SOS Media Release 21.11.08

ALP internal conflict over new residential zones shows city needs new councillors to stand up to Brumby

Save Our Suburbs has discovered that a number of dissident Labor MPs are concerned about the undemocratic nature of the State Government’s proposed new residential planning zones and potential voter backlash against suburban Labor MPs. A critical paper on the new zones was posted on the website of Essendon Labor MLA Judy Maddigan. The same paper was also one of over 400 submissions on the new zones to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Other Labor MLAs who signed the document include Carlo Carli (Brunswick), Steve Herbert (Eltham), Rob Hudson (Bentleigh), Janice Munt (Mordialloc) and Bob Stensholt (Burwood). However, the Maddigan website was removed several days ago. SOS president Ian Quick said that the document was another sign that the Brumby Government had lost touch with voters and was riding roughshod over residents’ rights, with a particularly poor record on genuine community consultation. “These new residential zones will allow open slather development in key activity centres and take away residents’ rights to object at the same time”, he said. “Voters in local council elections this week should choose independent candidates who will be able to stand up to the State Government over the next few years when it tries to introduce draconian changes like these proposed new zones”. “This election is a chance for whole communities to tell the State Government that it’s performance on planning and transport isn’t up to scratch”. The Maddigan submission warned that the new zones would reduce the rights of local communities, including the fundamental right to object to a planning permit. It also pointed out that new zones to fast-track higher density would not necessarily improve housing affordability or choice, pointing out that central Melbourne high-rise apartments cost more than the city average. The document criticised the lack of detail in the proposed legislation and concluded that it would create further resistance to urban consolidation and reduce the planning role of councils. It said that local strategic plans rather than zoning should drive increased densities because zoning fails to assess the potential and constraints of an area. ENDS ********* SEPT. 2009 UPDATE: The Maddigan website and the article on the New Residential Zones were both restored to full accessibility some months ago. SOS believes that the degree of internal ALP opposition to some of the new provisions was strong enough and public enough that it became counter-productive for the article to remain inaccessible. ********* PS (November 2008): The paper by Maddigan et al was originally accessed online at http://www.judymaddigan.com/files/reszones.html on November 11. However, the entire Maddigan website is no longer accessible….. The paper is also Public Submission 435, New Residential Zones for Victoria, at http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenpl.nsf/LinkView/255912AF635DA45ECA2573B00004FCA00550887B8572D81ACA2572CE00101720#background or access the list of departmental submissions directly at http://dsedocs.obsidian.com.au/planning/ (Note that all these submissions have been sanitised to prevent identification of individuals or groups – so much for transparent democracy where opinions can be discussed without fear or favour!) Below is the full document signed by the six Labor MLAs: New Residential Zones for Victoria discussion paper 17th April, 2008 Introduction The discussion paper by the Department of Planning and Community Development on New Residential Zones suggests that new residential zones are needed to meet the pressure of population growth in Melbourne and regional centres. The paper suggests that these new zones would reflect local planning policies. According to the discussion paper the zones are designed to: * Keep single dwellings in the building permit system as much as possible * Reduce the need for separate overlay controls * Enable councils to vary the standard zone requirement to suit the variety of local circumstances * Streamline the approval of developments that clearly meet the purposes of the zone and meet set criteria. We support zoning controls that provide a clear linkage back to local structure plans and metropolitan and local housing objectives. We support the continued role of Councils and local communities to have a role in defining local strategies and remaining protagonists in the planning process – including maintaining third party appeal rights. We would support zoning that could provide greater housing yields in developments that met social objectives such as affordable housing, social housing and housing diversity, and provide greater certainty in appropriate locations. We believe good planning has the following features: * Planning schemes which are in accord with state planning policies especially Melbourne 2030 * Planning schemes which are approved of and signed off by local council and local communities * Planning approvals which are consistent with ResCode and local design standards, and * Planning applications which are subject to fair and appropriate assessment by Local Council and review processes Urban Consolidation The clear aim of the new zones proposed in the discussion paper is to increase urban consolidation in the urban areas of Victoria. Urban consolidation can be defined as an increase in population and dwellings in the existing urban form of the city. Urban consolidation occurs in three ways: 1. Government strategy and planning identifies suitable locations for redevelopment. Preferably these should be near public transport locations. Melbourne 2030 identifies over 100 principal and major mixed-use activity centres in the metropolitan area close to public transport. There have also been many brown field sites identified – often former industrial sites – for redevelopment as higher density housing. 2. Urban consolidation can occur through market led redevelopment of existing housing stock or building conversion throughout the city. 3. Consolidation is also about increasing urban densities on the urban fringe. To enable sustainable high quality urban consolidation demands local and State Government producing good strategic planning and local plans. New Residential Zones In the discussion paper the Substantial Change Zone emphasises flexibility, certainty and the efficient use of the land. It also suggests that developments can be fast tracked and that complying developments can be exempt from notice and review at VCAT. It is not clear in the discussion paper how the Council’s local plan or policy fits in to this zone, other than suggesting that zoning can have local variations. It seems from reading the discussion paper that in future, zoning will drive new developments. For example Substantial Change Zones will include residential land close to services, facilities and public transport. The assumption is that invariably, this land is suitable for more intensive housing. This is an assumption that might not be true in reality and should be the subject of investigation in the local plans. Assumptions about spare road space and public transport infrastructure needs to be closely examined and not just assumed, open space for higher density dwellers needs to be adequate, conservation, environmental and amenity issues need to be assessed. For example areas of central Eltham may be close to amenities, but protecting the areas significant tree canopy are an important local planning consideration which would raise concerns of significantly higher housing densities including greater height. In Essendon heritage housing stock also needs to be preserved. Local plans rather than zoning should be the driver