'Say NO To Suburbia' |
(Updated 17/8/11) |
The Battle For State Level Planning Protection In Macedon Ranges Shire
November 2010: Liberal / National Coalition Government Will Protect Macedon Ranges - MRRA Press Release
See also:
Current
Macedon Ranges draft Settlement Strategy Archive
Committee For Melbourne Thinks Macedon Ranges Is A Place For A Suburb
Previous State (Labor) Government
Development Assessment Committees
Keep Macedon Ranges Rural - Petition
Victoria In Future Population Projections
The Urban Conversion: 'Victoria In Future' Growth Projections and The Hidden Agenda For A Suburban Macedon Ranges
(30/4/05 - SP) If you've been wondering why the State government hasn't delivered its seven year old promise to protect Macedon Ranges Shire, wonder no more. See Report…
(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.
(13/4/11- P) First step towards making State Protection a reality for Macedon Ranges
The new State Government has announced a new Peri Urban planning unit will be set up within the Department of Planning and Community Development.
The unit will support the shires of Bass Coast, Baw Baw, Moorabool, Murrindindi, Golden Plains, Southern Grampians, Surf Coast and Macedon Ranges.
As the first port of call for these councils, the unit will provide assistance on strategic planning and transport integration and rural, coastal, green wedge and interface issues. There will be a strong focus on population management, long-term strategic planning and structure planning of towns and future communities. The new unit will also provide assistance in managing environmental and biodiversity issues and planning for fire and flood.
Developing localised statements of planning policy for areas including the Yarra Valley, the Macedon Ranges, and the Bellarine and Mornington Peninsulas will also be a priority for the Peri-Urban Unit.
MRRA Says:
Hooray! Brilliant start. Can't wait until the State policy for Macedon Ranges becomes reality.
(23/12/10 - P) There's still time to tell them to do it again...
Macedon Ranges Shire Council has extended the time to make submissions on the draft Settlement Strategy, from December 17 until t'the end of January 2011'. No date is given. For more information, check out Council's website http://www.mrsc.vic.gov.au/page/Page.asp?Page_Id=2128&h=-1
MRRA Says:
The bad feeling in our water didn't any better after reading the draft - it confirms someone doesn't know much about Macedon Ranges, and makes some fairly horrific assumptions.
(14/11/10 - P) Don't be fooled into thinking this is either about, or good for, Macedon Ranges. And once again, all we are getting is over 477 pages of information, and crap consultation processes, just before Christmas. Now that's usually a sign something's wrong...
The draft Macedon Ranges' Settlement Strategy and supporting documents are on exhibition and you can comment until 5.0pm on December 17th (just before Christmas). The supporting documents are:
The Context Report.
The Moving Towards Sustainable Communities report
Here are direct links to the relevant documents, or you can go to Council's website, www.mrsc.vic.gov.au NB These are LARGE files, over 20mb all up.
Download: MRSC_Draft_Settlement_Strategy.pdf (6.4mb) (104 pages)
Download: MRSCContextReport_030910Part1.pdf (4.6mb) (100 pages)
Download: MRSC_ContextReport_030910Part2.pdf (3.7mb) (133 pages)
Download: 100903_SustainableCommunitiesReport.pdf (6.6mb) (140 pages)
You can also view the hard copies (477 pages) at Council Services Centres (although if you want to take a copy away with you, we hear you may have to pay $30 for some of the documents).
Meagre consultation is proposed with only one public meeting, on Thursday 9 December, 7 - 9pm, at Riddells Creek Senior Citizens Centre, 74 - 76 Main Road, Riddells Creek.
‘Listening posts’ (street stalls) will also be held:
Gisborne, inside Gisborne Village Shopping Centre, 10.00 AM- 11.30 AM, Friday 10 December 2010.
Kyneton, outside Bendigo Bank, 89-91 Mollison Street, 12.30 PM- 2.00 PM, Friday 10 December 2010.
Lancefield, outside IGA supermarket, High Street, 3.00 PM- 4.30 PM, Friday 10 December 2010.
Romsey, outside IGA supermarket, 107 Main Street, 10.00 AM- 12.00 PM, Saturday 11 December 2010.
Woodend, outside Coles supermarket, 128 High Street, 1.30 PM - 3.30 PM, Saturday 11 December 2010.
Written submissions can be sent to Manager Planning and Development, Macedon Ranges Shire Council, PO Box 151, Kyneton 3444, or emailed to strategicplanning@mrsc.vic.gov.au
MRRA Says:
What a great way to stop people knowing what's proposed for where they live - just go and stand outside supermarkets for an hour or so, and Bob's your Uncle - consultation done.
It is really offensive for someone to keep claiming there has been (and is) substantial consultation on the draft Settlement Strategy. Who has been substantially consulted? It hasn't been the community.
The latest round of consultation proposed is pathetic. ONE public meeting, in Riddells Creek (i.e. none in the major towns where most of the excessive growth is being shoved in), and 'listening posts' over two days. Yeah, right, people will be really focussed on the issues as they race about shopping with the kids. Maybe tourists will have more time? The time put into these dickey listening posts could as easily have been devoted to meetings.
We all need to understand that the draft Settlement Strategy is, in reality, the State government's document and is an attempt to squeeze a pre-ordained number of people into Macedon Ranges. Us residents aren't deciding how many, that decision was made well before the Settlement Strategy came into existence. No, the Settlement Strategy is about how those numbers are divvied up - where they go.
