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”.

From today’s Caulfield Leader –

Set higher standards

Tonight’s Special Committee Meeting (Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling, Lipshutz) decided unanimously to ‘delay’ consideration of the C60 Amendment and the centre of the racecourse planning application. Moved by Lipshutz, who occupied the chair, council will now call for ‘community comment’ on both issues. Objectors will be given 3 minutes each to address council  – at a date yet to be determined.

Ostensibly, some may see this as a ‘victory’ for residents. We however, are less assured of the possible outcome. Nothing has been ventured except the belated recognition that this is an important issue, and the community should be heard. We say, about bloody time! Why hasn’t this occurred months and months ago?

More to the point however, what occurred tonight was another example of politics, in all its glory. Under the rubric of ‘let’s listen to the people’, councillors neatly avoided the reality of the situation – ie a new government and the imponderables that this represents!! So it makes us fairly suspicious as to the eventual outcomes. Residents will have their 3 minutes in the spotlight; councillors claim they will listen, BUT WILL THEY ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESIDENTS’ WISHES? We’ve heard it all before – listen and then ignore!

Below are some highlights – Please note the flood of weasel words!

Lipshutz:  The issue ‘is so important to the City…sea change in the way we look at the Racecourse precinct and as such it is appropriate that everyone has a right to speak and to address the committee…..there have been so many submissions already…in terms of written submissions….that the community to have a say and that hasn’t happened’. ….it is appropriate by deferring this to another day everyone can have a chance to speak…..I myself have concerns. People have rung me…..parking……I don’t think it’s fair or right that four councillors make the decision……everyone (should have) the opportunity to express their views……special thanks to Cr. Penhalluriack and Cr. Forge…..(they) have given a great deal of thought

HYAMS: Agreed with Lipshutz; also commented that since the agenda went out on Friday and the meeting is on Monday, that not enough time to digest the complexity of the amendment. People haven’t had ‘a chance to consider it and get back to us….Officers have done a lot of work in negotiating with the MRC …it can also be argued that there is a lot more work to be done….one word of caution when you address council….you’ll have three minutes …we could have three hours if everyone speaks for three minutes so I suggest when you address us….stick to planning issues rather than issues about the use of the racecourse…they are issues which raise passions but don’t relate to whether we approve c60 or not. So when you do speak to us I want to hear what people have to say about this particular planning issue

PILLING: quite prudent for such a huge development to take the time to consider …I would like better clarifications of the displacement of car parking….and clarification about the height of the development….

ESAKOFF: Apologised for not being able to attend the original planning meeting but said ‘that it would be very helpful to us to hear directly’ from the people

LIPSHUTZ: ‘everyone’s heard loud and clear the view of the committee’. Lipshutz then stated he would stop people if their points were repeated…’it has as much weight if you say it once as if you say it ten times’….There are many good aspects of the’ amendment….

So Dear Readers, the decision is yours! Do we believe these councillors when they say they really and truly want to hear what people have to say? Do we believe that anything will be achieved by twenty or thirty people voicing the same objections that they put in writing a few months back? Do we believe that this delay has anything to do with ‘democracy’ at Glen Eira, or more to the point, a change of government and the limbo that has thus been created? And what does this say about council’s claims of having already conducted ‘extensive consultation’ on this issue? Sincere, or just plenty more weasel words? Over to you folks!

For any Doubting Thomas we’ve gone back to the stats and looked at cumulative figures over the past decade. The definition supplied by the Community Profile website on housing states:  ‘A dwelling (or residential building) is defined as: A residential building is a building consisting of one or more dwelling units. Residential buildings can be either houses or other residential buildings’.

We repeat: Since Newton took over the reins, development in Glen Eira has increased dramatically. The figures tell their own story. We are simply taking issue with the statement that Glen Eira “has had one of the lowest increases in aggregate dwellings of any Melbourne municipality”.  We haven’t gone through every single council as yet, but the table below reveals that there are AT LEAST 6 other councils with LOWER increases over a ten year period than Glen Eira. We’ll follow up with the rest when we get some more time!