of increased densities and new developments. We believe that the new residential zones should better reflect local planning policies. They should not simply drive development by allowing urban consolidation as a right of developers. This appears to be the aim of both the Substantial Change Zone and Incremental Change Zone. This suggests that the discussion document is adopting a market orientated planning policy to urban consolidation. This approach may lessen the role of local Government and strengthen the role of individual applicants. Furthermore it could weaken the role of individual neighbours who live in a particular zone who may lose appeal rights. Furthermore urban consolidation can also conflict with local employment goals when industrial or commercial sites are rezoned. There needs to be a greater sensitivity to local constraints and potentials. Zoning may not provide for this level of sensitivity. Such detailed planning can only be done in structure plans or strategic plans. Aims of urban consolidation A key component of the urban consolidation agenda is to increase housing affordability and increase housing choice. Creating zones which fast track higher density does not necessarily achieve improved affordability or housing choice. In central Melbourne high-rise apartments have resulted in prices higher that the city’s average. In other cases we have seen good urban design sacrificed for price savings. Instead of diversity we have seen entire areas redeveloped for students and young singles. In outer areas we have seen urban consolidation sacrifice public transport accessibility for price reductions. The ‘as of right’ provisions will allow for larger developments which do not necessarily lead to greater affordability. For example the risk for areas close to the coast with high land values, such as Parkdale is that redevelopment will not be driven by affordability or choice but profit. Gradually the traditional residential pattern of Parkdale and Mordialloc will be replaced and less well off people squeezed out. Furthermore these new zones could reduce the planning role of local Government. They could also reduce the rights of local communities to object or to voice community concerns. New residential zones should not sacrifice community involvement, or disregard local issues including environmental and amenity concerns. Communities must be able to participate in or influence the debates about the future of their suburb and city. We believe the right to object and appeal the issuing of a planning permit is fundamental to our system of planning. If there is concern about the length of time that appeals take then we suggest a number of improvements to the system: 1. Clarify and improve Rescode to properly deal with the things that people don’t like and are often the subject of appeals. Define the things that developments have to do more clearly under Rescode in order to get a permit. This will reduce confusion for developers and some of the unnecessary conflicts between developers and residents 2. Produce a form for objections that outlines the legitimate planning grounds on which people can object to a development. Too often council time is taken up with dealing with issues that are not planning issues. 3. Define more clearly what starts and stops the clock on the 60 days in which the Council has to make a decision. Most of the time, the clock is stopped because architects submit half baked plans that don’t meet town planning requirements. Have the department develop for council a checklist of what is required for a planning permit application to be considered by the council. 4. Make it clearer to objectors appealing to VCAT the planning grounds on which they can object to a development. Whilst there is value in letting residents have their day in Court, a legitimate ground of objection cannot just be that they just don’t like a development. These grounds are invariable dismissed by VCAT, but only after a hearing that may take 1 to 1.5 days. Role of local planning The discussion paper Making Local Policy Stronger correctly identifies that there is a disconnection between state and local planning policies and the distribution and type of residential zones. However we do not believe that the proposal for the new zones (as outlined in the discussion paper) adequately reconciles this disconnect. State and local planning policies demonstrate that planning is not just about housing densities. Land use planning serves wider social, economic and environmental purposes. Historically land use planning has been used to improve public health by segregating industrial from residential land use, it has involved advancing the local aesthetic through improved urban design, it has sought to exclude heavy traffic from residential areas, it has encouraged local economic activity, it has protected historical buildings, it has sought the protection of local amenity and so on. Good planning policy has been at the heart of Melbourne’s reputation as one of the Worlds most liveable cities and as we look to solutions for our housing problems we need to ensure that liveability is firmly entwined with sustainable planning policies. Increasing the ability of developers to build high density by right does not necessarily provide for good urban planning. In the discussion paper the only constraint on a new development in the Substantial Change Zone seems to be that it meets ResCode and local design standards. ResCode and local design standards are discretionary in nature. They often use qualitative measures and use general language. In contrast, zoning is prescriptive, stating what you can and can’t build. Zoning fails to assess the potentials or constraints of a given area. In a conflict about a development outcome, prescriptive zoning will generally win over descriptive codes and standards. We also believe that the purpose of Substantial Change Zone and Incremental Change Zones emphasises consolidation but fails to emphasize affordability, liveability or diversity. If development is to be promoted there should be an affordability dividend for local communities. Urban consolidation should not simply be about housing yield, somehow dismissing the public policy aims of affordability, liveability and diversity of housing stock. Conclusion Unfortunately there is a real risk that the zones, as proposed, will create further resistance to urban consolidation, in areas of Melbourne undergoing substantial urban redevelopment. These new zones, if not implemented in accordance with strong community backing, and local council planning policies and schemes may alienate local communities and local government that have been successfully negotiating and implementing urban consolidation projects. In areas that have resisted redevelopment, these proposed zones will provide further fuel to their resistance. These areas will continue to use heritage controls, resident opposition and council protectionist policies to limit new developments. They will have the added argument of taking away their rights as local communities to impact on local development. There are advantages of incorporating diverse residential zoning in planning schemes. However they should assist the implementation of local plans and not just drive denser development. A further concern for residents is that many councils have not upgraded planning schemes which leave residents under constant threat from large scale developments which are inappropriate. Melbourne 2030 clearly identifies areas for greater intensity of housing options, and there needs to be a clear protection for residents outside these areas. Carlo Carli MLA Brunswick. Steve Herbert, MLA Eltham Rob Hudson MLA Bentleigh Judy Maddigan, MLA Essendon Janice Munt, MLA Mordiallic Bob Stensholt MLA Burwood

