Another batch of letters from The Age, in response to the article linked to last entry about Planning Minister Matthew Guy. Most feel the same negativity toward him and the planning system as I do. I did not comment on the planning reforms site as I did not know what to say specifically about the topics – not qualified enough.
18/9:
State caves in to vested interests
PLANNING has devolved into prying open reserved land such as food bowls, national parks, green wedges and extending the already stretched urban growth boundaries for housing and commercial developments. Once lost, these areas are gone forever. There is no agenda to balance natural wealth, liveability, and future impacts – just a regime to ensure profits for developers and encourage urbanisation.
The state government, under Planning Minister Matthew Guy, is undemocratically removing restrictions to planning, and is actually undermining the whole meaning of the word, by moving towards open-slather land use (“The planning guy”, The Saturday Age, 15/9). It is a deregulation of any previous holistic planning, and is carried out under the guise of “economic development”, which really means caving in to vested, commercial interests.
What is not mentioned is Melbourne’s unprecedented rate of population growth, 200 people per day, 1500 per week, 75,000 each year. There is no population upper limit, and no population plan for Australia – or Victoria – except growth. This is placing pressure on all open spaces, including our coastal playgrounds – areas that should be reserved as natural sanctuaries.
– Margit Alm, Eltham
Basis of economics
MATTHEW Guy’s statement that the planning portfolio “is becoming an economic one rather than an academic one” ensures there is zero consideration for communities. Thus, a dollar-shaped scythe can shred our social fabric with little recourse from those in its path. Mr Guy, economics is about the efficient management of scarce resources, which include functioning infrastructure, breathable air, places of natural beauty and public safety. The proposed changes will make those resources far more scarce than they are now.
– Doug Mealy, Warrandyte
Ideology of greed
IT IS interesting to hear Mr Guy resort to the ideology word. Does he think politicians on his side of the planning fence are immune to ideology? They have one, too – one of greed, stupidity and short-sightedness. Green wedges are precious and deserve protection at a federal level to prevent short-term meddling for political and economic gain.
– Sue Aldred, St Andrews
Ode to Matthew Guy
HE LOVES a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping cranes, of haggard mountain ranges, of overcrowded trains. His love of far horizons, filled with concrete towers, he dreams of more of this, to exercise his powers. To achieve his main objective, he must always plan and try, to destroy all that’s pleasing, to one’s heart and soul and eye. As he gazes into the distance, at magnificent green wedges, he imagines how they could appear, without trees or even hedges. He must plan all this madness, to please developers bold, to have shoddy plans enacted, to maximise their gold. He has just announced his greatest plan, which does away with zones, just like a hapless vertebrate, deprived of all its bones. Though earth holds many wonders, wherever he may die, we know this urban wasteland, was due to Matthew Guy.
– Hilary Poad, Frankston
20/9:
Take our time
PLANNING Minister Matthew Guy says councils are best placed to consider his proposed changes to planning zones (Letters, 19/9). I think he will find that council submissions are just as critical as those of academics in the field.
One of the many concerns listed in the submission from of the Eastern Metropolitan Group of Councils is the allowable creep of commercial uses into residential areas. Not only will this provision affect peaceful residential neighbourhoods, but it also has the potential to strip small shopping areas of key businesses, similar to when bank branches closed down.
I am concerned about the one-month timeline for consideration of mountains of objections, let alone implementation at a time when councils are being re-elected. I urge the minister to allow proper public consultation and sufficient time for strategic reform.
– Jenny Henty, Canterbury
No faith, all right
WHAT can be said about a minister who proposes contentious and radical planning rule changes, invites opinion before deciding, then before the opinion deadline closes, effectively tells us the consultation was just pretend and he’s already made up his mind (Letters, 19/9)? Minister Guy’s blundering should no longer be tolerated by the Premier. Victoria cannot afford such undemocratic, high-handed behaviour.
– Greg Johnson, Eltham
22/9. The first letter echoed what I feel about how Melbourne has changed over the years – namely, not for the better. Tall skyscrapers have made Melbourne’s skyline increasingly ugly and, as he notes, are dehumanizing – they make one feel like an insignificant ant when walking under their towering shadows.
Paris perfect example of visionary planning
IF MATTHEW Guy ever becomes premier, God help the city of Melbourne, its residential streets, parks, reserves and green wedges. As an octogenarian, I have felt sadness, even grief, over the years as a succession of testosterone-driven politicians and developers has systematically turned a once-gracious Victorian city thoughtfully planned by our forefathers into just another American pile of phallic monuments to male enterprise. These create wind tunnels, block out the sunlight, and dehumanise its citizens.
Mr Guy has said the planning portfolio is becoming an “economic one rather than an academic one” – a view supported by Jennifer Cunich of the Property Council (surprise, surprise), that “Victoria’s planning system … should be used to stimulate economic growth.” So it’s the economy, stupid.