It doesn't really matter if population growth will damage the fragile values of the Shire or there are constraints against growth - some of those aren't even recognized. The mantra is, the State government's growth agenda will be implemented come hell or high water.
That means this isn't an exercise in strategic planning at all. It's number crunching, and because the consultation is so deficient, it's number crunching someone doesn't want most of us to know about or understand. The draft Settlement Strategy, contrary to the spin surrounding it, does not allow Council (or community for that matter) to take some control over population growth. Nup, this is about forcing the government's Victoria In Future population growth projections into Macedon Ranges.
Those Victoria In Future projections are based on what has been happening, not what should happen. All those units, those horrible subdivisions, that the community has been powerless to stop are the foundation for the Victoria In Future figures (i.e. you had XX then, so you will have XXX in future), and what happens in Macedon Ranges in future.
The draft Settlement Strategy comes across as if nothing much has happened here until now, as if there is no past. Maybe that's why someone doesn't seem to be aware of the importance of the Rural Living 1 zone...
The Strategy relies to a great degree on what's in our current planning scheme as a basis for identifying constraints. Mmm, interesting concept, considering our planning scheme is still mainly at the 'interim' stage it was back when it was approved in 2000, and there are probably more constraints missing than are in it.
You will need to start reading now if you want to get through all of the documentation, make a submission, AND have time to prepare for Christmas.
By all means, please go to the single meeting being held at Riddells Creek, or try to remember to sidle up to the "listening posts" (you might want to take the day off work to get to the Gisborne, Kyneton and Lancefield listening posts - all are on a Friday), or put in some comments by post or email.
Tell them this isn't acceptable. Tell them they haven't consulted. Tell them Macedon Ranges isn't the slop bucket for sopping up Melbourne's population overflow. Tell them what they are doing would be a whopper of a joke except it's not funny because it's our future, our community, our environment and potentially even our lives that are being so flippantly and carelessly played with.
Tell 'em to go back and do it again, and this time do it in a way that's realistic and right for Macedon Ranges. Oh, and start listening to the community for a change.
(14/11/10 - P) CFM aspires to include Gisborne and Riddells Creek (and Macedon) into the Metro area
The Committee for Melbourne, a bunch of big business interests, think not only should Melbourne grow to 8 million people, but the Metropolitan area should be expanded to engulf parts of Macedon Ranges.
Although not easy to decipher, Gisborne, South Gisborne, Bullengarook, Riddells Creek and Clarkefield are definitely 'in', and possibly Macedon.
Click here to see the map.
MRRA Says:
Is this our future? What's going to stop it?
(13/8/10 - P) That puts around another 20,000 people and 7,000 houses in the Shire by 2036. And the State government's VC66 amendment has already been put in place (also sans consultation) to implement it. Hello suburbia!
Click here to go to this item.
(29/6/10 - P) Meagre consultation, shabby process, a whiff of State government agenda and heaps of population growth should be ringing LOUD alarm bells
Four workshops have been held recently in Macedon Ranges - Kyneton, Gisborne, Romsey and Woodend - in the first round of community consultation on the Shire's Settlement Strategy. These attracted reasonable attendances by residents, with the usual array of real estate agents, developers and others with specific interests, as well as residents.
The Gisborne and Woodend meetings made it clear growth is not welcome, particularly the type of 'accelerated' growth presented by the consultants. The consultants, CPG, seemed unable to explain where these extravagant population numbers came from or what areas had been counted to arrive at final figures they presented. The figures seems to move around almost at will, but the objective seems to be to almost double Macedon Ranges' population in 30 years. In numeric terms, that's going from 39,000 in 2006 to around 55,000 to 60,000 by 2036. Unfortunately, the whole thing is still at the 'pick a number' stage, although one thing seems certain is that the consultants are on board with the State government's intention to make Macedon Ranges an outlying suburb of Melbourne.
MRRA Says:
Sounds like someone's got an agenda to (at least) double the size of our main towns. And where are all these people going to live? We need to keep in mind that the number of people in each household is dropping, so a higher number of houses will be needed to accommodate the same number of people it took less houses to accommodate a few years ago. Where are they to go, without destroying our small towns and communities, without reaching out into rural land, without metro-style 'units' everywhere?
Where's the water to come from? Where do we get twice as much water to service towns twice as big?
How do we stop twice as many people being killed and properties lost in a bushfire? HAS THE GOVERNMENT LEARNT NOTHING?
In our experience, competent and comprehensive major strategic projects don't usually start with presenting the community with soaring population growth numbers and asking which towns that growth should go in. In fact, there was an audible gasp at the Woodend meeting when CPG informed the gathering that Macedon Ranges has the best road and
rail infrastructure in the State. Now that's starting to sound like a sell job to us.
Why do we get the feeling that the CPG consultants seem to have come in here armed with the government's 'suburbanization' population targets, and blurt about how good it is, and the only thing being asked of the community is how and where are all these people to be squeezed in? Who are the consultants working for - the government, or us?
Consultation to date is a teensy bit of a joke - during the consultants' presentation, up on the screen "extensive community consultation" flashed by, but hang on, up until then, there had only been some erratic appearances by the consultants outside shops and supermarkets. That's EXTENSIVE?? Who have the consultants been talking to?
Consultation on a major strategic project doesn't usually start with rolling out numbers, either - how about some public consultation on Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats - SWOT. About community values? About the community experience with infrastructure? About over-population and the damage it is already doing to the special values of Macedon Ranges?