We have notice quite often that the Victorian Local Governance Association (VLGA) seems to be just a media department for the ALP State Government. What typically happens is that they get advanced notice that the State Government is doing something, then they pre write a glowing media release about how good the government is.. Take the accidentally released email today (below) – "Embargoed until 6am Tuesday 28 October 2008 Responding to the State Government’ s announcement to amend and clarify the application of proposed Section 78D of the Local Government (Councillor Conduct and Other Matters) Bill 2008, VLGA President Cr Beth Davidson said “ …sometimes you just have to stick your neck out to get results. “ The VLGA took the lead in expressing strong concerns at the democratic barriers contained in the Bill, calling for amendments and greater clarity. “ The Minister has listened to our concerns, and we now feel vindicated by the State Government’s reaction. “ Incumbent Councillors and new Candidates can now confidently stand at the forthcoming elections knowing that their prior participation in democratic debate will not be constrained by the Bill. “ The VLGA will seek further discussions with the State Government prior to the 2012 elections to argue that the effective date of future provisions should also be limited in the same way as today’s announcement, “ Cr Davidson added." From this we can conclude that the State Government is making an announcement in the morning, and the VLGA – as a media unit of the Government – have their press release ready. Pity they sent it out a day early!

by SOS President Ian Quick
Update: this was defeated in the upper house!

The Brumby State Government is moving to restrict resident activists’ ability to represent issues if they get elected to a local council, by widening the definition of ‘a conflict of interest’ to an undemocratic degree in amendments to the Local Government Act.

It will be a deemed a conflict of interest if they had EVER made an objection or submission in relation to a matter being considered at a council meeting, so they would not be able to participate or vote on the item.

For people like me, who have made so many submissions to council that I’ve lost count (well over 50) – what would there be left to vote on? Would the only thing councilors could vote on be things they have no interest in?

And at the same time the proposed amendments specifically exempt state government employees from having a conflict of interest if items before council relate to or impact their place of work!

