Number76 March2009 President - VPELA

stepped on the plane, I was ratherambivalent about going – (mainlybecause of pressing work load reasons)– but it was an outstanding tour andone which opened our eyes to differentand innovative ways of undertakingplanning and development. We allcame away enthused and excited aboutwhat we saw and about the innovativeways deployed to achieve excellence indesign and development.

With a tour group of 18 participantsrepresenting a broad spectrum ofdevelopers, local and state governmentofficials, consultants and lawyers, wevisited numerous developments, metwith a range of people involved inplanning and development andexplored the highs and lows of thedifferent cities visited.

Number 76 March 2009

Established in 1989 – a Multi-disciplinary Professional Association

On behalf of the Board of VPELA, Iwish you a warm welcome to 2009,which commenced at a frantic pace fullof promise and excitement.

However, the start to the year has beencompletely shaken by the recentbushfires, which devastated so manyfamilies, communities and townships.We have all been deeply moved by theimpact of these fires and the effect ithas had on so many people. VPELAhas joined with numerous other BuiltEnvironment professional groups toassist in the recovery program, andyour continued support in assisting theaffected communities is very muchappreciated by all. To date, over 100VPELA individuals and organisationshave offered to be involved via aspecially established Register, from ourgraduate planners to our most seniorCounsel, from our single practitionerfirms to our biggest corporateorganisations. Additionally, theAssociation has made a donation of$10,000 to the Red Cross BushfireAppeal. This amount was made up ofdonations received from members atour recent Moving Forwards Seminar,and a substantial donation fromVPELA which included the seminarprofits. The recovery and healingprocess will be ongoing and VPELAwill be actively involved in this.

One of the great success initiativesfrom 2008 that will be carried forwardinto 2009 occurred through our Boardmembers “buddying” with membersfrom the committee of the Young

Professional Group (YPG). It wasfantastic to witness new relationshipsforming and for the Board inparticular, to develop new friendships.Both Lisa Stubbs and Dianne Hawke,our new YPG convenors, are keen tocontinue this in 2009 and we all lookforward to meeting with our newbuddies. The important thing aboutthis is that we are all responsible formentoring our newest professionalsand for encouraging and supportingthem as they embark upon theircareers. At the same time, it providesthe opportunity for us all to see lifefrom a different perspective.

Speaking of which, late last year(September/October), VPELA joinedwith UDIA to embark on our secondoverseas study tour (Vancouver, Seattle,Portland, San Francisco and LosAngeles). I must admit that, until I

Victorian Planning & Environmental Law Association

(Continued on page 2)

Study tour group

Newsletter

PPrreessiiddeennttPPrreessiiddeennttWelcome to 2009!

Page 2 VPELA Newsletter – March 2009

VPELA’s20th Annual Dinner

Friday 22nd MayPalladium Ballroom

Crown Casino7-12 midnight

Invitations will be sent outshortly. Mark this date in

your diaries now!Table Sponsorship opportunities

are available, please contactJane on 9813 2801 to discuss

Contents

President: Welcome to 2009 1

Minister: Difficult times 3

Shadow Minister: Policies need review 5

Environment: History repeats itself 6

Rebuilding after the bushfires 7

New strategies for the coast 9

Seminar: Moving forwards 2009 10

Population: Australia’s changing outlook 12

Planning: The new leaders 13

Planning not pandering 15

Sustainable transport 16

Public land development 21

Letters from London: Sustainability 23

YPG: Meet our new Convenors 26

Panel Report: Climate Change 27

Rory’s Ramble: On yer bike 28

Community: Celebrating diversity 30

Fast Lane: Bushfire Tragedy 31

Case Notes: News from the legal world 32

Carbon Credit: VPELA & Carbon Neutral 33

ITK 35

The tour highlighted a number of opportunities forMelbourne, particularly in the areas of sustainability, higherdensity built forms, social housing, mixed use activitycentres, and the different nuances of the planning systems inCanada and USA. There was a clear emphasis on being boldand innovative, with incentives being provided fordevelopment that exceeded standard environmentaloutcomes. We will include a presentation on the 2008 StudyTour later in the year as part of a design seminar. Planningfor the 2010 tour will commence shortly.

VPELA is keen to ensure 2009 will enable all members tohave a positive relationship with the organisation. You have avery committed and active Board and I encourage allmembers to strongly support VPELA and its Board. If youhave ideas that you feel could be pursued, whether as aseminar, event, newsletter item, we would like to hear fromyou. Suggestions and commentary are always welcome.Additionally, VPELA looks forward to working withGovernment on a range of projects to achieve betterplanning and more sustainable development outcomes.

Kathy Mitchell

President v

Executive Phone Fax

President

Kathryn Mitchell 9637 9706 9637 9700

Vice President

Chris Wren 9225 7260 9602 2897

Jamie Govenlock 8663 4888 8663 4999

Secretary

Tamara Brezzi 8686 6226 8686 6505

Treasurer

Bernard McNamara 9699 7025 9038 1768

Executive MembersGeoff Underwood 9822 3155 9822 5450

Lester Townsend 9637 9696 9637 7900

MembersJohn Carey 8608 2687 8608 1336

Adrian Finanzio 9225 8745 9225 8740

Gerard Gilfedder 9262 6315 9262 6542

Chris Goss 9620 5200 9620 5800

John Henshall 9347 5255 9347 5355

David Hodge 9637 8000

Dominic Scally 9691 0219 9670 2954

Jane Sharp 9643 4526 9643 5999

Allan Wyatt 9696 8011 9696 8022

VPELA Board Members

Many Victorians are currentlyliving through some of theworst days of their lives. For ourstate, 2009 is going to be a yearof significant change andchallenge.

The best way we can overcomethe tragedy of an immensedisaster like Black Saturday is bycoming together; doing all thatwe can, as well as we can, to helpVictorians in great need.

The people affected by the fires are not alone. None of uscould fail to have been moved by the generosity of peoplefrom throughout Australia and from way beyond our shores,who have given support to those who are suffering. Icommend VPELA on its role in helping affectedcommunities.

Our Government is committed to rebuilding thecommunities devastated by the fires. As a first step toprovide a co-ordinated response to this tragedy, theGovernment convened a roundtable for people in theplanning, construction and development industries.

