new provisions before venturing into either action or comment in response to them.
(24/12/11 - P) Here we go again. Council's 2011 Christmas gift to the community - submissions closed December 19
Council recently put Amendment C84 on exhibition, with comments closing on 19 December - that is, the amendment was exhibited for only one month, with submissions closing just before Christmas. Same thing happened with the Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy, this time last year.
Council is saying C84 'implements' the now adopted Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy into the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme, with a policy-neutral 'update' of the Municipal Strategic Statement [MSS] based on community consultation from 2008.
Amendment C84 updates the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and implements the Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy. Any person who may be affected by the amendment may make a submission to the planning authority. The closing date for submissions is Monday 19 December 2011.
MRRA Says:
At first glance, you could be duped into believing this amendment's just a bit of 'housekeeping' and not really worth worrying about.
Wrong.
The C84 amendment is in fact another sub-standard piece of strategic planning from Macedon Ranges Shire.
Just a few things stand out about Amendment C84:
The amendment is of many parts. While it admits to inserting the Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy [MRSS], and 'updating' the scheme's Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Policies, it also inserts a variety of other documents, and prior to exhibition, also attempted to insert the Gisborne and Romsey Outline Development Plans. NB These were removed from the exhibited version. Still C84 is several amendments too many - just putting the MRSS into the scheme is enough change for one amendment. The upshot is that is almost impossible to tell which of the amendment's many elements change which part of the scheme. The other elements, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policies, should not have been there. They need their own - separate - amendments.
Changes to the 'updated' Municipal Strategic Statement [MSS] and Local Policies [LPP] in Amendment C84 are claimed to be based upon 2008's MSS Review, and Amendment C62. Nup, that's not where C84 comes from. The 'update' of the MSS and LPP is said to be policy-neutral, meaning while it may change words around, it doesn't change policy. Big, big fail on that one - the changes not only redirect policy, they take Macedon Ranges in a completely different direction. MRRA's inspection revealed substantial changes were made to Amendment C84 (from C62 and the existing scheme) before Council adopted it for exhibition on 26 October 2011, and more substantial changes were made AFTER Council adopted it for exhibition.
Not all of the amendment was exhibited. Before removing some of the local policies (only 3 of 20 policies are left) some of the policy content had to be moved to overlay schedules. This wasn't done, but the policies were removed anyway. More policy lost. That's policy change.
Statement of Planning Policy Number 8. Yes, there's a reference to it at the beginning of the 'updated' MSS, but the policy itself, currently Clause 22.01, wasn't exhibited even though the officer's report on 26 October said the content of it had been moved to the beginning of the 'updated' MSS. The content wasn't there either, so our question is - where is it, exactly?
The Settlement Strategy's nonsensical population figures for Study Areas (which include Rural Living Zone population) have been translated into township sections in the 'updated' MSS as town populations. Very naughty. Needs to be made really clear that those population figures relate to huge land areas, not just the towns.
Then there are the Implementation sections, which are supposed to clearly spell out policy, exercising discretion, future strategic work to be done, supporting actions and other actions council might take outside the planning scheme to achieve relevant objectives and strategies. In the exhibited C84 'updated' MSS, these tend to be all lumped together under one heading, often with the section preamble: Council will/may require the following. Gulp. We defy anyone to work out what these cryptic, mystic, disjointed sections are doing... Can anyone out there tell us how requiring a zone to be applied works as something council will or may want when considering planning permit applications?
Most of the existing local policies not only disappear from the Local Policy section, and some of them don't seem to make it to anywhere else. Evaporation?
Existing policies for rural land have been decimated. Which is interesting, because there's nothing that we know of that justifies changing rural policy in C84. And whopping changes have been made both before, and after, council said C84 could be exhibited.
If you haven't worked it out yet, MRRA is deeply unimpressed, not least by the way Amendment C84 is misrepresented as 'policy-neutral' when in reality, it changes everything. More than that is the way it changes everything - without justification, without a proper review and consultation process, without transparency and accountability - that doubles the amount of both it causes us. The extent and timing of exhibition also riles - one month, and the month before Christmas at that.
There's a saying that, when something happens over Christmas, it's because there's something someone doesn't want you to know. Yep, that about sums it up...
MRRA did manage to get a submission in before the cut off date, but under the circumstances wouldn't be surprised if there weren't many others.
In our submission, we've requested that everything except the Settlement Strategy be taken out of C84 (other elements should run under their own amendments and processes), and that C84 then be re-exhibited to allow people to see what changes are being made to the existing planning scheme by introducing the Strategy. If Council decides to decline this request, we've requested that the entire C84 amendment be abandoned.
(24/12/11 - P) The long journey for the school to recover reputation and community support begins...
Braemar College has issued a statement formally announcing it will no longer be associated with Villawood Properties Pty. Ltd. The statement also says Braemar will continue to look for a site for its second campus, and pay greater attention to community needs.
Villawood, on the other hand, has brushed this blow off, again identifying those many who disagree with it as 'vocal minorities' and vowing to keep pursuing both another school and its ambitious, speculative plans to almost double the population of Woodend township.
MRRA Says:
A bouquet to Braemar for finally realising what a loser the Davies Hill proposal is.
The usual triple brickbats to Villawood. We wonder at what point in time the company will realise how silly it looks...
