Opposition to planning reform will halt development

Comments on this post

• michael norris said...

  I am a Bayside City Councillor who was at the rally because I believe we need a more respectful relationship between local and State government. Part of that is better consultation as agreed between the State and the Municipal Association of Victoria(but now largely ignored). But more important is subsidiarity: taking decision-making to the most appropriate level. We have planning tools but the State Government will not simply state a dwellings target (or any other target) and let us get on with the job. No! They say produce a housing strategy and then they will tell us if they think it is adequate! That said I would be much happier if I was not obliged to vote (as I have) for multi-storey apartments with huge greenhouse gas costs. Using the expertise in this State we could readily deliver housing truly fit for the 21st century. As for employment, strengthening the trend to high-quality renovation with ESD is as important as new build.

  Posted Thursday, 11 June 2009 6:27 PM

• Remy Favre said...

  The Property Council it wrong when it claims that resident activists are opposed to any development. What we defend is our democratic right to demand that development in existing suburbs be sympathetic to the existing character of the area and the wishes of its inhabitants. DACs and other initiatives by Minister Madden take these rights away. We also demand that developers put an end to the hoarding, then wastage of new land through oversized blocks and dwellings in new suburbs. Finally, I respectfully remind the Property Council that people 'having a say' is another word for 'democracy' and that its members and clients would be facing less opposition in their endeavours if they were more considerate of the wishes of the resident population. Instead, developers seem intent on chasing opportunistic quick profits, leaving residents to live for years with the results of their desecrations. It is opportunistic, unscrupulous and inconsiderate developers, not residents, who have turned the word 'growth' into a dirty word.

  Posted Thursday, 11 June 2009 6:43 PM

• Mary Madigan said...

  The proposed changes are undemocratic unsustainable and unacceptable. Why is this government so hell bent on massive growth. We don't have the water, employment, public transport, health services to support the growth they are proposing.

  Posted Thursday, 11 June 2009 8:24 PM

• E Meredith said...

  The aim of the Property Council is specific -"to champion the interests of the property sector". However,the people attending the rally described in your article were a cross-section of the community of Victoria. They were expressing their concern at the current 'ad hoc' or even, 'panic' decision making of the State Government. Until there is a holistic approach to improve resources - such as water and energy, and infrastructure - such as public transport and roads, for the EXISTING population, the Government needs to slow further development. Any future population expansion needs to take into account the finite resources available in these uncertain times of climate change .

  Posted Thursday, 11 June 2009 9:02 PM

• Kaye Perkins said...

  Yawn. When will the Property Council of Australia stop talking rhetoric and start talking facts. Here are a few facts that debunk your flimsy arguments: 1. Developers are flocking to VCAT to seek approval for high-rise office buildings which are completely surplus to requirements. There is an existing oversupply of office accommodation and many brand NEW office developments which have been approved by VCAT are lying idle. 2. On the residential front, the standard of most new development is abysmal. 3. There has been a recent history of "disorderly planning" and now a knee-jerk reaction to the financial crisis and the failure to adequately predict population growth. The fault lies partly with groups such as the Property Council which fail to get the forecasts right and are always looking for a bail-out by the government. How trite for the Property Council to now be calling on the community to support the government to keep Victoria "moving". Moving to where exactly? Does the Property Council advocate following the recent mistakes of cities overseas who have by their own admission ended up destroying their inner areas by jamming in "battery houses" set to become the slums of the future? Does the Property Council advocate removing the only checks and balances in the system which prevent undue developer influence in the planning system, leaving it exposed to massive corruption? When the Property Council has something worthwhile to propose, then the communities might be ready to listen to their views. While it espouses the kind of rubbish put forward in this article, it deserves the continuing disdain of community groups.

  Posted Thursday, 11 June 2009 10:17 PM

• JANIS ROSSITER said...