Our shared goal is to help regions, towns and individualsrecover and rebuild in a way that is safe, timely, efficient,cost effective and respectful of individual and communityneeds. Rebuilding must happen as swiftly as possible, but itmust be safe. The Government’s response to these recenttragic events will include a reconsideration of how planningfor new communities responds to bushfire threats.

The scope of the work of Melbourne @ 5 million will, ofcourse, need to reflect the recent tragic events. Already itcommits to further refine and strengthen a set of criteria toguide settlement planning and manage growth within100km of Melbourne.

It is also likely the timing of the task will need to bereconsidered to ensure that those affected communities can,in the first instance, focus on rebuilding their communitiesand then provide input to improving the management anddevelopment of new communities in the peri-urban regions.

Managing growth in peri-urban areas is particularlycomplex: there are unique lifestyle, affordability, andamenity aspects that come into play - yet they are potentiallyplaces of high risk.

Changing the way we plan for these areas will be a centraloutcome in our response to the recent bushfires. However,planning to minimise the effects of bushfires is not the onlychallenge ahead of us now.

A year ago there was no indication of looming globalfinancial turmoil. There were some questionable lendingpractices that have seen some property investmentcompanies come crashing to the ground. Now, housing inthe US is extraordinarily affordable – but who has a job toallow them to purchase?

Over the past six months the economic outlook hasdeteriorated significantly, with many developed countriesnow in recession. Growth is also slowing in criticaleconomies, such as Japan, China and India. Over the lastyear more than 3 million jobs have been lost in the UnitedStates, and global share markets have lost half their valuesince October 2007. In this context, Australia is not anisland. This crisis will increasingly impact Australia andVictoria in terms of growth, investment and jobs.

Whilst we may not feel the effects right now, I suspect thatJapan and China’s slowing economy will have an enormousimpact on Australia.

There may be increased competitiveness in this industrywith planners and other professionals returning fromworking abroad for many years. The global economicturmoil is a juggernaut that presents challenging times aheadfor Victorian families and businesses. It will adversely impacton this state’s economy.

But Victoria is better placed than most to weather thisdownturn. In the year to November 2008, Victoria led thecountry in terms of building approvals – which were up 11per cent compared to a national decline of around 10 percent. Victoria also led national statistics for new housingstarts. Construction activity and job creation will help secureVictoria’s future.

The Premier recently announced that the VictorianGovernment would fast-track key projects and create morejobs to help Victoria through the global financial turmoil.This is just one of the initiatives to arise from a roundtablehosted by the Premier with key banking and developmentrepresentatives.

We kick started the proposal with the Elizabeth StreetCommon Ground public housing project – which willprovide 145 construction jobs and 160 units fordisadvantaged people.

We will conduct a “rolling audit” of key projects and identifyblockages or sticking points that can be overcome to getdecisions made more quickly, so that work, jobs and financecan flow more quickly.

These planning reforms are not about bypassing democratic,judicial and legislative planning processes. This is not abouteliminating councils or anyone else from the decision-making process. It is about resolving matters sooner. I willstill be giving reasons for interventions and these willcontinue to be published and reported to parliament.

VPELA Newsletter – March 2009 Page 3

MMiinniisstteerr Difficult timesJustin Madden, Minister for PlanningMember for Western Metropolitan Region

Currently there are more than 50,000 permit applicationsand 400 planning scheme amendments in Victoria everyyear. The number that I need to be involved in is only a few;but significant projects will deliver the economic and jobbenefits for Victoria that we all want to see.

We have a very heavy agenda for 2009, and I intend to makesure we continue to tap into VPELA’s expertise as weprogress each initiative.

Another important initiative is Melbourne @ 5 Million,released at the end of last year and a companion piece toMelbourne 2030.

Melbourne @ 5 million draws on the 2006 Census and ourown Victoria in Future 2008 population projections. Oncurrent trends, the current rate of growth will seeMelbourne’s population reach five million before 2030.Melbourne @ 5 Million is the blueprint that will provide forour growth and manage our surrounding regions.

We’ll get there by distributing more jobs closer to home. Wewill elevate some Principal Activity Centres to CentralActivities Districts. We will encourage more jobs to locate inthese centres and support the employment corridors acrossMelbourne.

Melbourne @ 5 Million will see adjustments to the stateinfrastructure contribution for our growth area.

The Urban Growth Boundary will be adjusted toaccommodate some of the additional housing necessary tosupport our growing population and to maintain housingaffordability.

Our commitment is a minimum 15 years green field landsupply for Melbourne and land supply has fallen below thatminimum so we are now taking action to ensure sufficientland supply for the next 20 years.

We have drawn investigation areas to be considered forinclusion in the Urban Growth Boundary. Detailedplanning for each new growth area is currently underway todetermine the precise changes to the Urban GrowthBoundary.

A submission process is underway, and we anticipate asecond round of public submissions process will be held inApril - May.

Our work in growth areas in no way undermines the role orimportance of activity centres. Our commitment to buildingup activity centres as places for new housing, employment,commercial and retail opportunities remains more relevantthan ever.

Recently the proposed boundaries for five activity centreswere placed on exhibition: Camberwell Junction, Coburg,Doncaster Hill, Central Geelong and Preston. Theboundaries will define where the new Activity Centre Zonewill be applied; and where Development AssessmentCommittees will operate. Boundaries for these five centresand the Development Assessment Committees will be inplace by the middle of the year.

The review of the Planning and Environment Act is part ofthe Brumby Government’s program of continuous

improvement to legislation, to ensure it remains relevant tothe needs of the community.

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 has provided arobust framework for the planning of Victoria for more than20 years. The Act needs to meet the current and futureplanning needs of Victoria, and to respond effectively to theenvironmental, economic and social challenges that lieahead. We will modernise the Act and enhance the operationof the planning system.

I’ve had much feedback from people in the profession aboutfrustrations with, and opportunities for improvement to, theprocess by which planning scheme amendments orrezonings are made.

I am keen to see improvements made to these processes; andI am eager for the use of section 173 agreements to be lookedat as part of this review as well.

Soon we’ll release a discussion paper about opportunities toimprove and modernise Victoria’s planning act. I encourageyou to read this discussion paper when it’s available, getinvolved in the review and make a submission.

As well, the new draft residential zones will deliver certainty,clarity and timeliness. The new draft residential zonesincorporate the feedback we received to the discussion paperreleased last year.