(23/10/11 - P) Romsey residents concerned development application hasn't satisfactorily tackled the big issues
An elegant new community website has been set up to give Romsey residents information and a chance to have a say about a large business development proposal next to the old National Bank building in Romsey. There are concerns that the proposal isn't adequately addressing some significant issues. Click http://romseymagnolia.com.au/ to check out the website, and learn more about the proposal, the contamination, and the potential damage to heritage trees in the Romsey town centre.
MRRA Says:
The Association has been asked to publicize the website and issue, and is pleased to provide support.
We understand the Bendigo Bank is involved with this development application, along with Mr. Doug Newnham and Mr. Bill Jacobs (who designed the AAMI Call Centre in Gisborne). Issues being raised by residents appear to have merit, in particular suspected extensive contamination of the development site, and the development's potential to damage and diminish significant trees which play a strong role in defining Romsey's character.
(23/10/11 - P) Processes are in place that should resolve the issue without Government interference.
On 17 October 2011, ABC Bendigo posted a story headed "Vic Govt won't interfere in Villawood row". The story goes on to quote Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy, as saying he understood Council had some concerns with the [Villawood amendment] proposal, and had articulated those concerns. He said the matter should be resolved without Government interference. Click here for the ABC story.
MRRA Says:
The Minister's comments appear to close the door on any hopes Davies Hill Pty Ltd / Villawood Pty Ltd et al may have harboured of getting around Council's refusal by tapping into claimed Spring Street connections to move the gross amendment proposal forward.
The developers are publicly blaming a "vocal minority" [i.e. most of the Woodend community] for Council's refusal, which rather misses the point. That wasn't why the amendment was refused, and making "vocal minority" a PR mantra won't change the reasons why it was knocked off. Council's concerns and grounds for refusal were that the amendment didn't accord with the Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy for Woodend, and also didn't meet local and State policy in the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme. Not only doesn't the community want what the developers want, seems the planning system and scheme don't want it either.
(7/10/11 - P) Council votes 8 to 1 to NOT support speculative development proposal for Golf Course Hill, Woodend
Weather-wise, there wasn't much that could have made last Wednesday evening worse: a wild thunderstorm, torrential rain, roaring wind, flash flooding, power outages, all trains stopped, people having to overnight in Melbourne.
On such a vile night there was also a Council meeting in Gisborne, where Woodend's future would be decided. Despite the weather, people still managed to make it to the meeting.
The Council officer's report, published the previous Monday, recommended Council say 'no' to Villawood's application to rezone the former Davies' property from farming and rural conservation to residential. If approved, the rezoning would allow Villawood Properties P/L and Davies Hill P/L to make a financial killing from acres and acres of new but superfluous residential development - superfluous, that is, to the town's needs.
Council's Director of Planning, Sophie Segafredo, told the meeting that Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy was very clear and did not support the Villawood Properties P/L / Davies Hill P/L proposal.
It was then announced that a Part 2 would be added to the officer's recommendation to refuse. Part 2 in effect acknowledges the 2009 C45 amendment (known as the Braemar amendment) as a separate amendment, currently on hold at the request of Braemar, which will be considered on current policy and on merit as and when it moves again.
Cr. Henryka Benson moved the expanded refusal, congratulating officers on their report. Cr. Roger Jukes seconded, but said he had nothing to add. Cr. Joe Morabito and Cr. John Letchford opposed (with Cr. Letchford saying he opposed for the purposes of discussion).
Cr. Morabito, in opposing the officer's recommendation, said he had done some soul searching and thought the proposal was a good project. It provided considerable infrastructure such as 300 acres of open space, 7km of walking tracks, a Men's Shed, retirement village, $1 million to Buffalo Stadium, upgrading the railway carpark, and so on. He said it took the burden off ratepayers.
Cr. Manning said the application had been taken through the whole process of planning justification and been found lacking. It hadn't met requirements, and he supported the motion [to refuse]. Cr. Letchford said the motion didn't go far enough and read out some additional grounds for refusal [which in the end were not included]. Cr. Guthrie also congratulated the officers for a well balanced assessment of planning pros and cons, saying it was a good quality development in the wrong place and at the wrong time. He said the cost of maintaining such a huge amount of open space would be an impost on Council - that amount may be appropriate inside the Urban Growth Boundary or at Point Cook, but not here. He also noted that the $1 million contribution was well below the $4.5 million mentioned elsewhere, and that Council would have wanted the maximum contribution.
Earlier in the meeting, Crs. Benson, Jukes and Letchford had declared an interest in this agenda item due to present or past relationships with Braemar College. At this point in the meeting, Cr. Letchford, apparently as Council's current "fellow" at Braemar, made a lengthy statement declaring he could make a decision - and came to the table - with an open mind.
Cr. Benson closed discussion by saying she reiterated her original remarks, and congratulated the Woodend community for its input.
The vote was taken and then a division was called which showed Crs. Donovan, Manning, Jukes, Benson, Letchford, Guthrie, Relph and McLaughlin supported the officer's recommendation to refuse; Cr. Morabito opposed.
MRRA Says:
Well, we dared them to inspire us - and on this occasion they did. The recommendation, and vote, saying 'no' to Villawood responded (and responded well) to planning considerations - including the Settlement Strategy's finding that no greenfields rezoning for residential purposes is needed in Woodend, as well as State planning policy. Those planning considerations are the basis and justification for the officer's recommendation and Council's decision (for the record, wanting something doesn't justify it).
