From The Age:

‘Garden state’ at risk as population flourishes

Marika Dobbin and Jason Dowling

Victoria’s reputation as the garden state is under threat due to its increasing population, the first ever inventory of public land and open space for metropolitan Melbourne has found.

The state government commissioned audit by the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council found an increasing population and limited opportunities for the creation of new parks and gardens would mean further declines in public open space per capita for all municipalities bar one – the south-eastern City of Knox.

It forecast that open space per capita would halve by 2026 for growth municipalities with rapid housing development, such as Cardinia in the east, Hume in the north-west and Whittlesea in the north-east.

It warned that councils and government authorities must be vigilant in their planning processes to offset population growth with the creation of new regional parks.

”Otherwise levels of open space per capita in outer municipalities may decrease to lower levels than some inner municipalities,” it said.

The report identified hundreds of sites, totalling 1161 hectares, of disused land owned by the Crown and by more than 22 government departments and public authorities.

But it found there were limited opportunities to convert surplus public land such as decommissioned schools, old rail reserves and unused buildings into green open space, particularly in established areas, because most of the sites were small and fragmented.

It recommended a central listing of all surplus public land that would give notice of forthcoming sales, so that local councils would have better chances to buy land for the creation of new parks and gardens.

The audit also found that sales of surplus public land have reaped $600 million over the past 11 years to meet revenue targets set by the Department of Treasury and Finance.

Centre for Population and Urban Research director Bob Birrell said the report revealed that not only was there no money from government to create new open space, but that scarce space in established suburbs was being lost.

”We have continual claims from government and those in the planning fraternity that we can have it both ways – a denser city and a more liveable city,” he said. ”But I think that this report shows that’s not true.”

He said the report showed developers of apartment blocks and housing subdivisions were required to pay ”next to nothing” to help establish additional open space in their local areas to account for extra residents.

VicHealth chief executive Todd Harper said communities with access to green open space had a better quality of life, improved physical and mental health, and lower mortality rates. He said such space was particularly important for young children.

”It’s not just a mater of protecting green open space but enhancing what we’ve got so that it attracts people and is better used, whether that be with lighting, paths or play equipment,” Mr Harper said.

The report recommended that water production areas, such as those owned by Melbourne Water, be opened up for other activities such as nature observation, bushwalking and picnicking.

It found that 145,620 hectares or 26 per cent of land in metropolitan Melbourne had native vegetation, higher than previously thought. It found significant areas of native vegetation in the outer fringes of Melbourne.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A reminder to readers that submissions to the VEAC discussion paper may still be lodged – extension of time has been granted until mid January. (See: http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/investigation/metropolitan-melbourne-investigation/reports for a full rundown on the various discussion papers).

Below is a table deriving from the Discussion Paper.

Questions this raises:

• Why is so much of the scant public open space in Glen Eira primarily used for sporting facilities and hence a minority of the population?
• Why has there been no review of the Open Space Stategy in over a decade?
• Why has the Recreation Needs Study, which was the catalyst for GESAC, become the primary strategic vision for the use of public opn space?
• How much public open space is GESAC removing from the community?
• How much public open space will Council actually gain from the Caulfield Racecourse fiasco?

VCAT is continually accused by councillors of being the fly in the ointment over planning applications, rather than looking elsewhere for the potential culprit. We highlight one recent case to illustrate the problems with this view.

On December 2^nd VCAT varied conditions under appeal by the developer ‘at 257 – 259 Alma Road, Caulfield North for a shop and nine dwellings as a four storey development. This included a waiver of loading bay requirements and a reduction in car parking requirements”.  We focus on some of the member’s comments, especially since the Planning Scheme review basically ignored the following issues. The member’s comments also raise questions as to how well prepared Council officers are in defending the position taken, and whether councillors really understand what they’re doing!

“All parties acknowledged that local policy 22.07 was not clear in its direction to assess proposals in a Mixed Use Zone. Ms Bowden (for council) submitted the policy must be interpreted according to the “residential areas” provisions as a mixed use zone is a residential zone, although she acknowledged that some of the commercial area policies provide more relevant design considerations, notably about addressing interfaces to residential zones.

I agree that a mixed use zone does form part of the suite of residential zones and therefore the logical interpretation of clause 22.07 is to consider the site as part of a residential area. However, the reading of this section of the policy becomes somewhat illogical as one of the policy statements is to “Recognise that these areas offer opportunities for multi-unit development, but at a lower scale and density than development in the commercial and mixed use areas[5] of neighbourhood centres”.

A logical interpretation of this provision is that mixed use areas can and should provide more intensive scale and density than other residential zones. The policy is also to “encourage a decrease in the density of residential development as the proximity to the commercial area of the neighbourhood centre decreases”. 

A little further on we have: 

“It is within my scope in assessing review application P757/2010 to delete the condition to require balconies to be within the property boundary but as the condition was not contested I am unable to determine why Council imposed this condition. I note the urban design assessment tabled by Council makes no comment about the overhang of balconies other than to say “place the balconies on the building to create a more consistent building rhythm”. To build over public land requires consent of the public land manager, being Council. I therefore will not direct to remove the condition as I do not know if such permission would be granted. However, I note that based on submission and evidence put to me about the general building design I do not see that their overhang will necessarily result in excessive bulk to the building, provided the balconies are of a suitable material and form to break up the building mass. 

(Ms Bowden) stated Council had taken a cautious approach ….that requires the third level of the building be setback 9 metres from this side boundary. In response to my questions, Ms Bowden was unable to identify why 9 metres was the chosen distance to setback, as this was a condition imposed by the Councillors at the meeting that considered the application. The permit applicant contests that the permit condition is unnecessary, unfounded and would result in substantial loss of internal floor space”.