As well as giving greater certainty, these zones will be moreflexible to use. Councils will be able to specify localdevelopment requirements, such as different building heightlimits in different neighbourhoods, but within a consistentframework.

My view is that support will be the key to the success of thenew residential zones. Councils will need to resolve housingstrategies to cater for growth to make the best use of the toolsavailable to them.

The planning system can only be improved to the extentthat constructive and informative feedback is received. Soplease take responsibility as VPELA members, be proactiveand put in a submission where you think improvementis warranted.


PROFESSIONALS WANTED VPELA is consistently being asked to respond tocurrent planning issues. In order to meet the

needs of our members we are seekingprofessionals across all disciplines relating toplanning and the environment, to assist in thepreparation of submissions, and participate inreference groups on behalf of the Association.

We desire to put together a registry ofsuitably qualified and experienced individuals

to consider draft papers and legislation,attend meetings and develop policy positions.

Remuneration will be negotiatedon an hourly/or whole job rate.

To apply contact Jane Power on 9813 2801

v


At the time of writing this article,our state is coming to grips withthe worst natural disaster in ourhistory – and it appears still not tobe over as yet. The Black Saturdayfires have devastated over 400,000hectares of land and taken withthem thousands of buildings andmost sadly of all, at least 210 lives.

Here in Victoria, we share the titleof being one of the world’s three most wildfire prone areasalong with southern California and Pyrenees France, and asVPELA News readers would be aware we have a long historyof devastating fires; 1939, 1969, 1983 and now 2009 assome of the most terrible examples.

Victoria’s planning industry will have a central role in therebuilding and reconstruction works that will follow thisdisaster; not just the construction of new buildings, butparticularly in examining ways in how we can attempt tomitigate the impact of future bushfires on our residentialareas that are in fire prone areas.

I would expect that many of these issues will be visited bythe Teague Royal Commission, particularly policies of landmanagement, both at a Council and a state level. State andlocal planning policies have for years worked against people’srights to clear land for fire retardation on their land and insome instances people have been prosecuted for doing so.

As one of the local members of parliament for the Humevale,Strathewen and St Andrews areas – all badly burnt, I havevisited concerned local residents on a number of occasionswho were fighting local and departmental authorities aroundthe issue of land management, not just of their own land, butof crown land which abutted their properties.

The land management practices of statutory authorities wereone of the key reasons that the Victorian Farmers Federationcalled for a Royal Commission in to the 2003 Great AlpineFire - a call that went unheeded. But beyond landmanagement and planning policy, the issues surrounding thestyle of dwellings that are built in fire prone areas may nowbe up for debate.

The position of houses in a potential flame zone may be oneof the considerations of the Royal Commission. The flamezone is the area around the house that can be licked byflames from surrounding burning bush land and in fireprone areas there must be a defendable space around thehouse so that property can be protected from ember attackand can be used for shelter until the major fire front passes.

Any dwelling will be compromised by a susceptibility to

ember attack, exposure to radiant heat and flame by itslocation to the flame zone from surrounding bushland.

Flame zone provisions should be examined to determine ifthey are not too low and should form part of an overallassessment of a dwelling’s suitability for a location whentaken together with individual site planning and vegetationissues. Further, building temperature thresholds should beexamined to determine if current laws provide enoughprotection for the dwelling and those who may be inside.

The Royal Commission will have a huge task ahead of it. AllVictorians want to ensure that we respond properly to thisdisaster and that any mistakes, be they in policy,construction or design are not repeated in the future, thusthe Commission must be fearless and frank in its assessmentof where we and planning law stands today.

Matthew Guy

SShhaaddooww MMiinniisstteerrPolicies need reviewMatthew Guy, Shadow Minister for PlanningMember for Northern Metropolitan


As planners we need to learn fromhistory. This is particularly relevantin relation to the recent devastatingfires. How can we as a professionhelp rebuild a sustainable livingenvironment encompassing builtform, the surroundingenvironment and communityneeds?

This article is written to provide aregional planner’s perspective on land use risk basedplanning in bushfire prone areas.

The very nature of bushfire, combined with extreme weatherevents and the attraction of living in bush areas results acomplex set of circumstances. The reasons for thedevastation and loss of life will be wide ranging and the

solutions will be not be simplistic. These are matters for theTeague Royal Commission to consider.

It has been my privilege through my professional career as aplanner to work with some experienced fire scientists. Inrecent times I participated in the development of a land use,risk based planning system with the CFA in establishing theWildfire Management Overlay.

My first job after graduating as a planner in 1983 was withthe CSIRO working on the Ash Wednesday Bushfire Reportfor the Otway’s in western Victoria. This role involvedinterviewing victims and researching house design todetermine if design and materials influenced housesurvivability in bushfire.

Contrary to popular media reports houses do not explode.Fire, although unbelievably frightening, noisy and unbearablyhot, follows a set of science based behavioural characteristics.Houses are lost in wildfire due to a combination of factors:flame contact, radiant heat and ember attack.

As planners we can directly control factors such as buildinglocation, building design and available fuel loads withongoing maintenance plans. We can design for sustainablebuilding by controlling house location to ensure houses arenot built in the flame zone. This can be achieved bymanaging fuel (vegetation) around buildings. We cancalculate fuel management distances based on currentwildfire science best practice this distance varies from 30metres to 120 metres depending on slope, orientation andvegetation type.

Radiant heat is the measure of heat produced by fire. One wayof reducing radiant heat levels is to break up fuel continuityand composition of fuel (vegetation). This can be achieved byseparating vegetation around buildings essentially into gardenbeds. Another design feature which has been successful inreducing radiant heat is to construct a wall which canwithstand fire. Stone walls can be used to assist in manysituations and can be a landscaping design feature.

Ember attack will occur but research shows that withvigilant defence, ember ignitions can be extinguished with alot of hard work. Ember ignitions can also be reduced bygood building design such as minimising crevices whereembers can lodge.

Property management is also a very important element inimproving building survivability. This includes beingvigilant with tidying up garden areas, removing all deadvegetation, scraping back from fibrous trees, relocating woodstacks away from buildings, filling in all underfloor areas,removing fibrous door mats .

EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttHistory repeats Itself! Can we createa sustainable living environment?