The developers, Villawood / Davies Hill, have vowed to "fight on", claiming Council has listened to a "vocal minority". Anyone who thinks most of the town is a minority needs to get out more! The boot's actually on the other foot. The vocal minority are the developers and their mates who don't seem to 'get it' that most townsfolk - and visitors - don't want the suburbia they do.
One of the options the developers have is to ask the Minister for Planning to intervene. This would involve Ministerial approval of the amendment by over-ruling Council's refusal. The word going around is that the developers seem to think they have a good/excellent relationship with the Minister's office. Since the Villawood and Braemar proposals were first mooted around 2005/2006, there have been whispers of hidden influence within the Department of Planning and Community Development. But times and people have changed, and the challenges now would be if influences do exist, would they be sufficiently strong enough to persuade a new government which has just abandoned approving an amendment at Philip Island, and is committed to protecting Macedon Ranges, to look favourably upon the developers, particularly in the face of strong community opposition?
Speaking of community, it beggars belief that Braemar could so mis-read the community it claims to be part of. Telling the town to get behind Villawood because it suited Braemar was a grave mistake, and a PR disaster for the school. People were and still are shocked and distressed that Braemar so clearly expected (some might say demanded) residents to put the private school's interests before the interests of the town itself. The arrogance of the school has been the talk of the town; the mothers' clubs; the trains, with much head shaking at how out of touch and step with the community the school is. Even after Council's refusal, the school's expectations don't seem to have changed. It doesn't seem to understand the magnitude of what it has lost, or how its actions demonstrated just how much of a gulf exists between the school's interests and the community's interests.
Braemar's championing of the developers also raises another critical issue. Prior to the meeting, some local residents who have been active in opposing Villawood circulated an email (which came across MRRA's desk) asking why Crs. Benson and Jukes - both West Ward (Woodend) councillors - were silent on the issues. It also raised questions about conflicts of interest councillors might have through associations with Braemar, and whether any such conflicts could have a bearing on the outcome. Pulling no punches, the email then asked whether Council's continued presence as 'fellows' on the Braemar Board conflicted the whole Council. It's a good question.
The practice of Council having a councillor representative at Braemar College Ltd. began way back in the seventies with the former Shire of Newham and Woodend. Even though circumstances have changed, somehow it still continues today and councillors are still 'fellows' of the school. Is it appropriate for Council to have such an insider role and direct association with what is essentially a private business, when Council is a statutory decision-maker and has before it a rezoning application from the body of which it is a privileged member? Would it be acceptable for Council to be making decisions about other businesses if it had a 'Braemar' relationship with those businesses? Is the relationship a truly arm's-length one? Is it time for Council to cease its 'special' relationship with Braemar?
(7/10/11 - C) Good idea, but there's some confusion
Macedon Ranges Shire Council has introduced a new service: recycling garden waste, and bins are already on the ground in some areas.
You can find out more about it by going to Council's website http://www.mrsc.vic.gov.au/Files/BINBETTER16pp_bklt.pdf
The principle of having a service to recycle garden waste is a great idea. However, some residents have reported they don't need or don't want the service / costs, others are wondering why they don't receive the service.
What is not clear is how the the service operates - for example, what basis is Council using to include/exclude residents? There doesn't seem to be information about this on Council's website and perhaps it should be added. There is confusion, and suggestions of conflicting advice being received. One report is that properties over 1 ha are excluded, and another that only residentially zoned areas are included (although the bins have been provided to other areas). Some residents get advice that they can opt in or out, others that property owners can request exclusion (no info on whether inclusion can be requested), and yet others that the service of designated areas is mandatory.
MRRA Says:
Macedon Ranges may well be greener than ever, as Council claims, but it seems to also be more confused than ever. It would be very helpful if Council can provide more information and certainty about how areas receiving the service are determined, and whether there is an opt-in / opt-out capability available.
(7/10/11 - C) It's not just cost over-runs, but what's being paid for, and how it's approved, that is of concern.
In the Council meeting agenda on 28 September, Item AO4 dealt with cost overruns on the Kyneton Mechanics Institute refurbishment. From the figures presented, the refurbishment is a $1.2 million project. It seems that Council received a tender for the project which allowed a 14% contingency cost (the officer's report notes that for historic buildings, contingencies of 15% - 20% are common). However, this particular contract was awarded with just a 4.7% contingency allowance to keep the project within budget.
The officer's report notes that the CEO, acting under delegation, awarded the contract. Councillors were apparently advised of the higher than usual potential for cost overruns, given the low contingency allowance ($56,000) built into the contract.
The matter before Council involved some $88,000 of identified additional works which, after allowing for the original $56,000 contingency, left a shortfall of some $31,000. The officer's report sought Council consent to approve the additional expenditure, and for adding another $87,000 to cover additional contingency costs for the project. All up, consent was sought for approval of an additional $118,000 expenditure.
The identified additional works are:
Installation of agi drains to address the issue of ground water penetration into the soil in the north and south wings.
Installation of a forced-ventilation system to ensure the air in the subfloor space is maintained dry.
Modification of boiler pipe work to maintain heritage integrity.
Installation of new flooring and support walls in the kitchen area to replace original works damaged by water.
Additional works to replace and repair render that following paint removal is shown to be in a poorer condition than that expected.
The officer's report was put forward in a block of agenda items, and approved without debate. In fact, when Cr. Letchford objected to this item being included in the block of items being approved, the Mayor advised him there was no debate allowed as it was a procedural motion. In the end, three councillors - Letchford, Guthrie and Morabito - voted against the block of items being approved.
