'Say NO To Suburbia' | (Updated 29/3/10) |
The Battle For State Level Planning Protection In Macedon Ranges Shire
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…
MRRA Meeting with Minister for Planning Rob Hulls
(3/5/05 - SP) No Money, No Help: "Macedon Ranges, You're On Your Own" See Report…
MRRA Calls On Victorian Councils To Help
(12/5/05 - SP) MRRA asks: Please add your voice to ours in calling for the State government to move immediately to stop suburban encroachment, and to protect Macedon Ranges as an area of significance to the state of Victoria. See Report…
See also:
Development Assessment Committees
Keep Macedon Ranges Rural - Petition
Victoria In Future Population Projections
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 secretary@mrra.asn.au
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 secretary@mrra.asn.au
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.