  I understand that Jennifer represents the development lobby, so her very skewed comments must be read in the context of a group of developers who have as their motto, "develop at any cost". There were nearly 1000 concerned residents (read voters) at the rally representing over 150 resident groups who are concerned about the livability of what used to be called "the Garden State". Unfortunately with the predations of the development lobby, aided and abbetted by a government that is clearly in the pockets of the developers, Victoria has lost its reputation as one of the World's Most Livable Cities. If development includes inappropriate, cheap and nasty development in residential areas and areas that should be retained for public use and public open space, then that is OK with them .... just as long as they make a quick buck. After all they won't be around next week when Victoria is so overcrowed, polluted and built out it will resemble Shanghai on a bad day - they'll be off sunning themselves on a sandy, clean,uninhabited beach somewhere else in the world.

  Posted Friday, 12 June 2009 8:18 AM

• Jill Quirk said...

  Jennifer, it is indeed a terrible nuisance to the interests of organisations like yours when people care about the place they live in, try to protect the democratic process , to protect what is good about their environs and ensure that any changes are for the better or at least an acceptable compromise. Just imagine the result if the the whole world operated like this.

  Posted Friday, 12 June 2009 11:59 AM

• ian angus said...

  The Property Council's predictible response falls on its face in the first sentence of Jennifer Cunich's lament when she describes the Government's continuing assault on council planning powers and local stakeholders rights as "planning reform." The defeat on the proposed DAC "reforms" in the Upper House last evening confirms that none of the Brumby Government, its stumbling Planning Minister or its cheer squad (aka the Planning Council) gets the message. Melbourne 2030 represents the discredited blueprint of a Government that has failed for over a decade to deliver essential infrastructure planning in adequate transport, water and sewerage servcies, while Premier Brumby chases a puerile target of population growth to claim bragging rights as the most populous capital city!! It is a pathetic performance and represents the biggest single threat to the once-lauded liveability of Melbourne. Community groups and ethically-run councils will continue to oppose the Government's assaults on responsible planning processes and outcomes.

  Posted Friday, 12 June 2009 12:28 PM

• S McKenzie said...

  Quote: "More and more councils are influenced by groups, such as Planning Backlash, that advocate the BANANA approach – building absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone. Developers and the community seek certainty in the planning process. Councillors should work with their local communities to develop sound policy, ensuring everyone knows what the rules are from day one." End quote: And there is the crux of the matter, despite Ms Cunich's transparent attempts to twist the facts and make local residents 'the bad guys' Local councils are representing their local communities and taking action on inappropriate development. Hooray for democracy!! Developers with the aid of State Government are seeking to circumvent the very nature of our democratic society. The fight will continue!

  Posted Friday, 12 June 2009 3:35 PM

• jonathan page said...

  In your business, growth will never be a dirty word. You developers will always be in denial about growth. For you, it needs to continue FOREVER or you will be denied the bulk of your income. Have you ever considered that growth is actually impossible to maintain forever? Have you thought about the forests that get cut down to make the wood that goes into building your houses? Do you think there is enough to build houses for 25 million Australians? 30 million...50 million? Have you actually thought about what is sustainable? We are already building desalination plants to cope with water shortages. That is already telling us that our population is too big! The belief that growth must continue to sustain jobs and the economy is old school economics and does not take into account real prosperity. How will a Melbourne of 5 million cope with increased traffic on roads, paying triple the price for desalinated water, increased prices for vegetables, fish (already we import two thirds of it in Australia), etc. But property councils don't think of this do they...they only think of their end profits!! Yours doesn't have to be a dirty business but you make it this way because developers are always thinking of the next big development. They pay no heed to any other enviromental or social factors affected by increased population. Once your "jobs" have been provided and apartment blocks have been thrust into the skyline, or suburbs are sprawled out even further than before, what then for the people who have to live in the congested city you have created. I bet they won't give a flying **** about those jobs. I bet some of the builders who helped to make the choked city will actually wonder if they did the right thing with their contribution! You suggest that growth provides revenue for infrastructure and this is a fallacy - as we all know infrastructure has failed to keep pace with population growth and the Melbourne struggling with choked Eastern and Monash freeways, and trains bulging at peak hour are just part of that. You might argue that that is the government's responsibility, then why not ask for a stop to growth whilst the government catches up with its infrastructure? Well Jennifer Cunich you can stick your head in the sand and you probably actually do believe that growth can continue forever, at least in your lifetime. Good luck to you and the wealthy, blind developers you represent..