MRRA Says:
A few questions spring to mind:
Why was the original contract awarded with only a 4.7% contingency factor?
Why has Council decided to apply a 10% contingency to the remaining $870,000 works, after originally agreeing to only a 4.7% contingency?
Where is the additional $118,000 coming from?
Why is Council (i.e. ratepayers) alone paying for works involving water damage, when earlier reports pointed to water damage being caused to the KMI by the watering of the Kyneton Bowling Club's greens?
Where is the accountability mechanism for expenditure of the additional $87,000 Council has agreed officers can spend, and for what it is spent on?
Why was this item and this level of expenditure approved under a procedural motion which prohibited debate in the council chamber, and when three councillors dissented with the motion?
(23/9/11 - E) Regulations and maps released by State government
The State government has released maps of bushfire prone areas in Victoria. Around 85% of the State is now classified as bushfire prone which, among other things, indicates a vulnerability to ember attack. New requirements and standards are now in place, which will affect new building and development - and planning for it. Click here to see more information and links from the Department of Planning and Community Development's website.
MRRA Says:
It's not quite a blanket coverage for Macedon Ranges Shire, but it's close. Bushfire-prone coverage varies across the towns, with Kyneton looking the least bushfire-prone. Click here for the Macedon Ranges Shire map. Tip: Use zoom in View to get a closer look at specific areas.
We zoomed in for Woodend to see how the Villawood land is affected, remembering that there aren't any Wildfire Management Overlays on the land. The new bushfire-prone maps change that. It's no longer the 'safe haven' some would have it, because the new mapping shows the entire property is now officially classified as bushfire-prone. Hmmm... does that mean the whole proposal will have to be re-thought, along with the desirability of putting a second Braemar school in a bushfire-prone area?
(23/9/11 - E) Turbines now 'off-limits' in Macedon Ranges
The State government has introduced new requirements for Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria. This includes identifying areas where the facilities are 'off-limits', and a new requirement for consent from landowners within 2km of the closest turbine to accompany permit applications for facilities.
Earlier this year, the State government transferred responsibility for decisions from the State government to local Councils (although Councils can ask the Minister to decide an application, and there is also potential for an Environment Effects Statement to be required, the need for which must be decided by the Minister).
New provisions have been introduced into all planning schemes in Victoria at Clauses 19.01 and 52.32, and the Schedule to Clause 52.32, and a final "Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria" has also been released (August 2011). The Guidelines are to be read with the new provisions, and seem comprehensive. They address:
Definition of a Wind Energy Facility
Wind Energy In Victoria
Planning Framework For Wind Energy Facility Proposals
Planning Permit Applications - Information For Applicants
Information for Responsible Authorities - Assessing A Wind Energy Facility
Planning Permit Administration and Enforcement
Attachment A: Statement of Consent (from landowner within 2 km)
Attachment B: Model Permit Conditions
High emphasis is placed upon protecting amenity and landscapes, including requiring power line connections to be placed underground. There are also requirements to prevent electromagnetic interference with television and radio signals, and consent of owners within 2km means the owner has to sign the consent and a plan of the proposal at the same time. Flora and Fauna, Aircraft Safety, Construction Impacts and Decommissioning are also issues that feature strongly.
MRRA Says:
The Guidelines are the backbone of these changes, and should be read in tandem with the new planning scheme provisions. Both Guidelines and provisions should be read carefully to fully understand what the new rules are.
We couldn't find anything in these changes that bans Wind Energy Facilities across Victoria, as some have claimed What we did find was that these changes require higher consideration of where these facilities are located and the impacts of them on the places and people around them. This means that the location of the facilities must be better thought out than in the past and take more factors into account; and that people affected by them can have a say in what happens near them - something we all want when planning decisions affect us.
The changes also make it clear that there are some areas where other important values will prevail, such as environmentally sensitive and significant landscape areas like Macedon Ranges, and around rural towns where land may be required for future urban expansion.
MRRA had reservations about responsibility for Wind Energy Facility decisions being handed back to Councils and the capacity and skills of Councils to deal with these complex proposals. The Model Permit included in the Guidelines allays many of those concerns, because the Guidelines and Model Permit set out what needs to be addressed and in some instances, how it is to be addressed. This is important because the scale and scope of Wind Energy Facilities - as with any other semi-industrial use - produces a raft of issues to be addressed, which until now usually fell to Panels with the necessary expertise.
There is an interesting parallel to the Victorian government's changes. Federal Independent Andrew Wilkie has introduced a private members' bill, the thrust of which is to give communities a greater say in where and how these towers are built. Mr Wilkie says there needs to be a better balance between providing these facilities, and giving communities a greater say in where and how they happen. Click here to see the Age report of 20 September, 2011.
(17/8/11 - SP) Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 to be State policy by end of 2011
When MRRA met with Planning Minister, the Hon Matthew Guy, on June 22, he delivered welcome news: Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 would be re-instated as State policy by the end of this year.
The Baillieu Coalition government's commitment to protect Macedon Ranges was spelt out in the Liberal/National Party Planning Policy published before the November 2010 State election.
LOCALISED PLANNING STATEMENTS (page7)
A Liberal Nationals Coalition Government will:
Establish localised planning statements for a number of key areas around Victoria.
These new Statements of Planning Policy will apply to:
The Mornington Peninsula;
The Yarra Valley;
The Macedon Ranges; and
The Bellarine Peninsula.