It also seems unbelievably courageous (in a Sir Humphrey sort of way) for CPG to lob up and rely only on overlays in our current under-done planning scheme to identify environmental constraints, and then to call that strategic. Someone tried that with the infamous Amendment C8 Residential and Industrial Review in the early 2000s, and that amendment fell over monumentally (and embarrassingly) when it was abandoned, on the advice of a Ministerial Advisory Committee, because it lacked strategic justification. Hmm, could lightning be about to strike twice? Or will any amendment be assisted by a Ministerial hand helping to overcome difficulties - like what most of us want - to deliver a manic growth agenda?
There's also a big, big problem with the way that whatever is being planned for the 'rural balance' of the Shire seems to be a whopping secret. That's right, CPG said it will be done later. Hey, guys, a Settlement Strategy is supposed to be integrated. The fact that this one doesn't seems to suggest Plan B is for the rural areas to sop up whatever isn't squashed into the towns. And on that note, the bush telegraph is alive with rumours of wholesale rural living development is about to roll out. Oops, didn't Melbourne 2030 say that's NOT to happen?
What about fire? No problem apparently, the consultants are waiting for the Royal Commission's report on Black Saturday
to work out whether Macedon and Mt. Macedon are too big a fire risk for further growth. Wonder if they've ever heard of Ash Wednesday? Does it count that Woodend is one of the 50 worst fire risk towns in Victoria? Not yet, it seems...
And poor Statement of Planning Policy No.8. CPG told the Woodend meeting they had deleted it as a key policy just before that meeting because... someone at the Gisborne meeting said it didn't count anymore.
As for the consultants, CPG (formerly Coomes), from their website it seems they've worked on a lot of very large subdivision developments like Hillcroft Estate, South Morang; Caroline Springs Estate, Melton; Aurora Estate, Epping North; Roxburgh Park Estate; Cairnlea Estate, Deer Park, etc.
We would like to know what their experience (if any) is in Settlement Strategies for rural, environmentally-sensitive areas because in our mind, they certainly aren't off to a good start in the credibility or strategic stakes with what they've done so far. It's so NOT impressive to look like all you've come here with is the government's growth figures!
The word "underwhelmed" springs to mind... and if we think about it, we will probably be able to come up with some more.
CURRENT 'Basic' Clarkefield: Push For Ad Hoc New Town By Cr. Geoff Neil Underscores Potential For Suburban Future
(18/10/08 - SP) Needs to be more than just 'empty' land, Geoffrey
This week's report in the Macedon Ranges Leader, that Cr. Geoff Neil is pushing for a new town of some 3,000 people to be established at Clarkefield, picks up a recurrent theme, and confirms another. This type of proposal - from a single landowner - was around before Council amalgamations in 1995, back when Geoff was a Romsey Shire Councillor and Clarkefield was in the former Shire of Romsey.
And then in 2008, just before a Council election, just as Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 is being taken away, up it pops again, courtesy of Cr. Neil. Geoff seems to think that having no infrastructure, except a train station at which trains rarely stop, can somehow be overlooked as a constraint on development (and surely no-one is suggesting that this train station makes Clarkefield an Activity Centre!!!!). Cr. Neil further seems to think this idea can be rushed before a new, apparently supportive Council, and Bob's your uncle. Fixed.
This ad hoc plan confirms both Cr. Neil's overt passion for almost any form of development and lots of it (except in his home town of Romsey); and that suburbia is coming to Macedon Ranges.
The odd spot is, a few pages further into the same paper, there was our Mayor, Cr. Noel Harvey, absolutely adamant Macedon Ranges wasn't about to be suburbanized.
MRRA Says:
We're just wondering if Geoff's announcement was spurred on by the prospect of getting rid of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8? Does he know something we don't know? Are Clarkefield and SPP8 linked? Has some kind of deal already been done for suburbanization with the powers that be?
A new town at Clarkefield is 'spun' as an alternative to continuing to chocker up existing towns, or a way to relieve pressure on rural land. Uh-uh. Quite apart from the fact that Clarkefield IS rural land, if the this-is-the-place-for-a village idea goes ahead, our money's firmly on Clarkefield being additional to, not instead of, development everywhere else.
Poor Geoff. Many would fondly say he has something of an aptitude for dropping clangers, and he would probably agree. He's dropped a doozy here. Where better to advertize a totally ad hoc approach to planning than on the front page of the local paper! Could be time to move on, mate...
And poor Noel. Ouch! Embarrassing...
Minister for Planning And Mayor Noel Harvey: Tag-Team To Shut Down SPP8?
(14/10/08 - P) Labor colleagues are singing the same song, while Mayor seems to put "party" line before environment and community
There are two parts to this tale: The Mayor and the Minister.
The Mayor:
Barely before the ink had dried on Liberal Shadow Planning Minister Matthew Guy's media release calling for the State government to stop plans to urbanise Macedon Ranges, Macedon Ranges' present Mayor and Labor party faithful Noel Harvey fired off a media release under Council's logo, claiming to be presenting Council's position and the facts about protection of Macedon Ranges.
After pointing out that Mr. Guy's comments were "absolutely outrageous", Mayor Harvey says Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 is old, and "not strong enough" to protect. On the other hand, he also claims important elements of SPP8 are "enshrined" in our planning scheme.
He then picks up on the government's 2005/2006 line about current rural zones, and how they and "Council's strategic planning program over recent years have strengthened protection".