The Melbourne Times (8/10/2008) has just published a good article about this naked attempt to curtail democracy:

Conflict of interest bill would restrict councillors
BY BIANCA HALL
COMMUNITY activists elected to local government could be sued for voting on contentious issues under a bill being considered by Parliament.
The upper house is due to vote on a revamped series of laws governing the conduct of councillors in two weeks.
If the bill is passed, any councillor who makes a submission or objection on an issue his or her council votes on would be considered to have a conflict of interest. Fines of more than $ 11,000 apply.
Under the new rules, councillors would be prevented from objecting to a range of matters they could be expected to vote on.
Save Our Suburbs president Ian Quick is a candidate for November’s Yarra City Council election. Mr Quick, who regularly lobbies councils on planning and transport issues, said the new law “removes councillors’ ability to make submissions, let alone objections, on a wide range of issues”.
He said it was “a typical move by this State Government to muzzle democracy” and “an attempt to silence councillors who are also members of community groups”.
Under the bill, councillors would be prevented from making submissions on matters including council budgets, local laws and planning schemes and then voting on those issues – or even being present during a vote.
Councillors’ family members would also be barred from making submissions on community issues.


Local Government Minister Richard Wynne said the new provisions had been included on the advice of Liberty Victoria president Julian Burnside QC.
“An elected official must at least have an open mind to hear arguments, and that is the key criteria that anybody in public office should adhere to,” Mr Wynne said.
Northern Metropolitan MLC Greg Barber will try to move amendments to the bill to scrap the section relating to conflict of interest.

– let’s hope the daily media pick up on the topic!

Ian Quick
SOS President

Note the update from greg barber below, you’ll notice he has used me as an example!

Update: From Greg Barber, MLC (upper house green)

Dear Friends

Local Government Amendment (Councillor Conduct and Other Matters) Bill 2008
Section 78D
Indirect interest as a consequence of becoming an interested party
A person has an indirect interest in a matter if the person has become an interested party in the matter by­
(a) initiating civil proceedings in relation to the matter or becoming a party to civil proceedings in relation to the matter; or
(b) exercising a right under the common law, an Act or regulation to­
(i) lodge an appeal in relation to the matter; or
(ii) make an objection or submission in relation to the matter.
[The Greens propose to delete this last line]


Update

Kate Lahey and Jason Dowling
The Age October 22, 2008
http://www.theage.com.au/national/personal-issues-vote-ban-20081021-55jf.html?page=-1

Update

Contriving a conflict where none has gone before : AGE EDITORIAL
The local government bill will deter community activists from seeking election as councillors.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/contriving-a-conflict-where-none-has-gone-before-20081022-56bg.html?page=-1

‘Indirect interest’ rule slap in face of democracy: Burnside
A MOVE to ban councillors from voting on the issues they care about most is too extreme and will harm democracy, a human rights lawyer has warned.
Julian Burnside, QC, also says the change being pushed by the Victorian Government does not reflect the Supreme Court ruling the Premier claims it is based on.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/indirect-interest-rule-slap-in-face-of-democracy-burnside-20081022-56ew.html
(note Julian Brunside has recently provided advice to the Municipal Association of Victoria on these matters. We are yet to hear a response from the MAV on this week’s stories)

Councillors and Communities Need Clarity on Conflict of Interest
Victorian Local Governance Association President Cr Beth Davidson today called upon the State Government again to clarify proposed conflict of interest provisions currently before the Parliament.
“As a minimum, urgent clarification needs to be provided in the Parliamentary Debate, or amendments to the Bill so that confusion is resolved and the net is not cast too widely.
http://www.vlga.org.au/news/detail.chtml?filename_num=236348

Last August, transport and planning lecturer Dr Paul Mees bluntly criticised the authors of a 2007 Department of Transport report on privatisation.

Then, on May 20 this year, the Age reported that “Melbourne University has demoted one of its most outspoken academics after a complaint against him by the State Government…”.

The University should have investigated the veracity of Mees’ comments BEFORE action of any sort was contemplated, but it removed the podcast of his presentation from the University website without even consulting him first or informing him of the official complaint.

It is a sad day when an institution like Melbourne University can’t defend one of its own who speaks out in the public interest about government practices. Was there a conflict of interest between defending Mees and the ‘spirit of partnership’ between the University and the Government?

For the University’s legal eagle to claim that Mees’ defense (he claimed to be simply revealing the truth) should be dismissed without any attempt at verification is extraordinary, given that in Victoria truth is a legitimate defense in defamation law.

Alleged complaints about other forthright comments by Dr Mees – upon which no action was apparently taken – now appear to have been resurrected to bolster the University’s case to discipline him for ‘bringing the University’s name into disrepute’!

How can the university actually think this? For those of us involved in issues of planning and public transport, Dr Mees has been breath of fresh air – he has brought CREDIT to the University! Anyone who’s every listened to a Mees presentation knows that he is a powerful voice for reason and factual integrity, delivered with a wry humour that leaves his audiences rolling in the aisles. (check out this presentation by Mees on Victoria’s planning mess!)