A Liberal Nationals Coalition Government reaffirms its support for the retention of Statement of Planning Policy Number 8 that currently exists in the Macedon Ranges but which is being repeatedly undermined by the Labor Government.
On March 16, 2011, the Minister issued a media release announcing the formation of the Peri Urban Unit within the Department of Planning and Community Development, which will oversee preparation of the Localized Statements of Planning Policy.
MRRA Says:
Thank you, Minister, for your time, and the good news about Statement of Planning Policy No. 8. Our thanks also to Northern Victoria Region MLC Donna Petrovich, whose office made the meeting arrangements.
While with the Minister, MRRA suggested a way in which the policy could be incorporated within the State section of the Victoria Planning Provisions to allow it to truly be part of day-to-day decisions and strategic planning. The Association also raised some other planning issues, including deficiencies with current State provisions relating to Development Plan Overlays, and gaming (pokies).
The Minister said he would be working with Council to deliver SPP8, and further consulting with MRRA. Now, that's something we really are looking forward to. From 2004, MRRA met with Matthew Guy, David Davis and Ted Baillieu as Opposition spokesmen on planning, and in 2010 handed Matthew Guy a 3,000 signature petition calling for re-instatement of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 as State policy. The Coalition's enduring commitment to protect Macedon Ranges always impressed us, so it's great to see that commitment becoming a reality, particularly after the former Labor government reneged on its promise to do the same thing. Well done.
(17/8/11 - E) A project with some big hurdles to overcome...
MRRA recently met with Macedon Ranges Sustainability Group [MRSG]. Under discussion was the MRSG's proposed wind turbine facility in the pine plantation, near Macedon, south of Woodend.
While MRSG's published material says up to 6 turbines could be accommodated on the site, apparently the committee has decided to limit the proposal to 3 turbines.
As MRRA understands it, the first step is getting an anemometer up on the site to test wind speed over time. MRSG had funding for this but it has been suspended because circumstances have changed. MRSG are now looking for community support for the project to persuade the new State government to make some momentous changes to policy and legislation.
The site selected by MRSG in the pine plantation is on public land, and Hancock Plantations have a 99 year lease from the State government to grow trees on it. The Plantations Act controls how pine plantations operate, and currently allows the land to only be used to grow trees. Before the MRSG anemometer or a wind turbine facility could go ahead, the Plantations Act would have to be changed to allow other uses in pine plantations. Hancock would also have to agree to sub-lease the land.
Apparently Hancock's were amenable to sub-leasing, but have withdrawn support because of the new State government's 'no-go' policy on wind turbines in the Macedon and McHarg Ranges to protect landscapes and other values. The government has also introduced new 'rules' and guidelines for wind turbines generally, which introduce higher standards to be met, particularly with regard to proximity of turbines to surrounding houses, and noise.
It seems then that to even get an anemometer off the ground, MRSG has before it the task of convincing the State government to step back from its 'no-go' turbine policy in Macedon Ranges, and to change an Act of Parliament - both sizeable challenges which apparently played a role in the suspension of MRSG's funding after the change of government.
In addition to the funding, legislative and policy problems, some other matters also arise:
If correctly understood there seems to be some expectation of and dependency on 7.5 metres per second wind speed for the project. It is often said that wind speeds are good in Woodend. However, the proposed pine plantation site however is well south of Woodend, and the interactive Victorian Wind Atlas mapping when enlarged shows the site in a lesser wind speed area. There would also be turbulence problems associated with the trees.
Map: The approximate location of the site superimposed over the Victorian Wind Atlas map shows it is closer to Macedon than Woodend, and falls outside the 'better' wind areas further north attributed to Woodend. (Location is based on MRSG site mapping and is approximate)
Proximity of houses to the site. MRSG advised there are 12 houses within 2km. One owner objects and 3 or 4 others ‘haven’t decided’. Plans show up to another 22 houses within 3km. Under the latest regulations for wind turbines, that’s going to be a problem.
The pine trees are apparently only 30 metres high, the wind turbines would be 80 metres to turbine, and 110 metres to blade tip, with the anemometer mast the same height as the turbines. While not the largest turbine towers (claimed to now be 164 metres http://cleantechnica.com/2011/04/22/world%E2%80%99s-largest-offshore-wind-turbine-to-be-constructed-in-north-sea/), at 110 metres these turbine packages would still be three times as high as the trees, and this, along with location on a ridge and the prospect of the trees being harvested, does raise landscape issues. With that height, existing vegetation on residences/properties would be unlikely to mask the visual effects, as apparently expected.
Assessment of forestry coupes in Wombat Forest (Trentham) confirm extensive acknowledged Powerful Owl habitat in the vicinity. The Powerful Owl is of State significance with "vulnerable" conservation status in Victoria, and is listed on the Flora and Fauna Guarantee.
The site is located within the Rosslynne proclaimed water catchment and the plantation's soils are highly erodible. Apparently 1ha of trees will need to be clear felled for each turbine, raising site and soil management issues.
MRRA Says:
Our sincere thanks to MRSG for their time and the information they were able to provide. While the Association supports the State government's 'no-go' policy for wind turbine towers in Macedon and McHarg Ranges, we appreciated the opportunity to discuss the merits and constraints of this particular proposal with MRSG.
Well, there certainly seem to be some hefty problems to overcome, and it must be a worry that there may not be a way to resolve all of them.
Overall, it's a large project and trying to get our heads around it prompted a lot of questions. For example:
How would it work?