He then criticizes Mr. Guy again for not contacting and consulting Council, and finishes by saying Council is mindful of what makes Macedon Ranges "the most liveable rural municipality in the nation".
The Minister:
Last Thursday in parliament, former Macedon Ranges Councillor and now Northern Victoria region Upper House rep Donna Petrovich asked the Minister for Planning whether he would undertake to finally give the Macedon Ranges the planning protection afforded to the Shire of Yarra Ranges and the Mornington Peninsula; protection which has been eroded by his government's one-size-fits-all planning scheme. Donna did well by following that up with a supplementary question asking the Minister whether he thought Macedon Ranges' landscape character is more like Yarra Ranges or metropolitan Melbourne.
From Hansard, the Minister, Justin Madden, seemed to think this was something to make jokes about and score political points on (although there seems to have been admonishments all round from the President).
Between bouts of nonsense, he told the Upper House he had in his hand a press release from the Macedon Ranges' Mayor (by happy coincidence, the one referred to above) criticizing comments of the Opposition on this issue. The Minister twice said the government had had no input into the Mayor's release, although why he would emphasize that isn't clear.
He then went on and on about how old Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 was, and finally told the opposition that if they wanted to go back 30 years, good luck to them.
The Minister, rather incredibly, claimed his government had done more than any other government in the history of this state in relation to giving protection to rural and urban amenity.
He called Mayor Harvey's facts 'pretty accurate' and backed up Noel's comments re Council's recent strategic planning work 'strengthening' protection.
MRRA Says:
Please sign the Keep Macedon Ranges Rural petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/keep-macedon-ranges-rural.html
The Mayor:
Mr. Guy's comments are "absolutely outrageous"?? Mr. Guy's a bad boy for not consulting?? Well hello, 'Pot'... meet 'Kettle'!
Here's what's absolutely outrageous: a Mayor purporting to speak for all Councillors, and this community, without consulting them. A Mayor seeming to give a fair impression of pushing Labor party policy as Council policy. A Mayor who says "Facts" but doesn't seem to know or stick to them. A Mayor who seems to be selling out the environment and community he represents. A Mayor making policy on the run - as far as we know and the minutes show, the Council position put forward in the Mayor's media release is not Council's formal position.
Mayor Noel Harvey has been on Council for 6 of the 9 years that Macedon Ranges has waited for the State government to deliver its promise to protect this environmentally sensitive area, and has been Mayor 3 times. At face value he sounds like an experienced councillor, but...
Mayor Harvey, in a new play on words, says SPP8 "isn't strong enough". Psst... the problem, Noel, is that SPP8 isn't implemented enough. It's not implemented enough because it's not State policy. Even Blind Freddy can see that.
Mayor Harvey says Council's recent strategic work includes Environmental Significance and Significant Landscape overlays, when there haven't been any recent ones. He credits Council with Wildfire Management overlays that were in fact produced by the CFA, State-wide.
What he doesn't talk about is the failure of Amendment C8 - Residential and Industrial Review. This dud amendment (abandoned in 2004 due to lack of strategic justification ) was initiated and produced during his watch. Ditto C59, the 2008 disaster-in-the-making Gisborne ODP. Ditto C62, the 2008 "Municipal Strategic Statement [MSS] Review" which takes SPP8 out of the scheme. The Department (government?) has said all references to SPP8 are to be removed, and that's exactly what has happened with the 'cleansed' MSS in Amendment C62. It's so sterile, it could be talking about anywhere in Victoria.
Important elements of SPP8 are "enshrined" in our scheme? Hardly, if the government's, department's and Mayor's views - and C62 - prevail. Is the Mayor saying he didn't know this?
Mayor Harvey says the 'new' rural zones protect us. Not quite. If they did, there wouldn't have been a resort application in a drinking water catchment at Macedon Lodge, or an application for 4 houses in a drinking water catchment upstream of the Woodend Reservoir (both in Rural Conservation zones), or a doubling of new houses going into rural areas since 2001, etc. etc...
The mild surprise here is the Mayor didn't pick up and run with former Planning Minister Rob Hulls' pitch that Macedon Ranges is protected by Green Wedges, although maybe there's still time...
Mmm... There's a difference, isn't there, between sounding committed, and sounding like there's an agenda on the line?
DO YOU APPROVE OF THE MAYOR'S ACTIONS? Send us your thoughts on mrra.sec999@gmail.com
Please sign the Keep Macedon Ranges Rural petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/keep-macedon-ranges-rural.html
The Minister:
The Minister would have been prudent to research the views expressed by the Mayor before relying on them, although we've noticed in passing that research and accuracy don't seem to be essential (or even desirable) ingredients when it comes to spin.
How silly to claim this government has done more to protect rural and urban character than any other Victorian government! Only developers and the faithful would readily agree. The real world hates what this government is doing to character; some go so far as to say what's happening now is worse than under the Kennett government.
With respect, Minister, as far as Macedon Ranges goes you are quite, quite wrong. It was the Hamer Liberal government that did more than any other government in the history of this State for Macedon Ranges. That government introduced Statement of Planning Policy No. 8, the 'Macedon Ranges policy'. Your own government indeed acknowledges and piggybacks on the excellence of the Hamer government's vision in relation to Green Wedges, but consistently overlooks the fact that protecting Macedon Ranges was part of that same Hamer vision and excellence.