PS: Here are a few more municipalities that we’ve looked up – plus their stats:

Manningham – 5000

Marybrynong – 6383

Moonee Valley – 5919

Statistics are forever being used to justify certain decisions. In relation to the C60 ‘justification’ we have this sentence from the agenda item: “The resultant differential strategy has led to outcomes under which Glen Eira has had one of the lowest increases in aggregate dwellings of any Melbourne municipality”.

Once again an analysis of ABS statistics reveals a totally different story. The table below derives from each municipality’s ‘Community Profile’ and the data is directly from the ABS website. We’ve taken the housing approval data for the past decade – that is from 2000 until June 30^th 2010. A fascinating picture emerges. Please note that the data represents housing and unit ‘approvals’ by councils. If we concentrate on Glen Eira, then from the time that Newton’s reign began in 2000, development in the municipality has risen by 41.53%. This is in stark contrast to the figures for Port Phillip, Bayside, and Kingston – all of which have effectively REDUCED ( by up to 64% in the case of Port Phillip) their developments over the past decade. Even on raw stats alone, Port Phillip and Bayside have had far fewer developments in 2009/10 than Glen Eira. Check out the table!

We will continue to ‘compare and contrast’ the achievements, protocols, policies, and practices of other councils as opposed to the Glen Eira way of doing things. We will continue to highlight how Glen Eira residents are getting a raw deal when such comparisons are made. We will continue to question the arguments put forward by this council for its reluctance to embrace what many of these other councils view as standard and/or best practice. We will continue to question the motives behind such reactionary ideologies. And we will continue to urge, and if necessary, embarrass until change occurs. 

Several council meetings ago, the issue of Alcohol Free Shopping Strip zones emerged. We reported that Lipshutz’s opposition was based on officers being ‘overworked’ and that the police wouldn’t support it. Funnily enough, our next door neighbours (Kingston) don’t seem to have such worries. This is from their latest media release –

The alcohol free zones will be introduced in two local shopping centres in Centre Road, Clarinda and Rosebank Ave, Clayton South.

From 1 January 2011, residents choosing to ignore the new alcohol bans will risk police fines of $200.

North Ward Councillor, Cr Arthur Athanasopoulos supported the need for alcohol free zones in key locations where problems were occurring.

“The decision to introduce alcohol free zones in these two areas followed extensive community consultation with traders in the area and local schools,” he said. “Many local residents have noticed an increasing trend for people to be drinking outside the bottle shops in these shopping centres which is why Council has taken this stand against public alcohol consumption.”

Kingston has successfully implemented alcohol free zones in other parts of the City, including the Chelsea, Aspendale, Mordialloc and Mentone foreshore areas.

“The introduction of a further alcohol free zone in the City is another way of combating anti social behaviour caused by alcohol consumption,” Cr Athanasopoulos said.

Glen Eira City Council? Not a whisper, or whimper! From Boroondara website –

Public land and liveability in Melbourne

Have your say on the VEAC Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation – submissions close 20 December.

The Victorian Environmental Assessment Council is carrying out an investigation of public land in metropolitan Melbourne. As part of this investigation it is exploring the contribution of public land to liveability in metropolitan Melbourne and the opportunities for enhancing this contribution.

The Discussion Paper for the investigation is now available and submissions are invited.

Do you want to know about the use and ownership of public land and about public open space across metropolitan Melbourne? Are you interested in the contribution of public land to Melbourne’s liveability?

Do you have something to say about Melbourne’s public land – its parks, gardens, foreshores, creeks, rivers, roads, railway reserves, sport complexes, libraries, schools and hospitals?

Download the discussion paper from VEAC or get a copy from our Camberwell or Hawthorn offices or Information Victoria.

Submissions close 20 December 2010.

Public land in Boroondara

Boroondara covers about 6,020 hectares or one per cent of the Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation area. Almost 403 hectares or seven per cent of the municipality is public land.

Read the summary of public land and public open space in Boroondara document.

For more information

• email: Traci Alchin
• phone: Traci Alchin on 9278 4753 

Files

• Public land and open space in Boroondara (pdf, 876.71 KB)