Who owns/maintains the turbines/site?
Who are the investors/supporters?
Who is liable if they start a fire and who pays if they burn down? [we were told insurance would cover this]
Why is Westwind (a wind energy company) involved in MRSG meetings if it is a community project?
How can it be guaranteed that Woodend would get exclusive use of the energy produced (e.g. for heated pools) when the energy is simply fed into the main grid?
In response to our concerns over fire we were told turbines are unlikely to start a fire [although they do catch fire]. The worry isn't just the turbines starting fires, but their location: in the pine plantation, next to the Wombat and Black Forests, and residential land use at Macedon - an extremely high fire risk area.
While there seems to be an obvious expectation of profit from the proposal, it wasn't clear how costs and benefits would be apportioned. For example, what happens if it loses money? As for what happens if/when the turbines became redundant, we were told the masts and turbines would be taken off site while concrete slabs could be blasted out.
While there seems to be some community support for the proposal (e.g. a 450 signature petition), we wonder how much of this is support for alternative energy generally rather than this specific proposal, and whether other options should be (or should continue to be) supported. For instance, is it realistic to say Woodend is too cloudy for solar alternative energy when many homes already have it?
With all of the hurdles to be overcome with this multiple wind turbine project, perhaps a practical approach would be to look at other, simpler, more achievable options as the answer to alternative energy for Woodend.
(22/5/11- C) Less accessibility, less light, less accountability is a recipe for returning to the dark days of the past
Macedon Ranges Council has decided to no longer hold monthly Planning Committee meetings. When introduced in 2003, the local press described these meetings as a 'silent revolution'. For the first time residents had access to planning decisions and planning processes that affect them, and were allowed to address Councillors before a decision was made.
Justification for dropping these meetings is provided in the Chief Executive Officer's report to Council on 20 May 2011 states that "the Planning Committee has been a useful and successful mechanism on a number of fronts..." and lists some of the benefits the system has delivered to the decision-making process.
Provides both objectors and applicants 'a public arena' to be heard;
There is arguably a real engagement with the people interexsted in the outcome of a matter;
The process actively involves the Council and individual councillors in the matter, and arguably informs and educates them on the implementation of the planning scheme;
The source of the decision is 'clear' with a public Committee Meeting as opposed to decisions made under delegation.
It goes on to say the disadvantages of the Planning Committee include less than 10% of the officers' recommendations being overturned or altered in the last two years, so undue delay has occurred in the decision making process for these cases (presumably those which went to the Planning Committee and went through).
The report then says that it can be argued that the system has served its purpose and Council can confidently move forward because:
There is strong confidence in the planning Department and Officers to process applications in accordance with the planning scheme;
Council's strategic planning and policy framework is significantly more advanced than in 2000 and provides greater clarity and direction.
Planning matters can be 'called in' by councillors;
Planning Application conferences (i.e. objector meetings) provide an appropriate forum for consultation and negotiation;
Councillors have been exposed to 2 years of staturoty planning processes and have had a reasonable opportunity tounderstand how the current 'policy framework' impacts on statutory planning outcomes;
Statutory planning takes up a disproportionate amount of Councillors' time.
Without the Planning Committee meeting, Council and its processes will only be accessible to the public once a month, that is, the Ordinary council meeting towards the end of each month. Until 2008, Council held 3 meetings per month.
Council also decided to abandon any further Council meetings in Woodend, and future meetings will be held only at Kyneton, Gisborne and Romsey.
Additionally, Council gave planning officers more power to make planning decisions under delegation. Notable changes are that officers can make decisions relating to liquor licenses, and amend Development Plans, on their own accord.
MRRA Says:
This isn't good enough.
For a start, why wasn't the community consulted about what it wanted?
These changes symbolize a retreat from the basic principles of democracy, and will come back to bite us.
Less accountability, transparency and public access in operations and decision-making is always a recipe for disaster, particularly in planning. The Shire has already experienced the horrors this type of situation can produce and is still paying for them. In those days, Macedon Ranges was the laughing stock of the State.
The Planning Committee was set up to make planning decisions and practices more open, transparent and accountable and has been closed down for lamentably weak reasons. What's the problem? Is it that Councillors can't be bothered attending two meetings a month, or are they just blissfully unaware of the Pandora's Box these changes have opened?
How can our Councillors be comfortable with handing their responsibilities and more power to people who weren't elected to represent the community or make decisions for it? Development Plans - the approval and amendment of - are already a red-hot issue, and now decisions can be made without scrutiny by people who aren't required to publicly account for those decisions.
MRRA believes there is nothing democratic, proactive or wise about these decisions, and in the public interest, calls on our Councillors to reverse them.
(13/4/11- P) Rubbish process and rubbish result:10,693 objections weren't enough to put community - and competition - first
On March 9, 2011 surrounded by around 200 gallery members at its Planning Committee meeting in Gisborne, Macedon Ranges Shire Council gave McDonalds the keys to the town by agreeing to approve permits that allow the development to go ahead.
One excuse used to justify the decision was that McDonalds had made concessions that would see their off-putting world-wide generic structures slightly more respectful of Gisborne's rural character. A McDonalds' representative apparently told the meeting that if Council didn't approve, Maccas would go to VCAT and any concessions would be lost - it would go for the usual gaudiness instead.