Nor does the limp excuse that SPP8 is a "regional" policy - and is redundant post-Council amalgamations - stack up. Using that logic, the first to go should be the Upper Yarra and Dandenongs' Regional Strategy. Amalgamation happened 13 years ago. Whether it's one Shire or four, the issues haven't changed, and SPP8 has been endorsed by this government and panels as remaining relevant several times since then.
In 1998, the Labor party promised protection to Macedon Ranges as a sensitive environmental area.
In 1999, an independent panel said SPP8 remained as relevant as ever and recommended it be included in State policy.
In 1999, then Planning Minister John Thwaites agreed it should be State policy.
In mid 2000, then Planning Minister John Thwaites approved our planning scheme with a clause (21.04) that recognized SPP8 as former State policy, saying it remained as relevant as ever, and included SPP8 in the scheme as local policy (22.01), but not as State policy...
In 2004, then Planning Minister Mary Delahunty agreed to protect Macedon Ranges, and provided $90,000 for the Planning For A Sustainable Future project. The project would produce a State strategy that embraced SPP8 - to recognize and value the Macedon Ranges as an area of State significance - that would underpin strong protection for Macedon Ranges. The PFSF project is currently collecting dust.
In 2005, then Planning Minister Rob Hulls told MRRA that SPP8 as local policy was law, and anyone not implementing it was breaking the law.
In 2006, then Planning Minister Rob Hulls said Macedon Ranges was already protected and didn't need State policy: it had Green Wedges!
In 2008, Minister Madden says no State policy, no SPP8 - no nothing.
Please sign the Keep Macedon Ranges Rural petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/keep-macedon-ranges-rural.html
Listening to the Minister and the current Mayor, SPP8 is borderline Methuselah, although from recent events it doesn't seem to be as far past it's 'use by' date as some of our politicians and governments.
There are plenty of documents around that are much older, such as constitutions, law and parliamentary process (probably even some tenets of the Labor Party), that aren’t thrown out because they are ‘old’. They are retained because the principles in them remain relevant. Ditto SPP8.
Let's make it crystal clear: The principles in SPP8 haven't aged - they are still about sustainable land use management in the context of the environmental significance and sensitivity of Macedon Ranges, and the issues and pressures SPP8 addresses are still here.
Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 is the policy that says Macedon Ranges is of State level environmental significance... That says no more subdivision on Mt. Macedon, and all development in urban and rural areas must harmonise with the natural environment and preserve and enhance rural character and high quality landscapes. The policy is based on sound, timeless planning principles rather than the politics of the day, and prioritizes the things that matter in Macedon Ranges. Now this government, apparently with the backing of the Mayor, wants to take it all away. Even the former Liberal Planning Minister Robert Maclellan didn't do that.
Back in 1976, the Liberal Planning Minister, GP Hayes, who oversaw introduction of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 said, "I hope that no one and least of all myself, will ever belittle this policy or the efforts that have gone into producing it."
Last Thursday, the present Planning Minister belittled the policy, treating it as a joke.
Age isn't the problem, politics are. SPP8 isn't too old, otherwise government would be stripping Mornington Peninsula and Yarra Ranges of their (older) Statements of Planning Policy as well. Or are they next?
No, SPP8 is not too old. It's only crime is that it's in the way of pushing suburban development up the Calder Freeway.
But it seems no-one in government, including the Mayor, has what it takes to 'fess up to this agenda, or consult the people about it. The preferred method of implementing the agenda is by stealth and spin. The Emperors definitely have no clothes... It's not a pretty picture, and it would be ugly whichever side of politics it came from.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PLANNING MINISTER THAT THIS STATE GOVERNMENT HAS DONE MORE TO PROTECT URBAN AND RURAL CHARACTER THAN ANY OTHER IN THE STATE'S HISTORY? Send us your thoughts on mrra.sec999@gmail.com
Please sign the Keep Macedon Ranges Rural petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/keep-macedon-ranges-rural.html
DPCD Orders The 'MACEDON RANGES POLICY' Removed From Our Planning Scheme
(29/9/08 - SP) There's only one reason to do that: to open the door for suburbia
At last Wednesday's Council meeting in Romsey, the suburban hammer fell on Macedon Ranges.
It was announced in Chamber that Council had received an email from the Department of Planning and Community Development saying that all references to Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 - Macedon Ranges and Surrounds 1975 were to be removed from the planning scheme.
This 'Macedon Ranges policy' recognises Macedon Ranges as an area of special and State significance. It lays out policy that puts the environment first, and gives rights to the local community to be consulted. It is all that stands between a rural Macedon Ranges and a suburban one.
An attempt was made at the Council meeting to have Council approve a motion calling on the Minister for Planning to provide State level planning protection (which would include making Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 a State policy again, as it originally was) but the motion was defeated on a 5 to 4 vote.
Those for State protection: Henry Bleeck, Tom Gyorffy, Rob Guthrie, John Letchford.
Those against: John Connor, Noel Harvey, Geoff Neil, Sandra McGregor, Helen Relph.
Click here for more information. Click here for earlier stories Hello, hello, hello, where did Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 Go?
MRRA Says:
It's good to see Henry Bleeck and John Letchford supporting Tom Gyorffy and Rob Guthrie in this motion, but there's not much to be said for the rest of our Councillors.
MRRA wrote to Planning Minister Madden on 24th August requesting a meeting regarding the (what seemed) strange removal of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 from the Gisborne ODP, and from local policy as part of the MSS Review (now Amendment C62). To date we have received no response, but have heard that our letter has landed in the Department's Bendigo office. Hmm... Not a good sign. MRRA has long viewed the Bendigo office as part of the problem, not the solution. If responses such as we have received from Bendigo in the past are anything to go by, we can pretty much predict what this one will say... We will have heard it before.