Jenny Jones, SMEC Urban


The recent tragic events that havebecome known as the VictorianBushfire Disaster has affected andgalvanised the Victorian andAustralian community into unifiedfeelings of grief, compassion andresilience.

In planning circles, it has forced usto rethink things that have beendone, decisions that have been

made and changes that could be before us. Writing thisarticle less than two weeks after that fateful Saturday, andwhile fires still threaten many of our communities, it is tooearly to detail any of the responses or answers that may wellbe in circulation by the publication of this article.

But already the questions are appearing in the media, and anumber of them are pointed straight at the developmentindustry, including:

How could people have been allowed to construct dwellingsin such vulnerable locations?

Why were dwellings so ill-equipped to survive the threat?

Why are there such restrictive mechanisms in place torestrict people from clearing vegetation around theirdwellings? (and why was one landowner prosecuted forclearing a fire break around their home when it probablyended up saving their and their family’s lives?)

enforced to ensure fuel loads are kept at levels where fire canbe managed by occupants and agencies. This may require theresolution of potential conflicts in the interpretation of statepolicy objectives for vegetation protection under VictorianNative Vegetation Framework and vegetation managementfor bushfire.

BUILDING CONTROLS: An Australian Standard AS3959 has been developed and is currently under review. Thisstandard has been under review for a number of yearswithout agreement to changes. It is important to ensuresound fire science is used to assess the suitability of thisconstruction standard.

My experience following the 1983 and 2006/7 fires is thatemotions can dominate in planning decisions to allowrebuilding in inappropriate areas and with little appropriatebuilding feature to address fire design risk. People want toget their lives back to some normality as soon as possible.This is a very effective emotive which can influencegovernments and agencies to expedite rebuilding withoutappropriate fire mitigation design.

Strategic risk management planning can and must beutilised to ensure we rebuild in appropriate locations, makecertain suitable fire retardant building materials are used andbuildings designed to minimise fire vulnerability.

As planners we have to appreciate the basics of fire science,building design, building location and appropriate buildingmaterials to help rebuild a sustainable environment. If weallow houses and schools to be rebuilt where they are notdefendable from fire we are perpetuating the possibility ofyet another disaster in future years.

How can planners lead the community in rebuildingsustainable living environments in these bushfire-affectedareas?

STRATEGIC: Undertake regional strategic planning reviewsto identify areas of high bushfire risk. As a starting point therisk assessment established by CFA for the introduction ofthe Wildfire Management Overlay could be used. Ensure theWildfire Management Overlay is introduced in all these highrisk areas. In the past there has been a degree of reluctance byMunicipalities to implement this control. The originalestimate on the number of municipalities where the WMOshould apply was 54 of the 79 Victorian municipalities, todate only…have been introduced.

STATUTORY: Planning controls can be employed to assessand guide the appropriate location to rebuild based on firescience. We can and should ensure buildings are locatedoutside the flame zone. Building design need to beappropriate for the site and orientation of the land.Vegetation management areas should be established and

What should be the new standards for homes constructed inthese areas?

Should every dwelling now be provided with a fire bunker?

VPELA President Kathy Mitchell at the VPELA Seminar‘Moving Forward’ put the challenge to the industry not tomake this time one of finger pointing and negativity withinour professions, but rather one of learning, positive co-operation and healing. With that in mind I wish to sharetwo of my own observations following this terrible tragedy.

As readers will be aware the VPPs include a number ofoverlays that identify for the benefit of a number of parties,certain site conditions or restrictions that might apply inplanning terms. One such overlay is the WildfireManagement Overlay (WMO). As I retrospectively reviewthe WMO for Marysville I find that none of it is applied tothe town and its immediate surrounds. A similar situationexists in relation to the WMO and Kinglake.

I do not intend this to be a criticism of those involved in theapplication of these overlays. I am sure that they did theirlevel best with the information that was at hand at that time.But clearly there is some learning to be achieved, and theboundaries of the WMO as it applies to these areas andmany others across the state must be reviewed in light ofrecent events.

My second observation is this. There are some calls within themedia for towns such as Marysville not to be rebuilt in theircurrent locations due to the inherent risk. I am concerned

Rebuilding after the bushfiresMichael Deidun, Coomes Consulting

v


with such a view for three reasons. Firstly, Marysville drewmuch of its appeal and tourist trade from its proximity toattractions including Lake Mountain and Steavenson’s Falls.To relocate the town away from such attractions would be totake much of the economic activity away from the town thatits community depends so heavily upon.

As planners we are called, “to provide for the fair, orderly,economic and sustainable use and development of land,1”and in the process that will follow it is important not toforgo the economic reasons why many of these towns existwhere they do.

Secondly, I note with some astonishment that a number ofdwellings and other buildings remain standing inMarysville. One has to wonder what will become of thosedwellings and their owners if the town is to be relocated. Itwould be a cruel twist to survive the bushfire but not theensuing debate.

Thirdly, we must recognise that what occurred on the 7thFebruary 2009 was an extreme weather and fire event, to saythe least. While Marysville is undoubtedly in an area proneto bushfire, it has in the past survived both the Black Fridayfires in 1939 and Ash Wednesday in 1983. As far as I havebeen able to ascertain, it is the first time that the townshipof Marysville itself has been affected by a bushfire. Thatbeing the case it could be considered an overreaction torelocate a town such as Marysville based on the events of oneunique day.

I understand that emotions are still raw and have soughtthrough this article not to further impact those alreadyaffected by this disaster. However there is a need to learnfrom what has occurred. To that end this will be the first ofa series of articles on the aftermath of the Victorian BushfireDisaster. In coming months (and years) we will seek to detailprogress as the planning, recovery and reconstruction occurs,and answers are reached in respect to a number of thequestions that are on our collective minds at present.

I would like to finish off this article by providing myunequivocal support to the Council officers at the variousShires directly affected by this disaster. We understand thatyou have a tough time ahead and may I lend my voice tothe growing chorus of support within our industry for youand your communities. At no point should you think thatyou must bear what will follow on your own, but knowthat there are a large number of people within the industry,including the VPELA family, willing to assist you invarious ways.

Michael Deidun is a Principal Consultant managing theMelbourne office of Coomes Consulting Group. He regularlyappears before the Tribunal as both an advocate and expertwitness. His background includes over 11 years experience inlocal government in both an urban and regional setting.