The first thing Council had to approve was an amendment to an approved Development Plan. That Plan said a petrol station would go on the site coveted by Maccas. Council already had 20 written objections and 8,673 signatures on a petition opposing the change, and another 2,000 signatures were handed over on the night, making 10,673 signatures in total (there were around 6,300 people in Gisborne/New Gisborne in 2006). But this daunting display of community opposition wasn't enough to convince enough councillors that their first responsibility was to the community, not McDonalds.
An alternative motion to not approve the amendment to the Development Plan, moved Cr. Letchford and seconded Cr. Guthrie and supported by Cr. Manning, was lost 3 votes to 4.
Instead the Officer's recommendation to approve the amendment, and three permit applications, was then moved in a job lot by Cr. Jukes, seconded by South Ward (Gisborne) councillor Helen Relph, and carried.
The previous day the Mayor, Cr. McLaughlin, was quoted in the Macedon Ranges Weekly as saying the only thing Council was considering was the building and signs, which over-simplifies things. Consequently Gisborne will have to plough on with just the one (1) petrol station and two (2) kerbside bowsers, but some 35 food outlets, because there isn't another suitable site for a petrol station in the town. And that town is set for booming population growth, if the draft Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy has its way.
MRRA Says:
This decision could well qualify as the front runner in the 'Two Finger Salute To Community' Awards. 10,690 people didn't want Council to approve this. 10,690, and all of them ignored. As far as MRRA knows, that's a record in Macedon Ranges Shire.
A quick read of the Officer's Report on the night suggests only 3 decision-makers were aware of the real decision Council had to make, and those were the 3 Councillors who supported the alternative motion to not change the already approved Development Plan. It seems everyone else thought Council was powerless to stop good ol' Maccas invading Macedon Ranges, no doubt nudged along by McDonalds' barely-disguised threat of retribution if Council didn't toe the McDonalds' line.
Yet Council couldn't approve the permits McDonalds needed unless it changed the Development Plan from petrol station to convenience restaurant. If just one more Councillor had supported the alternative motion to keep 'petrol station'...
There was some fancy footwork about giving notice on the signs as well. Most reasonable people might think that 16 illuminated signs, including two that are 5 metres wide and 4 metres off the ground, might get up someone's nose, but not Council. Council said the signs wouldn't adversely affect anyone so Council didn't give formal notice. The other application for an illuminated sign - over 5 metres high and 2.5 metres wide - sitting not on the site but out on common ground next to (read on the verge of) Robertson Street also wouldn't affect anyone, so Council didn't give formal notice of that one either. Why give formal notice when that would have given the community legal rights? Good Lord, couldn't have that... Might upset McDonalds!
All up, it could be said it was a rubbish process that produced yet another rubbish result in Macedon Ranges.
Click here to see MRRA's AAMI Call Centre Archive
(23/12/10 - P) HInt: It helps if you know who's counting what
Want the inside running on why 'median' house prices vary so much? Check out the Department of Planning and Community Development's website at Research Matters:
http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/53283/DPCD-ResMatters56-web.pdf
(14/11/10 - P) No honour, no transparency, no process, no democracy - in fact, no stone left unturned to get approval
MRRA has documents obtained under Freedom of Information [FOI] which give a chilling insight into how the Gisborne AAMI Call Centre (Nexus Building) came to be. The information in the documents condemns both the State government (particularly the State government), AAMI and Macedon Ranges Shire Council (the Council of the day in 2006).
The State government always denied involvement in the project, other than a $600,000 grant to AAMI for training and hiring. The State government, however, did much more than that for AAMI, and in the process, denied ordinary people justice.
The FOI documents reveal:
Discussions between AAMI and the State government (department) began in 2003.
The proposal for AAMI to occupy a new (three/four storey) building in Gisborne was first raised with Macedon Ranges Council in December 2005.
Then Minister for State and Regional Development (now Premier) John Brumby approved $600,000 funding to AAMI on 2 January, 2006, and noted on the approved application that it was an "excellent proposal".
The Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development [DIIRD] appears to have had a heavy hand in every move and aspect of the development approvals process, and applied constant pressure on Council to get the permit and plans approved, and approved so that they met AAMI's requirements.
Macedon Ranges Shire Council desperately wanted the AAMI project to go ahead, and changed permit conditions to suit AAMI.
The Department relayed advice on several occasions during the protracted approvals process from AAMI to Council advising AAMI was looking at alternative sites.
The Minister (presumably John Brumby, Minister for State and Regional Development), knew about and was kept informed of the development approvals process, despite the State government insisting its only role was approving funding.
During the approvals process, accusations were made of inappropriate behaviour.
Macedon Ranges Shire Council considered offering AAMI the Gisborne Shire offices as an alternative site, with an extension to be built by AAMI and Council to accommodate the company.
AAMI, the Department and Macedon Ranges Shire Council expressed great frustration with the developer over the constant stream of amendments to the development proposal.
After limited notification of Amendment 3, an objection was received which caused much consternation. Attempts were made to persuade the objector to withdraw their objection.
One change to the permit was made after consulting [only] 6 of 9 councillors.
Pressure was exerted for Amendment 4 to be approved prior to resolving Amendment 3.
When the objector made application to VCAT, the Department (which was not a party to the VCAT matter), called, then sent an email to VCAT advising of the significance of the project and the need for the matter to be resolved as soon as possible.
The Department was reading and collecting articles from the local press, and claimed a 'leak' had occurred that AAMI was behind the project (relevant press article - Telegraph, 1/8/06 - is included in the FOI).