  Posted Monday, 15 June 2009 8:47 AM

• Jane said...

  Jennifer, Jennifer! How embarrassment. Your post is more histerical than the protesters and simply serves to lessen respect (assuming there was any to begin with). You also really do need to get your facts straight honey. Who, exactly, is against building anything anywhere near anyone? Who said that? When did that little stroke of genius pop into your head - have you not heard of moderation? Responsibility to existing citizens? Decency? Green is one of the 7 sins, better watch out for that one. It's also highly unattractive (as are ridiculous acronyms - BANANA?! Please) Better luck next time

  Posted Monday, 15 June 2009 10:16 AM

• Jack Johnson said...

  Where can I check your facts Kaye? Can you please provide a link to them? What were the Property Councils' forecasts that were so wrong? Name one. For example the the 'flocks of developers' rushing to VCAT for approvals for their commercial buildings? Specifically, where are the new but empty office buildings you refer to? In the CBD where you would otherwise consider high rise apartment buildings? The last report had record low vacancies for office in the CBD. Wild assertions and biased rhetoric doesn't help your argument. Maybe you can check the facts, like those for residential housing which has a less than 1% vacancy rate in Melbourne, evidenced by desperate renters queing up to inspect, etc. How long does it take to get 'development product' to market anyway? A few days for a permit then a week or two to build maybe? The inner city latte sipping socialists love to snobbishly deride the 'abysmal standard' of design or demand every new development be carbon negative (like their own million dollar Northcote terrace house was too?). You don't want people living close to you, then deride people for living out in the suburbs. The Camberwell protestors are a classic, wheeling in Hollywood stars to oppose the smartest idea in housing and community amenity (redeveloping the station), it's almost a White Australia policy for housing - come into our suburb if you are rich enough. Where do these people go? How do you legislate your personal preference on design, and why should you? You talk about democracy, but how does a Council (usually a group of part time self-interested people with no qualifications to vote on planning anyway) manage to override the state and national interests? Hypocrisy is a no big thing for you, especially when you voted for this government and it's them that is letting you down.

  Posted Monday, 15 June 2009 12:04 PM

• Gloria O'Connor said...

  if confirmation was required of why our local environment and residential amenity is under siege out here in the corridor of growth you have provided it in you current comment. You should not ake use of the word 'sustainable' for we are no longer a sustainable community if we must rely on desalinated sea water and recycling one another's voided pharmaceuticals for a water supply. Step out of your comfort zone and note that we are now consuming our environment as mining, deforestation and building construction are the essential industries for providing employment. The organisation you represent is growing rich by covering the earth with bitumen and concrete that is sourced from continuous quarrying of the earth's resources.

  Posted Monday, 15 June 2009 3:47 PM

• mark t said...

  GAIC tax on landowners is criminal. Tax the developers who stand to make much more profit than landowners & tax when land is developed - not sold. Accept growth yes but tax the right areas.

  Posted Tuesday, 16 June 2009 12:44 PM

• Gloria O'Connor said...

  If we ever needed confirmation as to why our environment and residential amenity is under siege out here in the south east corridor of infinite growth, you have certainly provided that in your statement on behalf of the Property Council of Australia. But, you must cease using the word 'sustainable' for we are no longer a sustainable community when we must rely on desalinated sea water and recycling of one another;s voided phamaceuticals for a water supply. If you can step out of your comfort zone briefly, you willsee that we are steadily consuming our environment as the major industries for employment are now mining, deforestation and construction of houses. The organisation you represent is growing rich by covering the earth with concrete and bitumen sourced from intensive quarrying activity. Is this the growth you are referring to, Jennifer? And by the way, have you heard the story of the Easter Island residents, I believe they also were rather keen on growth ?

  Posted Tuesday, 16 June 2009 11:36 PM