Save Our Suburbs and Dr Mees share similar concerns and opinions about town planning and infrastructure and we are deeply concerned at any sort of government interference in the expression of academic opinion, especially in an obvious attempt to silence one of the most effective champions of good governance.

Does anyone find it ironic that Dr Mees is to be demoted for speaking out while one of the people who wrote the report he criticised has been promoted?

Of interest to many SOS members, though not within our core of activities, was the announcement of the new Victorian Government 60 cent per KW energy rebate for solar cells.

If it looks too good to be true – that’s because it isn’t!. The rebate is only for your NET electricity consumption – ie, you have to make MORE power than you consume in your house over a day. The maximum size system you’re allowed to have is 2KW – and only the excess gets the $0.60 rebate!

Unless you have a near empty house, this just isn’t going to happen..

The guys at energy matters have written a good piece on this –

Sorry to get political again, but on the 6th May 2008 the Victorian government announced it’s new budget. At a glance it seems to be good for solar, but when you crunch the numbers it is the most elaborate green wash ever conducted in Australia. This feed in tariff has been deliberately designed to feature in press releases and speeches, but in actual fact does nothing to help ordinary Victorians to be able to go solar.

So when you hear and see the Premier bask in his green credentials please consider that John Brumby is no solar leader, but rather has created an elaborate con on anyone interested in seeing something done about climate change. The coal and nuclear industry must breath a sigh of relief as their lobbying effort have fallen on fertile ground with this Labor Government.

At $0.60 per kWh, the proposed feed-in tariff appears to be the highest in the country, but very few people will ever get paid for the power they produce.

The average Australian household consumption is 16kWh a day. In Victoria, we get an average of about 4.1 hours of sun. The maximum system size to be eligible for the feed-in tariff is 2kW

This means the largest eligible system will produce an annual average of 8.2kWh per day, about half of an average house’s daily energy requirements. Given that you only get paid for excess power produced, very very few people will ever get paid for the power they produce.

With the exception of the American state of Texas, Australia is the only country considering a net feed-in tariff. Even China has better feed-in tariffs than Australia.

The Victorian government actions border on harming the environment, since they give people the impression that the goverment is doing something to address climate change, when in reality it is doing nothing!

We need to TAKE URGENT ACTION NOW to ensure Victoria’s solar future.

Join us from 8.30am-9.30am sharp on the steps of Parliament House TOMORROW Thursday 8th May to tell Premier John Brumby and the Victorian Government that we want a REAL Feed-In Tariff for Victoria’s solar future. We need your help to get at least 200 people along, so bring your friends, bring your placards and let the Politicians know what we want.

Where: Steps of Parliament House, top of Bourke St
When: 8.30am-9.30am, Thursday 8th May 2008
Who: Anyone who loves solar power or hates climate change

More information: Victoria McKenzie-McHarg at Environment Victoria: 03 9341 8112
Rally organised by Environment Victoria, Alternative Technology Association, Moreland Energy Foundation and Friends of the Earth.

For those of you who can’t make it to the rally, register your disgust with the following MPs:

Premier Email: john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au
Deputy Premier Email: rob.hulls@parliament.vic.gov.au
Environment Minister Email: gavin.jennings@parliament.vic.gov.au
Energy Minister Email: peter.batchelor@parliament.vic.gov.au
Education Minister Email: bronwyn.pike@parliament.vic.gov.au
Industry minister Email: theo.theophanous@parliament.vic.gov.au
Planning Minister Email: justin.madden@parliament.vic.gov.au
Treasurer Email: john.lenders@parliament.vic.gov.au
Small Business Minister Email: joe.helper@parliament.vic.gov.au
Regional and Rural minister Email: jacinta.allan@parliament.vic.gov.au
Health Minister Email: daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Police Minister Email: bob.cameron@parliament.vic.gov.au
Finanace minister Email: timothy.holding@parliament.vic.gov.au
Public Minister Email: lynne.kosky@parliament.vic.gov.au
Sport Minister Email: james.merlino@parliament.vic.gov.au
Childrens Minister Email: maxine.morand@parliament.vic.gov.au
Community Services Minister Email: lisa.neville@parliament.vic.gov.au
Roads and ports Minisrter Email: tim.pallas@parliament.vic.gov.au
Consumer Affairs Minister Email: tony.robinson@parliament.vic.gov.au
Housing LGA Minister Email: richard.wynne@parliament.vic.gov.au

Please also pass this newsletter onto your friends, so that they can contact the government too!

Kind regards,

Markus Lambert
Community Relations Manager
Energy Matters
www.energymatters.com.au

The Committee has released their first interim report. Fascinating reading!

Read our initial story.