By the time the government was ready to make an announcement of the 'successful' creation of 200 jobs, the Department takes great credit for 'facilitating' the planning approvals. This goes further in a 'subtext' to the official statement, where the Department claims extension facilitation was required to achieve a planning permit, and without the Department's facilitation work, it is unlikely (these) issues would have been resolved.
After the objector lodged an application with VCAT, Macedon Ranges Shire Council and the developer, Nexus Nominees, lodged their own application with VCAT, requesting the objection be denied, and asking for costs from the lone objector.
The VCAT hearing occurred the week following the Department's email requesting an expedited hearing. The objector received 2 days' notice of the hearing.
VCAT determined the objector had no standing and couldn't appeal against Council's decision to approve. A verbal decision was given by Vice President Helen Gibson on the day of the hearing, approving the proposal even though Council could not provide vital evidence that a proper process had occurred on the day. Following a request for a written decision, VCAT issued written reasons for the decision which noted that the written decision had been amended from the verbal decision given at the VCAT hearing.
Click here to see key extracts from the FOI. Click here to see MRRA's archive on the Gisborne Call Centre.
MRRA Says:
Everybody and their dog knew there was something terribly smelly about what was happening with the call centre, and the FOI confirms it. The whole process was disgusting.
From the FOI, it is clear that nothing was going to stand in the way of getting the call centre approved - the end it seems, justified the means. The 'end' was the government being able to make an announcement about creating jobs. No matter that the call centre is an eyesore that violates the town's rural character, that the Gisborne community was excluded from having a say, that Macedon Ranges Council behaved on the one hand like a bunch of cowboys, on the other as lackeys to the government's bidding.
There was no pity for the objector. What courage it took to withstand the pressure, to stand up for what was decent in a sea of whispers, threats, nods and winks. How does a Council 'go' an objector for costs, when the only reason the objector was at VCAT was because Council gave notice and the objector merely exercised the rights Council gave them?
Victoria has an open and transparent planning system? We think not. This is stomach-turning stuff that shatters public confidence. As big a worry is, where are these slimy, secretive practices happening now?
Is this what McDonalds is about? The same developer is involved. Is McDonalds another wizz-bang opportunity for the State government to 'facilitate' appalling development through pressure and deviation from process to 'create jobs', regardless of what it otherwise costs a whole community? Is there another secret deal going down right now?
(22/5/10 - P) Definitive interpretation of State guidelines for development in open, potable water catchments
Just before Christmas, VCAT delivered a 'red dot' decision that finally, finally set some standards and restrictions for development in open, potable water catchments. The application, for four houses on four rural lots, had been around for several years. The land in question is immediately upstream of Woodend's Campaspe Reservoir, which provides drinking water for the town. That is, the subject land is within an open, potable water catchment, meaning the water that runs from the privately-owned land is harvested and stored as a domestic drinking water supply.
The application was refused by Macedon Ranges Shire Council, and also collected objections from referral authorities Western Water and Southern Rural Water on its way to VCAT in 2007. VCAT approved the application.
VCAT's decision was then challenged on a point of law at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that VCAT had indeed made a legal error in not taking matters required to be considered properly into account.
As a result of this Supreme Court ruling, to its credit the State government reviewed and introduced stronger guidelines for development in open potable water catchments. One of the new bases for decision-making introduced in the revised guidelines is a requirement for the 'precautionary principle' to be applied when determining planning applications, and another is a new, explicit need to consider 'incremental' impacts of development (i.e. not just the impact of the application under consideration but its impact when added to existing impacts).
The Supreme Court's ruling overturned VCAT's original decision, and the application was sent back to VCAT for a new decision. The new guidelines were now required to be used to make this decision. VCAT's December 2009 decision, with Vice President Helen Gibson in the chair, concluded that an application for 4 houses did not meet the guidelines' requirements. VCAT ordered that a permit issue for only one (1) house.
Needless to say, such a sensible decision - which puts the public interest first - has been met with howls of protest from those who don't appear to (1) understand the importance of protecting domestic drinking water supplies and the catchments that collect that water, (2) those who see open potable water catchments as just so much empty land begging to be profitably developed and (3) don't seem to get 'public interest'.
The December 2009 VCAT decision is now, we understand, being challenged in the Supreme Court.
Click here to see MRRA's archive. Click here to see the December 2009 VCAT decision. Click here for more information about the new guidelines for open, potable water catchments.
MRRA Says:
The December 2009 VCAT decision provides an excellent insight into the reasoning applied in making the decision. It also sets down a definitive interpretation of the new open potable catchment guidelines, what they mean and how they are to be applied.
The other VERY interesting thing about this decision is how VCAT saw the Macedon Ranges' planning scheme - seems it is so full of references to protecting rural land and our precious water catchments they were too numerous to fully reference. Another very welcome finding was that Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 is not only relevant but upholds National water policy. And so say all of us!
(30/5/09 - O) The try, try and try again principle, beautifully repackaged.
When you think you can't go on, turn your mind to this... Make sure you watch until the end.
http://www.maniacworld.com/are-you-going-to-finish-strong.html
Are We All Rooned? Someone Asks The $64,000 Question: Should It Be An Ambulance Or A Fence?
(23/8/06 - E) "The water issues continue to amaze me. I would not have thought we could come this close to the edge of the cliff without somebody thinking about the fence that might be built for the future..."
Click here to see how somebody feels about the water crisis.