Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

MEDIA RELEASE 29 JULY 2010

PLANNING CATASTOPHE FOR MELBOURNE AS VC 68 PASSES PARLIAMENT

This morning Planning Minister Madden’s revised Planning Amendment, now re-badged VC 68, was fast tracked through Parliament with the support of the coalition  – Liberals and Nationals – who had,  over the past year,  held out against inducements to approve this toxic planning amendment. (Only the Greens and DLP MP’s stood firm.)  This represents a catastrophe for Melbourne as it will see rezoning of land from rural to residential on the City’s fringe and so extend our notorious urban sprawl. 

Brian Walters SC, President of Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. comments:

” The community opposes these changes. Extension of the urban growth boundary will destroy green wedges, the lungs of Melbourne.  This amendment will take 43,600 hectares out of the western, northern and Cranbourne South green wedges for housing development, freeways and freight terminals. The losses include: 5,000 hectares of environmentally significant Western Basalt Plains grasslands; the grassy woodlands of the Maribyrnong and Merri Creek catchments, with their magnificent red gums; and 4,000 hectares of the South East food-bowl, where highly productive market gardens using recycled water double as Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat.  Our Green Wedges have been sacrosanct for generations. There was no mandate from the people to dispose of this legacy.” 

Julianne Bell Secretary of PPL VIC: points out :

“It is also forecast that extension of the urban growth boundary will result in the creation of numbers of “dormitory” settlements without advance provision of infrastructure and services.  It will greatly increase car dependency with people needing several cars per family and so worsen Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions.  (This is ironic given the Brumby Government’s recent announcement of work to control carbon emissions by the part closure of Hazelwood power station.) Monash University Centre of Population and Social Research forecast that from 1.97 million cars registered in Melbourne in 2006 there will be over 3 million by 2036.  Our city will then be in permanent traffic gridlock.”

Community groups are now waiting for another bombshell from Planning Minister Madden – he is reported to be attempting to put through another planning amendment which will approve high rise (22 stories plus) along tram, bus and light rail routes as a means of accommodating the expected 1.5 million more people in Melbourne by  2036.  This will result in further congestion of the major transport routes and condemn the population of flat dwellers to ill health. (Anyone who lives within 500 metres of a main road is threatened by developing asthma and cardiac-respiratory diseases.) The Brumby Government is fast turning Melbourne into one of the great unliveable cities of the world.

Inquiries: Julianne Bell Mobile 0408 022 408 Brian Walters SC Mobile 0411 020 967

West Melbourne has been jolted into the reality of planning politics in the twenty-first century with official support for the ten storey development on the Zagame site in King Street by both the State Government and the Melbourne City Council.  If approved, this project establishes a precedent for wholesale high rise redevelopment of West Melbourne and North Melbourne, at heights and shapes that were not possible under previous planning regimes.  It introduces all that is ugly, intrusive and inefficient in building form and will do little to raise overall standards of amenity for inner city residents.  Look at Docklands and Southbank as the models.

Around thirty local residents of this Roden Street vicinity attended a briefing meeting in the Zagame showroom on Monday, 26 July at 6.00pm.  The meeting, hosted by the Zagame Family and their advisors, outlined the details of their application for the residential development of their very large 5000m site – Remember;  large sites equal extra large developments. The application has been made to the State Department of Planning as the project is over 25000m2 in size.

The project features 259 units             -           119 one bedroom

                                                                        118 two bedroom

                                                                        8 three bedroom

                                                                        Plus a number of multi-storey units facing the streets.

The boundary units are the only part of the development which conforms with the current Design and Development Overlay(DDO) over this area in that they are not over 14 m(4 Stories) in height.  Unfortunately, the main body of units are part of a ten storey ‘boomerang’ spine that stretches from close to the Roden King Streets corner to the middle of the site on the south west boundary ( allowing for a 5m setback) and then parallel with that boundary toward Stanley Street.  It is this ten storey development that is of most concern to the residents.  It is completely out of kilter with the heights that have been traditionally part of this area.  We do not need this sort of Docklands style development in West Melbourne.

Other concerns that come immediately to mind.

1                    If we believe the developers, and we do not have much reason not to, they were strongly encouraged, by both the Council and the State Department of Planning to develop this site to this level of density and height, and possibly even more.  This is our State Government and our Council, so democratic in their image,  that are so clearly working against us as residents.  The up-coming State election in November provides us with the opportunity to test the responsiveness of all candidates, and especially the incumbent ALP, on these matters.  As for the Council, we have been dudded by both the Kennett and Bracks/Brumby Governments who ensured that the Council does not represent us as resident ratepayers.