Footnotes:

1 s4(1) Planning and Environment Act 1987

Sponsored by

VPELA is pleased to invite applications for the VPELA/Peet Ltd. Young Professional’s Award for 2009.

This highly prestigious award is open to VPELA members between the age of 18-30, who havebeen members of the Association for at least 18 months.

The Award carries a trophy and cash grant of $5000 to support the recipient in undertakingindependent research (domestic or international), or a course of study related to their industry.

Our special thanks to Peet Ltd. for their generous continued sponsorship, which makes thisaward possible.

For details of qualifying criteria and an application form please contact Jane Power, VPELA secretariat on 9813 2801 or download them from the awards section on our websitewww.vpela.org.au

Young Professionals Award 2009

Applications close 1st May 2009

v


The Victorian Coastal Strategy2008 was released in December lastyear. The strategy now focusessquarely on the potential impactsof climate change on coastal areasand shapes the response to be takenby Councils in dealing with thisissue.At the same time the strategy wasreleased, clause 15.08 of each

Planning Scheme, the coastal areas policy, was amended togive force to the land use and development aspects of thisstrategy. That clause now requires Councils to makedecisions consistent with this strategy.In planning for and managing the potential coastal impactsof climate change, Councils are required to provide as cleara strategy as possible for future development. That includes,according to clause 15.08-2:Planning for sea level rise of not less than 0.8 metres by2100, and allowing for the combined effects of tides, stormsurges, coastal processes and local conditions such astopography and geology when assessing risks and coastalimpacts associated with climate change.

Applying the precautionary principle to planning andmanagement decision-making when considering the risksassociated with climate change.Ensuring that new development is located and designed totake account of the impacts of climate change on coastalhazards such as the combined effects of storm tides, riverflooding, coastal erosion and sand drift.Ensuring that land subject to coastal hazards are identifiedand appropriately managed to ensure that futuredevelopment is not at risk.Avoiding development in identified coastal hazard areassusceptible to inundation (both river and coastal), erosion,landslip/landslide, acid sulfate soils, wildfire andgeotechnical risk.These are challenging requirements for coastal Councils andwill no doubt cause Councils to conduct detailedassessments of coasts in their areas to determine appropriatesites for future development as well as identifying ‘at risk’existing development. The inclusion of the precautionary principle into Council’sdecision making will elevate environmental considerationsin planning decisions and will precipitate vigorous debateabout the nature and extent of coastal development in thenear future.

EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttNew strategies for the coastTom Pikusa, Victorian Bar

Adam Cheyne MaunsellKevin Barge Charter Keck CramerTrisha Brice BecaVerity Castles Bosco JonsonPeter Collina Brimbank City CouncilElke Cummins Hellier McFarlandDariel De Sousa MaddocksEmma Demaine Priority Development PanelArah Don Rigby CookeNicole Ford Moreland City CouncilAlice Foster MaunsellEli Greig City of Port PhillipElizabeth Griffin City of BoroondaraJules Griffith City of Maribyrnong

Aaron Harvey Biosis ResearchClare Johnson Arnold Bloch LeiblerRoss Lamont Taylor’s Development StrategistsSam Lawson Salmore DevelopmentsTarquin Leaver Fulcrum Town PlannersSarah McQuillen UrbisJoanna Missen Parsons BrinckerhoffSteven Mourtikas BP AustraliaEdley Nathan Montlaur Project ServicesIan Prudden Commercial & Industrial Property P/LSalome RomeroRobert Rorke DPCDAdam Smith David Lock AssocJohn Thwaites Maddocks

Welcome to our new members . . .

v

This article was written as the result of a collaborative effortbetween, Tamara Brezzi, Deacons, Dianne Hawke, City ofMelbourne & Felicity O’Sullivan, Urbis. It covers thepresentations delivered on February 12th 2009.

It was an eager and very full audience in attendance at thefirst VPELA Seminar of the year – “Moving Forward: What’sin store for 2009?” - and it was with a sombre tone that theevening commenced with acknowledging and reflectingupon the tragic events of the past week and the impact thebushfires have had on the lives of all Victorians.

Minister Madden acknowledged that from a builtenvironment perspective, the focus must now be on helpingto re-build the affected communities and the Departmentwill seek to work with the Royal Commission and BushfireReconstruction Authority to achieve this. Initiatives arelikely to include developing a central database for volunteersand liaising with the building commission to focus on re-building affected townships as quickly as possible. TheMinister emphasised the need to develop a coordinatedapproach to achieve this.

Without losing sight of the immediate challenge ofresponding to the bushfire crisis, The Minister turned to theother significant issue in Victoria’s midst; the global financialturmoil and its likely impact on Victoria. To secure Victoria’sfuture, the focus for the government in the coming year willvery much be on securing jobs and kick starting majorbuilding projects.

With a strong reform agenda in mind for this year, TheMinister spoke of the new blueprint for Melbourne’s growth;Melbourne @ 5 Million. Touted as Melbourne 2030 onsteroids, the revised document has been prepared to reflectmore recent population data which indicates growth inVictoria will exceed 5 million prior to 2030.

The new policy document will emphasise the importance ofdistributing employment closer to home, elevating principalactivity centres as a focus for consolidation and growth,supporting employment corridors and introducing a stateinfrastructure contribution. Investigation areas for theUrban Growth Boundary will be considered, however theMinister noted this will not draw away from thecommitment to increasing densities in Activity Centres.

The Planning & Environment Act will also come underreview, as a part of the Victorian Government’s broadercommitment to reviewing legislation. The intention is tomodernise the Act to consider how it meets the current andfuture needs of planning in Victoria. The review will focuson incorporating social, environmental and economicspheres to reflect the shift to thinking about land useplanning in a more holistic manner.

It seems clear that action and delivery are the intended focusof the government for this year.

Following Justin Madden we heard from Jim Betts, Secretaryfor the Department of Transport. Given many of us haverecently been stranded as a result of public transport woes,and the recent media interest in the new transport plan, wewere all very interested to hear what he had to say.

The comprehensive transport plan encompasses a $38binvestment in delivering upgrades and rolling out newprojects for Train, Tram, Bus, and Road networks. Jimdismissed the common misconception that transportplanning is about Rail Transport vs. Roads, reminding usthat 70% of Victoria’s freight operates within Melbourneand relies completely on the road network.