Well, Paris is one of the greatest cities. It is an example of visionary planning and aesthetic sensibility with its open spaces and magnificent gardens. It has controlled developers and the height of its buildings and preserved the best of the past. It is, consequently, a mecca for 28 million tourists annually, a source of billions of dollars in revenue. Think outside the square, minister.
– Bobbie Holmes, Hawthorn
Councils have agenda
MATTHEW Guy (Letters, 19/9), you have overlooked a few facts. Local councils have their own agenda (read: blinkers) and plans within their own zone. Local councils benefit from more rates – which come from more properties – as a result of development. Local councils don’t have the same over-arching view across the city (and state) that higher-level governments have. Their views are much more localised and self-concerned. Thus local councils don’t have the same concerns about how the “green wedges” (or lack thereof) can affect the city as a whole.
– Leigh Gardner, Wallan
Minister all-powerful
MR GUY maintains local councils are best prepared to consider planning issues. What he failed to mention is that the Planning and Environment Act 1987 gives the minister power to amend well-considered planning schemes. This undermines the democratic role of councils in planning. There have been 73 ministerial interventions from May to July this year – several opposed by local councils. The minister’s decision is final, with neither councils nor residents given an opportunity to make formal submissions or have these considered by a panel.
– Kathleen Hassell, Frankston South
24/9:
Community good must come first
ALAN March is spot on when he calls for strategic long-term planning for Melbourne (Comment & Debate, 21/9). The current ad hoc planning is beneficial for commercial interests but not anyone else, and even commercial interests find the uncertainty challenging. The proposed changes to Victoria’s zoning, which will include fewer rights of appeal, will inevitably undermine future planning.
Urban planning is a liveability, environment and health issue. The potential for emission savings is obvious, with good public transport replacing endless traffic jams. In addition, the state government’s recent report into health and urban planning found that good strategic planning increases physical activity and community connectedness, with major health benefits.
– Margaret Beavis, Brighton
Irreplaceable assets
THOSE of us who live in the green wedge of Nillumbik are all too aware that when Planning Minister Matthew Guy speaks of balancing the needs of local communities, small business, farmers and the tourism and hospitality industries, he uses the same language as developers who are desperate to carve up the green wedges. We hear this talk of “balance” during council elections.
Without controls, the constant push by developers seeking personal gains from the green wedges will place too much pressure for our councillors to withstand and create a wasteful increase in the number of appeals to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Let us not give away Melbourne’s irreplaceable environmental assets for the benefit of a few.
– Ruth Bence, Warrandyte
Follow Sydney’s lead
SYDNEY is blessed with steady trade winds and a fortunate profile of hills and open waterways. Melbourne, by contrast, must create its attractiveness and liveability in the Port Phillip Basin, a potential smog trap where, already, the air is often of poor quality. Yet Sydney has preserved large national parks to the north, south and west to ensure healthy air and to offer refreshment. Why isn’t a large tract between Werribee and Geelong preserved in perpetuity as farming land and park? Why aren’t large tracts of the Mornington Peninsula similarly preserved? We urgently need a Port Phillip Basin plan, not just a Melbourne plan. It is not too late to ensure a quality city, with quality air in a quality region. Will our government provide the necessary leadership?
Cherry Collins, Highton
A step forward
IN YOUR article on changes to planning zones (The Saturday Age, 22/9), some of my statement was cut. Let me make it clear. I share the concerns about the proposed changes to green wedges and the rural and commercial areas. I believe these should be put aside until more study and community consultation is carried out.
However, the residential zones to which I was referring have great merit, providing they include the changes that we residents and most councils are asking for.
– Mary Drost, convener, Planning Backlash, Camberwell
Economic migrants
IF some so-called asylum seekers prefer to return to their home country rather than be sent to Nauru (The Saturday Age, 22/9), they can hardly be called asylum seekers in the true sense of the world. I was opposed to offshore checks but clearly these need to be done. The 18 men who returned to Sri Lanka were economic migrants and the veracity of their applications is questionable.
– Simon Jenkins, Fawkner
25/9:
Constant change
PLANNING needs to be bipartisan. How can we ever have confidence in our planning laws if they change with each election? Matthew Guy was not elected to radically change planning regulations. Once acted upon, his proposals cannot be changed. Further, his attitude does not sound like a minister endeavouring to please the majority of the people, but rather is paternalistic.
The time allowed to lodge submissions is far too short; such a radical change to the green-wedge policy set out by the Hamer government requires widespread debate. If our political parties are unable to agree on the changes, then they should be taken to an election.
– Jo Grigg, South Melbourne
WILL Matthew Guy’s new planning laws apply equally in Toorak and Footscray West?
– Brian McKay, Daylesford
MR GUY claims the latest rewrite of planning zones will provide certainty. The main certainty seems to be that Mr Guy will do what he can to make sure developers get their way.
– James Deane, Yallambie