KEEP MACEDON RANGES RURAL PETITION
MRRA has started a petition to the Victorian Legislative Assembly calling for the Victorian Parliament to act to overturn DPCD's order, to give Macedon Ranges interim protection, to reinstate Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 to State policy, and to legislate and provide specific planning provisions to permanently protect Macedon Ranges.
Please help and support us to protect Macedon Ranges and keep it rural! We are calling on the Victorian Legislative Assembly to protect Macedon Ranges so that this precious environment and the area’s rural amenity are safeguarded.
You can sign the petition online at
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/keep-macedon-ranges-rural.html
or download a hard copy of the petition
Hard copies of the petition will be distributed around Macedon Ranges' towns in the next few days. You might like to take some forms along to your local shop so others can sign up to Keep Macedon Ranges Rural.
We will have an update in a few days with more information.
CURRENT Council Votes To Call On The Minister For Planning To Introduce A RURAL ResCode
(11/9/08 - P) Er, well done...
In what could be seen as a first as far as leadership on planning issues goes for this Council, at last night's Planning Committee meeting, a motion for Council to press the Minister for Planning to act on introduction of a rural ResCode was unanimously supported (Note: Cr. Noel Harvey was absent). It is understood that the resolution is also to be forwarded to peak bodies including the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Victorian Local Governance Association.
MRRA Says:
Well, what a surprise! Former Macedon Ranges CEO Ian Morris pushed hard for a rural ResCode, and we know it has long been an objective for Cr. Rob Guthrie.
MRRA raised it with Planning Minister Justin Madden last year - also asking for a dedicated section within the Department of Planning and Community Development to be set up to deal with rural planning issues - and with a variety of politicians in 2006. Oddly, everyone seems to understand how desperately a rural perspective is needed for rural areas - along with a residential development planning code that recognizes rural issues and is compatible with rural values/standards - but to date no one has done anything about it.
Having to use Melbourne's ResCode and metropolitan standards has had a devastating impact on our rural towns, so we say 'good on you' to Council for adding its voice to the already substantial chorus, and more grease to Council's elbow on this one.
CURRENT Hello, Hello, Hello - Where Did Statement Of Planning Policy No. 8 Go?
(16/7/08 - P) Council's 'review' of Macedon Ranges' Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Policies sees the Macedon Ranges Policy dropped from the Macedon Ranges planning scheme. MRRA says, we want it elevated to State policy, not shredded
Macedon Ranges Shire Council is in the process of 'reviewing' its MSS and Local Policies. Originally due to be finished in 2003, the review began several years ago, stopped, then started again. A draft revised MSS and local policies were exhibited in 2007, to which MRRA made a hefty submission.
A final draft of changes arising from the review recently hit MRRA's desk. One or two areas have been strengthened, but its most compelling feature is what has been taken out.
Together, the MSS and local policies constitute the Local Planning Policy Framework [LPPF], and are the only part of a planning scheme where a municipality can describe itself.
An MSS is the 'engine' of a planning scheme - it is the strategic heart that drives a scheme. It is supposed to say what's important to us, and what we are going to do about it. On the other hand, local policies provide advice and guidance on making day to day decisions to get outcomes that are right for, and take account of, local conditions. Without them, the fallback position is generic State-wide policy which isn't specific to any area.
There are moves from the State government to 'slim down' MSS's and local policies, which in itself diminishes the ability of communities to describe themselves - to say what is different about each municipality: its identity, people, characteristics, values, constraints and needs.
This review seems to 'follow the company line', with much of current MSS content and local policies dropped. The upshot is that there is plenty that is 'diminished' about this final draft, because there just isn't enough in it to define Macedon Ranges. Overall, its 'condensed' content misses the point - and what makes Macedon Ranges tick. It could be talking about anywhere.
The existing township policies are gone - moved to the MSS.
And then there's the quiet assassination of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 - Macedon Ranges and Surrounds. The Macedon Ranges policy. SPP8. Clause 22.01 in the current scheme. This policy is the only thing left that stands between a rural Macedon Ranges, and Macedon Ranges: the suburb.
It has been the foundation stone upon which all planning schemes have been built in Macedon Ranges for 35 years.
It started life as a State level policy backed by legislation (much like the Green Wedges today).
By 2000, and the arrival of the VPP format planning schemes, it was down-graded to Local Policy, even though the Planning Minister of the day (John Thwaites) agreed it should be State policy. That didn't happen.
In 2004, MRRA launched a campaign to have SPP8 re-instated as State policy, but the State government has said we are already protected, that SPP8 as local policy is law, and protects us from over-development. The difficulty with SPP8 as local policy is that there is no easy way to implement it and many ignore it, which is why it needs to be State policy.
But instead of SPP8 becoming State policy, along comes Council's MSS and local policy review and... hello, hello, hello - where did Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 go? As far as MRRA knows, Yarra Ranges still has its Statement of Planning Policy, so it seems it's just ours that has vanished.
Not only isn't it a State policy, it's not even a Local policy any more - it is just gone.
THE $64,000 question is, who said it could go?
MRRA Says:
There was an attempt back in the days of the first post-amalgamation Macedon Ranges Council to get rid of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8. Surely it is merely a coincidence that, with some of those same Councillors currently in office, it's happening again?