He announced that 2009 was a year for action. Stressing thattransport planning and land use planning are one and thesame, and that it is imperative that the Department ofTransport and the DPCD work together in order to providean appropriate response to the booming population ofMelbourne.

Whilst the Financial Downturn has the ability to impact onthe opportunity to fund projects, the new populationforecasts, the Melbourne @ 5 Million publication, and theinvestment by the State and the federal government’s‘Building Australia Fund’ gives Victoria the opportunity toact upon its plans. “The media pressure encourages actionrather than planning, however it is important to maintainthe consultation phase in order to ensure ongoing success ofa project of this scale” Betts says, reiterating that planning isthe most important stage of the process and that onlythrough good planning can we provide successful transportnetworks to our growth areas.

A Panel of speakers consisting of Roz Hansen, HansenPartnership, Henry Turnbull, Traffix Group and TonyJohnson, Villawood Properties took the floor to identifytheir hot issues for 2009. Among the anticipated hot issueswere affordable housing, bushfire rebuilding, fast trackeddecision making, business networks, development of roadinfrastructure, the operation of the Growth Area Authority,sustainable development and the Growth Area InfrastructureContribution.

A passionate Roz Hansen made a plea to the developmentsector for it to more closely examine the incorporation ofaffordable housing options within proposed developments.

She notes that the rental sector is under real pressure and thenumber of homeless is on the rise. Roz is in favour ofengaging the private sector by adopting the controversialBritish model that mandates a percentage of all developmentover a certain size to be set aside for affordable housing.

To tackle homelessness, Roz suggests that the Groupaccommodation and Boarding House opportunities thatexisted in the past have all but disappeared and thatgovernment and the private sector need to work together tore-establish Boarding houses as a legitimate form of


SSeemmiinnaarrMoving Forward: What’s in store for 2009?

v

supported housing for the homeless.

Roz noted that in the bushfire re-building programme itmay be necessary to remove choice from planning in orderto ensure that fire prevention methods of building aremade mandatory and noted that it may be appropriate toprevent re-building in some locations. In relation to theGovernment’s recent announcements concerning proposedfast tracking of decision making Roz takes the view that it istime for leadership to be demonstrated by the Governmentand to be setting the standards for Local Government whichis lacking in leadership.

Henry Turnbull noted that our transport goals and horizonsare not set far enough ahead so that. For example, we shouldbe discussing taking the rail network to Whittlesea, notstopping it at South Morang. Henry called for a greaterfocus on Melbourne’s bus network and to ensure that theroad network is developed in a way that facilitates thesupport of the bus network. His “if money was unlimited”option is to build a tunnel from Glen Waverley in anydirection and it would be a success.

In growth areas, Henry notes that the roads are beingallocated a disproportionate amount of land incircumstances where the inner cities have dealt with freightand other road demands consistently well for many years. Adisproportionate land grab to be dedicated to roads isresulting in unnecessary further sprawl.

Tony Johnson noted that the First Home Buyer grant hasdramatically increased the number of dwelling sales to a levelnot seen for 12 months resulting in a land supply problem.In relation to the State infrastructure levies, Tony called forthe Government to consult more closely with industry inorder to ensure that the introduction of the levy is sensibleand understood.

Tony noted that the GAA must be supported from thehighest level but that there are excellent examples developingof the problems associated with decisions made byCommittee. Tony noted that the precinct structure planningprocesses for Cranbourne East and Cranbourne West arerunning well behind time and he queries whether all theexpenditure that has occurred over the last two years hasbeen worth it.

Adding to the wide range of topics raised at the seminar, the

following issues were debated during the discussion andquestion time:

1. Car parking rates in the planning still exist in the formthey have taken since the 1970s and it is time that theyshould change. Henry Turnbull noted that the carparking rates review report is to be released in April 2009and Roz Hansen noted that Melbourne City Council hasa planning scheme amendment on foot at present whichproposes to limit car parking supply to one space perdwelling in Carlton.

2. Affordable housing opportunities should becontemplated in commercial developments as well asresidential developments to ensure a diverse supply ofhousing close to services and public transport.

3. The Brisbane bus network is a sophisticated network anda query was raised with Jim Betts concerning whydedicated bus ways and pedestrian and bike only bridgescannot be incorporated in Melbourne. Jim noted thatBrisbane’s buses are like Melbourne’s trams and that thefirst battle to address is to give priority on road to tramsand a bus priority network will follow. Jim notes thatMelbourne has the biggest tram network in the worldwhich is a wonderful asset but which is currently notused to its full potential.

The seminar was a great success delivering information on awide range of topics that was of interest to all attendees.VPELA looks forward to 2009 as the year in which recentyears of Government research and policy making aredelivered. We look forward to the VPELA seminar inFebruary 2010 that can reflect on the achievements ofimplementation.

Note the following due dates that were raised in the seminar:

(1) Submissions concerning the activity centre boundaryreviews for Coburg, Camberwell, Preston, Doncasterand Geelong are due on 11 March 2009;

(2) The Planning and Environment Act Review DiscussionPaper “Modernising Victoria’s Planning Act” is due tobe released in February 2009;

(3) Submissions concerning the draft Residential Zones aredue on 9 April 2009.


Emma Connell, Lisa Ryan & Ruth Davies

Paula O’Byrne & Allison Egan


Changes in the nation’s fertility rateand soaring immigration overrecent years have materially alteredthe outlook for Australia’s futurepopulation.By definition, populationprojections are illustrations of thegrowth and change in populationwhich would occur should specificassumptions about future levels of

fertility, mortality, internal migration and overseas migrationprevail over the projection period. They are not predictionsor forecasts, but they are adopted – and adapted - by thedifferent tiers of government for planning related purposes. The latest assumptions incorporate recent trends particularlyas they related to fertility and net overseas migration forAustralia. For example the 2008 projections (Series B) adopta net overseas migration figure of 180,000 persons perannum. In contrast the previous projection series, released inJune 2006, adopted a figure of 110,000.The reason for such a change was a sustained, and verysignificant, increase in immigration under the HowardGovernment and a commitment by the Rudd Governmentto continue with a robust immigration program. Put simply,based on Federal Government advice, the Australian Bureauof Statistics expects high immigration to continue andtherefore factors this into their equations. The implications are enormous with the September 2008projections painting a picture of a far more populousAustralia than earlier projection series (such as thoseundertaken in 1998, 2000, 2003 and 2005) had suggested.This upward revision contained in the past five projectionseries is starkly illustrated in the graph below.