2                    The developers seem to believe that resident objections are only based on their loss of lines of sight toward the City.  Our concerns are broader than that.  Privacy and overlooking are certainly part of this, but this was trivialised by the developers at the meeting.  We are also concerned that we do not need the shadows cast by these towers denying broad areas to the south access to the sun.  The designers thrive in a planning environment that stipulates all shadow diagrams should be done at the equinox and ignore the rights of others who are overshadowed badly through the winter months around the June solstice.  This project shows commendable commitment to using solar energy on its rooves.  However,

• How many other sites are they disadvantaging through the shadows that they create, unless they go higher and higher. 
• How many lines of sight will also be lost by this wasteful competition?
• And what about aesthetics?  What ugliness and bulk do we have to look at on a daily basis! 
• What congestion do we have to tolerate on the streets and in the shops?  There are not enough car parks on site for one for each unit.

3                    When placed under some resistance to their plan, the developers threatened to ignore the residents and plough ahead with the support of the Department of Planning and the Council.  They claimed they did not have to brief us.  They did not concede that this proposal would have benefitted, had they consulted with residents before the plans were prepared.  When questioned, they stated that they would not compromise on height.

•  When will the locals have some constructive say in the future development of the ‘community’ in which they live?

4    The orientation of the high rise does not utilise the northerly aspect in an efficient way.

Where to Now?

The developers agreed to inform all participants who provided their email and postal addresses of where they could access a copy of the plans.

Future Action

1        We have a list of email addresses to form the basis of future communication

2        We need to clarify the right to object and the process we must follow with the Department of Planning.

3        We need to maximise the number of objections and letters to the press and appropriate authorities.

4        We need to work on the Minister’s process for making a decision and try to make it transparent, in terms of how and where the decision is made and the criteria on which it might be based.

5        Do we want to appeal the Department of Planning decision to VCAT, should it go against us, as it may well do?  We will not have the Council’s back to ride on as we did with 87-101 Roden Street.

6        Our activities do need to have as much support as we can generate. Every one must be prepared to pull their weight and provide funds, if necessary.

7        Do we need to exert political pressure especially on Bronwyn Pike as our local member and a senior Minister in the Government that allowed these projects to be taken out of the hands of the Council?

8        Do we wish to organise some public protest meeting/s to let the politicians know what we think of their planning scheme?

9         We also need to consider the future impact on our area of the Council’s new Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) It has the potential to make the planning of this area between Roden Street and Dudley Street much worse in terms of allowing height limits to increase and towers to proliferate.  The developers made indirect reference to these proposed changes in justifying the project.

10    Dare I suggest a meeting to consider these issues?

We also draw your attention to an article in the Melbourne Leader indicating that the status of the East-West tunnel link between the eastern freeway and Footscray is not dead as the Government had led us to believe, but is the Stage 2 follow-on for the currently being planned Westlink project proposed to link West Footscray under the Maribyrnong River to the Port ( somewhere between Dynon and Footscray Roads). We encourage members to express their opinion on the Leader’s blog, which can be done at the end of the article.

Melbourne Leader: funding plea puts east-west tunnel back on agenda/

The Committee would like to draw the members attention to a planning application for 46 Villiers Street North Melbourne for an eight storey development of 15 apartments with a 100% waiver of car-parking requirements, on a very small site. Note that this is alongside an A-graded heritage residence. There appears to be a pattern of over-development in this application and Latrobe Close and some other applications that are currently in the pipeline, that is of concern to the Association.

Meeting of NWMA and LaTrobe Close Collective to discuss future action re LaTrobe Close.  The meeting is to be held at BRISK, 364-366 Victoria Street North Melbourne at 6 pm on Thursday 27th May 2010.

On Thursday 3 December 2009, the NWMA in conjunction with the Latrobe Close Group, convened a public meeting at the Castle Hotel, attended by 24 people.

Latrobe Close is bounded by Chetwynd, Courtney and Howard Streets North Melbourne, where the State Government, with Federal Government funding propose to construct a seven storey block of residential units. This proposal has been opposed by the Council of the City of Melbourne.

As a result of public protest and pressure applied to the local member, the Minister for Housing, Richard Wynne has agreed to defer a decision on the this development to allow further consultation to take place between Monday December 7, 2009 and closing on Friday January 15, 2010. The public meeting has appointed a sub-committee where further members are welcome, to prepare a community submission.

This sub-committee will be meeting on Wednesday 9th at 6 to 7,30 pm at the Castle Hotel, first floor, corner of Wreckyn and Courtney Streets North Melbourne – all welcome.

It is important that members of the community make their own submission on this development to the Minister for Housing, with copies to local MP’s Bronwyn Pike