How dare anybody... ANYBODY... think they can arbitrarily lop this huge and critical policy out of our scheme.
Bet on it, you will be hearing more from us on this one. In fact, we think we can feel a letter to the Minister for Planning coming on right now, and possibly to a couple of other places as well.
CURRENT Overseas Invasion? Land Grab On Macedon Ranges' Southern Boundary Is A Worry
(28/7/08 - P) Green Wedge under threat?
What's happening in the Green Wedge in the City of Hume? A recent report received by MRRA is that an overseas company is trying to buy up around 1,000 acres of land in the Green Wedge zone (along Macedon Ranges' southern boundary) for development - by the sound of it, they seem to be planning a new town. Sources say schools and retirement villages are proposed, and it's all happening without any fanfare. Disturbingly, the purchasers are reported to apparently be very confident of overcoming the problem of the land being in a restrictive Green Wedge zone.
MRRA Says:
The community wishes it could have as much confidence in developers not being able to get away with something like this as the developers seem to have that they will get away with it. We will pass this report on to the Green Wedge Coalition, and add it to our "What The Hell Is Going On" file for future reference, and cross-reference.
Planning Backlash Meets With Planning and Community Development Minister, Justin Madden
(17/9/07 - SP) Metro and rural groups put issues forward - and MRRA was there
On August 16th, the Association appeared as a member of a Planning Backlash delegation of rural-based community, conservation and resident groups. Click here to see a report on the Planning Backlash rural groups' meeting with Minister Madden, and MRRA's presentation, which focussed on impacts of Melbourne 2030 in Macedon Ranges, the need for State level planning protection, and protection for rural land and water catchments.
Planning Minister Hulls Puts Out Labor Planning Policy "Planning In Partnership With Local Communities"
(23/11/06 - P) Mentions "Macedon"
Current Planning Minister Rob Hulls yesterday released a Labor planning policy which encompasses a variety of elements. The policy doesn't seem to be on Labor's website yet but it can be accessed at Save Our Suburbs' website www.sos.asn.au
On page 11 of the 20? page policy, there is a reference to... Macedon, as follows: Build Thriving, Sustainable Regions and Towns "3.Labor Will Support Regions Within Commuting Distance of Melbourne To Manage Growth Labor will support strategic work to manage the pressures of growth in environmentally-sensitive and agricultural areas located near towns within commuting distance of Melbourne. Priority areas include Seymour, Bacchus Marsh, Sunbury, Macedon, Warragul, the Yarra Valley and Mornington Peninsula." MRRA Says: We couldn't find any other references but maybe you can. We'll leave it to you to look at the policy and judge whether you think it would make a difference to Macedon Ranges. There are some initiatives proposed (hurrying up the Department of Sustainability and Environment's response times (we know that one, we've waited a year for two amendments recently)), and judicial training for VCAT members, that respond to present difficulties and are welcome. But they won't solve Macedon Ranges' problems.
MRRA Responds To Bracks Government's Advice That It Won't Be Protecting Macedon Ranges
(31/10/06 - SP) MRRA media release says it all: think about what this government is doing - AND NOT DOING - for Macedon Ranges before you vote.
MRRA recently issued a press release responding to the Bracks government's letter telling MRRA it will not protect Macedon Ranges from over-development. The government in fact said Macedon Ranges was already protected (see previous report, 3/9/06).
We've noticed (with concern) that our press release did not get into local newspapers covering the south of the Shire. So we are publishing it here (click to go to MRRA press release)
MRRA Asks For Meeting With Premier Bracks and Ministers Hulls And Thwaites
(30/9/06 - SP) Please tell the Macedon Ranges' community exactly where the government stands on giving us back State level planning protection, says MRRA
MRRA last week sent a letter to the Premier Steve Bracks, the Minister for Planning Rob Hulls and Minister for Environment and Water John Thwaites asking to meet with them to discuss the government's final position before the November 25 State election on whether or not it intends to give Macedon Ranges the planning controls it needs - at State level - to keep the Shire rural, protect water catchments and stop the towns becoming suburbs. The Bracks government promised that protection in 1998 but has not delivered.
Copies of the letter were also provided to current State Upper and Lower House representatives (Joanne Duncan (Labor), Macedon; Geoff Howard (Labor), Ballarat East; Dianne Hadden (Independent), Ballarat province; John McQuilten (Labor), Balllarat Province), asking for their help and support. Dianne Hadden has of course already raised the issue in parliament and received a response from Minister Hulls indicating Macedon Ranges is already protected, when it is not.
MRRA has received a response from the Premier, who has referred the matter to Ministers Hulls and Thwaites. Click here to see MRRA's letter. Click here to see Minister Hulls' press release.
A Sad, Sad Day For Macedon Ranges: Minister For Planning's Media Release Says His Government Protects The Beauty Of Mt. Macedon And Stops Suburbia Stretching Into The Foothills Of Mt. Macedon - That's Just Not True
(3/9/06 - SP) Tells Dianne Hadden Macedon Ranges is already protected too. How can a Minister get it so wrong?
The Minister for Planning's media release (23 August 2006) says the Liberal party’s policies would be bad for Macedon Ranges: e.g. a brutal plan that will wreck the beauty of Mt. Macedon; will come at a cost of losing the ‘lungs of Melbourne’; will threaten the water catchments (on Melbourne’s doorstep) that provide drinking water; will see suburbs stretching into the foothills of Mt. Macedon and unbridled development instead of preserving the things that make us special.