The 2008 projections add around 5 million more persons toAustralia’s population in 2050, hitting 35.47 million by

2056. The table below breaks the projections down on astate by state basis.

Of interest to many in the planning and developmentindustry is the strong growth anticipated for Melbourne andthe other state capitals.The 2008 projections provided the base numbers on whichDPCD’s excellent Spatial Analysis and Research Branchundertook detailed projections to smaller spatial levels(Victoria In Future 2008).The overall impact of this recasting of Australia’s future hasalready been profound with the new population projectionsforming the basis of Melbourne @ 5 Million and its emphasison establishing new horizons in urban consolidation andbroadhectare development.

PPooppuullaattiioonnChris McNeill, Spade Consultants

Australia’s changing outlook

Population Projections

18000

23000

28000

33000

38000

Year

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

2024

2028

2032

2036

2040

2044

2048

2052

2056

Year

Po

pu

lati

on

'000 Jul-98

Aug-00

Sep-03

Nov-05

Sep-08

State 30 June 2006

ERP‘000

Projected population 2026 ‘000


NSW 6816.1 8,395.1 10,210.2

Vic 5126.5 6,662.2 8,538.3

Qld 4090.9 6,038.0 8,738.9

SA 1567.9 1,884.4 2,204.5

WA 2059.4 3,000.5 4,293.4

Tas 490.0 552.3 571.0

NT 210.6 285.0 401.6

ACT 334.1 416.5 509.3

Australia 20697.9 27,236.7 35,470.0

Source: ABS

30 June 2006 ERP ‘000



Sydney 4,282.0 5,426.3 6,976.8

Melbourne 3,743.0 5,038.1 6,789.2

Brisbane 1,819.8 2,681.1 3,979.3

Adelaide 1,145.8 1,384.5 1,651.8

Perth 1,518.7 2,267.6 3,358.4

Hobart 205.5 245.3 279.7

Darwin 114.4 165.2 243.0

v


The vulnerability of local comm-unities was poignantly highlightedduring the bushfires that ravagedVictoria on February 7th. Local governments can be the‘glue’ that makes our communitiestick in times like these, as well as inthe planning and preparation thatgoes on behind the scenes in ourday to day work.In hard times, Maslow’s hierarchy

provides a good reference point. People focus on the basics,because they must. For local governments the focus on thebasics of planning for local communities is never lost sightof, because of the immediacy of the role we play in the worldthat our residents live in and our very close connection to it.Local government’s role in community planning can be assimple as the location of seating along walking routes, rightthrough to the role that we play in planning services in newcommunities. The problem for local governments, is not the knowledge ofhow to plan for communities, but generally, the means todeliver on these plans with the necessary resources includingphysical, financial and people This is especially the case in anumber of rural communities, particularly those in the ‘tree’and ‘sea’ change categories, where residents will haveexperienced living in cities that often have a higher resourcecapability and can bring those sets of expectations with themto their new community.An integrated approach to planning is vital and this doesinvolve a wide range of resources, including the financialmeans to establish, maintain and grow our services. Communities increasingly expect the opportunity to beconsulted and engaged in the planning that impacts on theirlives. The challenge for local governments is to continuallyimprove on their methods and means of enabling suchinvolvement. Councils must also face the need to play a lead role inchallenging communities that may be reluctant to acceptchange. Such change can involve a key leadership role at thelocal level in educating communities about the broadersocietal changes that require a local response.Examples of this can include the need for the inclusion ofmore dense housing in areas close to areas rich in servicesand amenities such as public transport. Paradoxically,residents will naturally resist higher taxes such as rates, whilstexpecting high levels of service remain.

This challenge is stark at a State level where the need toprovide basic services in growth areas must be met in anenvironment that is economically the most challenging itfaces in decades.Keeping an eye on the “Big Picture” is often the hardest issueto deal with at the local level. An example is managing theconsultation about a “Student Housing Policy”, anamorphous concept to most people. However, the prospectof student housing in a neighbouring property can arousegreat interest and frequently, opposition from residents. Community members can assess the details of a tangibledevelopment, discuss it and form a view. Concepts are ofcourse more difficult to grasp. An immediate challenge forlocal government is to come to grips with their role inchange management and community education on theseissues, whilst dealing with their role as regulator and serviceprovider. The policy based approach to planning ismanageable and practical bureaucratically. From acommunity perspective it can be difficult and intangible.A common theme amongst those interviewed in the mediain the last couple of weeks about their experience in thebushfires has been the emphasis on how important andvaluable their community is to them. In these moving andemotionally charged interviews we have seen the mostpoignant display of care for our fellow community membersand an overwhelming emphasis on how important theircommunity is for them. It has been an unfortunate, but firstclass display of how vital that sense of community is for allof us, especially when it is lost. These are the times when local government’s strengths canbe most aptly demonstrated. Daniel Goleman (the author ofEmotional Intelligence) would argue that the best leadersemerge in time of chaos and uncertainty because they linkpeople to their primal needs, the day to day basics of theirlives. No level of government in this Nation of ours is betterplaced to provide that fundamental link to localcommunities than local government. It was ably displayedby the Cities of New York and London during their horrificterrorist attacks in the last decade. It will be ably displayedby Victorian Councils in the recovery from the bushfires.The challenge for local government is to deliver beyond thecrises during a time of major business and personaleconomic difficulties affecting all our communities. Noelene Duff is the Chief Executive Officer of the City ofWhitehorse, a Fellow of AICD, IPAA, LGMA and LGPro.Noelene has a Master of Business, Bachelor of Arts and Bachelorof Social Work.

Noelene has been President of LGMA (Local GovernmentManagers Australia), LGPro (Vic) and most recently as

PPllaannnniinnggNoelene Duff, Chief Executive OfficerCity of Whitehorse

The new leaders: Local governmentsare more relevant than ever

continued over page

International Vice President (elect) of ICMA, the onlyinternational local government association for professionals.

Her experience in local government goes back to her very firstrole as a social worker in inner city Melbourne in the early1980’s, followed by various management, planning and policyroles in the non Government sector and the VictorianGovernment. She later returned to the then City of St Kildamanaging their social service programs, a stint managing theamalgamation agenda with the now City of Yarra followingwhich she headed east to Monash Council and then Whitehorsewhere she has been CEO for eight years.