How would that differ from what's happening under the Bracks government?
The government that has failed - refused - to deliver its 1998 promise to protect the Macedon Ranges as an environmentally sensitive area, instead implementing a not-so-hidden growth agenda... that has allowed Macedon Ranges to become a speculator’s dream, abandoned to subdivision and suburbanisation... that has allowed Macedon Ranges to go from a drinking water catchment area that provided water to Melbourne, to a place which now depends on drinking water from Melbourne... that has left our communities, towns, rural land and fragile environment reeling.
Ironically, the Minister describes the sensitivity of Macedon Ranges with words similar to those MRRA has put to the government trying to convince it to re-instate State level planning protection, to give Macedon Ranges equivalent protection to that Yarra Ranges has. We have asked in vain. The stumper is, Minister Hulls seems to think the government has protected Macedon Ranges. That's not what the facts say; that's someone's 'spin'. Who?
The Minister goes further off track in his response to a request from independent MP Dianne Hadden in parliament on 7 June, 2006.
Dianne said, in part: "The action I seek from the minister is to urgently restore the state significance policy protection status for the Macedon Ranges before the local communities and magnificent rural land and ranges are lost forever."
In reply, the Minister compounds the errors in his media release by saying his government is protecting Macedon Ranges with a policy statement [that same statement isn't enough on its own to protect Yarra Ranges], with strategic planning, i.e. the Gisborne Outline Development Plan [stalled, we hear, at Bendigo DSE because the Department wants more people in Gisborne than the ODP plans for]; the Planning for a Sustainable Future project [out of money, brief not completed]; the Bendigo Corridor Strategy [no consultation with the Macedon Ranges community]; and the Kyneton Urban Design Framework [how does this project further protecting the Shire's State significance?].
The Minister goes on to say that having Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 as Local Policy provides equivalent protection as State level policy does for Yarra Ranges, and that Amendment C48 stops the carve up of rural land.
He disagrees the Macedon Ranges are "having to accept outer Melbourne suburbia in their green wedges" [?], and says "typical suburban type development can only occur in urban zones in the towns" - isn't that one of the problems?.
He finishes off with "the government is committed to the autonomy of local communities creating their own future... and it would be inappropriate for the State to determine how Macedon Ranges Shire Council and community should develop its planning scheme" [which translates as the State government will continue to turn its back on Macedon Ranges Shire and its community, and on its responsibility to protect this State significant area]. So it seems the government is saying our future is in our Council's hands. Not a comforting thought, is it? Some might say that on that basis, Macedon Ranges doesn't have a future...
Click here for:
Minister Hulls' Media Release
Dianne Hadden's Question in Parliament & the Minister's Response
MRRA Says:
If ever there was a case of 'black' being called 'white', this has to be it.
The Bracks government promised protection for Macedon Ranges in 1998; former Planning Minister Thwaites agreed to elevate Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 to State policy; former Planning Minister Mary Delahunty agreed to protect, and put up $70,000 to start it off the same day in 2004 she met with MRRA and made the commitment. Doesn't the Bracks government look just a tad silly to now say "You're protected"? To say Macedon Ranges has green wedges when it doesn't? To say local policy has the same weight as State policy when much of the State is up in arms at local policy being overridden by State policy at VCAT?
As MRRA said after we met Minister Hulls last year, the government's message to our residents then was "No Money, No Help: Macedon Ranges, you're on your own". After these latest responses, and despite a looming election, that message doesn't seem to have changed, and the government still doesn't seem to think "Macedon Matters".
Our thanks to Dianne Hadden for raising this matter in parliament, and sharing the Minister's response with MRRA.
Where Is Western Water's Newly Declared Macedon Sewerage District Taking Us?
(16/7/06 - SP) Side-steps Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 to set a very different agenda for future development
Western Water recently gave formal notice of its new sewerage district in Macedon. Problem is, the sewerage district includes some large undeveloped lots in conservation-zoned areas that have been off-limits to development for 35 years. A slice of Rural Living zoned land is also included. At the same time, some areas in the Macedon township currently zoned low density residential aren't in the new sewerage district (low density res is currently the smallest lot development permitted in Macedon). Looking at the new sewerage district, it's hard to fathom the logic of it. The implications of it are much clearer. In Council's recently-exhibited Small Towns Study recommendations are made to rezone [conservation-zoned] areas within the Macedon sewerage district for residential subdivision and development to take advantage of the new sewerage infrastructure, and to also rezone some existing low density residential areas to allow smaller lot development. Both of which would of course completely change the character of Macedon.
Yet Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 - Macedon Ranges and Surrounds, which sits over this area, says there must be no further subdivision generally north of Macedon township. If existing large lots are rezoned and developed because of the sewerage district, there will be subdivision generally north of Macedon township. Which will win? Will the now fragile policy hold despite the sewerage district or, courtesy of Western Water, will Mount Macedon and Macedon blend into a single entity?
MRRA Says:
Why put sewer where land would never be developed? It seems in this instance at least, Western Water has gone further than service provider and, wittingly or unwittingly, has taken on the role of policy-maker. The unwritten policy that flows from the Macedon sewerage district is development that will overturn 35 years of planning protection for, and separation of, Macedon and Mt. Macedon. Western Water has the option of refining the Macedon sewerage district boundaries to bring them into line with Statement of Planning Policy No. 8. MRRA urges Western Water to do exactly that.
MRRA has super-imposed Macedon sewerage district boundaries over planning scheme maps. Click here to see the result.