Cryptic cluesThis is the second installment of our curly crypticclues. They were put together by Russel Byard, VCAT,as part of the trivia competition at the State PlanningConference, to confound and test everyoneparticipating – which they did ! Russell has kindlypermitted us to reproduce them for those of you whowere unable to attend. As much effort was expendedcoming up with these clever plays on our statemunicipalities and planning schemes Russelljustifiably claims copyright on them all. Answers canbe found on page 31.

1. Deep blue2. High mountains3. Ark’s resting place4. Tedious and uninteresting tautology5. Prevalence of snakes favoured by suicidal

Cleopatra in tented area 6. Corporation telephoned a bed bug7. Palindrome8. Imitation prostitute9. Decapitated blonde actress of 1950s (who

couldn’t act) with immense bosom10. Climb on ex foreign minister11. Kath (or Kim) claim possession12.Major Australian explorer or cockatoo13.Wide valley named after the portrayer

of Rick in Casablanca14. Betwixt Iberia and Gaul15.Her Majesty’s precipice16. Eastern Scottish highlands17. Antipodean equivalent18. Rotten successor to Thor Heyerdahl’s Kon-tiki19.Hotham’s colonial predecessor20.Weary Dunlop’s home town21.No anthracite but yet a heated path22.With it incineration


v


Over regulation can be quiteobstructive as often happens at themoment in many councils. Thereis much frustration and wastage oftime and money in dealing withsome planning officers who areaway, leaving, decide to use outsideconsultants or simply handball itto VCAT. This results in anenormous increase in costs, timeand frustration for home builders.From my own personal experience

we have finally got a permit but had faced the prospect ofspending at least $40,000-$50,000 going to VCAT. Weavoided this by going to all the neighbours ourselves andworking with them to get written agreements. The wholeprocess took us 18months. We had a number of instanceswhere staff changed, people were on 6 weeks leave and newpeople started who didn’t have any idea of the issues.

I know that I am not alone. While campaigning for localcouncil elections recently I had a number of residents airingtheir dissatisfaction. One person in particular only wanted toput a simple addition on the back of his home – veryconscious of the character of the house – it took him 1 yearto get a permit while a totally inappropriate development afew doors away got a permit very quickly.

The blame lies partly with a confusing and inadequateDesign Code and partly with a bureaucracy that isunderstandably trying to cover all bases and protect itself. Ibelieve that the Design Code needs to be made much morerelevant to the current environmental issues and flexibleenough to adapt to local conditions without stiflingindividual design and creativity. Government needs toprovide a design checklist with rewards for environmentalinitiatives. Architects, builders and designers need to workwith Government at different levels to come up with buildingregulations that are proactive, consistent and encourageinitiative, so that both councils and builders know where theystand and permits can be processed in a reasonable time.Council officers would be less stressed and ratepayers wouldbe able to get on with improving their homes.

Apart from residential planning there are a number ofcommunity issues that have suffered a similar plight. Oneexample I was involved in was the debacle of the walkingtrack along the river between Pridmore Park and Barkers Rd,Hawthorn. A resident whose title went to the river wasrefusing the public to access the track that had been used forover 80 years, because of public liability issues. Beforeamalgamation of Councils, Hawthorn Council had agreedto buy any properties up for sale that had river frontage, cutoff an access path and resell the property. This did not

happen after amalgamation and the property concerned didnot even have street access but was given street access at apeppercorn rent without Council having the sense tonegotiate public access to the path. The matter waseventually resolved after local residents fought for a longtime, well over a year, with both the council and theproperty owner to resolve the issue. The whole problemcould have been avoided with a bit of foresight.

Another community issue that we were involved in was theproposal to establish Boroondara Scullers, a rowing club forsculling boats that would help under privileged youngpeople in the community to learn to row. The old CareyBoat Shed near Barkers Rd Hawthorn was becoming vacantand it seemed like an ideal spot to set up a sculling club, asit already had a landing, racks and a sprinkler system. Thereis a lack of space at the moment for privately owned scullingboats throughout Melbourne and this club would haveprovided storage for these boats, taking the pressure off otherclubs. We had a number of local residents and ex Olympiansinterested and were looking at a membership of 50-60. Theprincipal was that members would provide a significant ofmoney up front (say $10000 each) which would go towardsthe renovation of the club, the landing and providing adisabled path down from Harrison Crescent – alsoimproving access to the walking track mentioned above. Acondition of membership was to have been that membersprovide boats and coaching to help young people who wouldotherwise not have the opportunity to row.

Before we were able to get an answer from Council and astudy on the river usage was complete, Carey, who werevacating the shed, were ordered by Council to pull out anddestroy the sprinkler system that was estimated to be worth$150,000. It was sold for scrap metal. A little further downthe river Hawthorn Rowing Club had a permit to rebuildbut was told to hold off until the study was complete. TheCouncil then decided that there should be a large combinedrowing shed on the site of the Hawthorn and Xavier Collegesheds that would also include Genazzano Girls School andpossibly Boroondara Scullers. Hawthorn have now had theirpermit taken away and Xavier I believe are quite happy withwhat they have – so it is highly likely that nothing will everhappen. Once again a lot of wasted time, effort and money forsomething that will probably never eventuate, while twocommunity facilities that would have been funded by theclubs and members, and not ratepayers, have been disallowed.

Although it may not sound like it, I am a great believer inlocal council and its community links. Local council playsan important role in understanding and dealing with localissues and communicating with other levels of government.For this reason I think that party politics should have noinvolvement in local government to ensure a positiveworking relationship with State Government in particular.State Government must develop a sensible, broad, forward

PPllaannnniinnggJill Stansfield, Life Fellow, Past State & NationalPresident, Design Institute of Australia

Planning not pandering


thinking plan that actually considers all aspects of design,infrastructure and town planning – so that communitiesknow where they stand – and understand what they can andcan’t do. It must have vision for the future and courage toimplement a better design code without worrying aboutpolitical ramifications.

The planning process as it stands does not encourageenvironmentally friendly architecture. The public, buildersand developers need to understand that it is essential thatbuildings should be constructed to suit their environment,both functionally and aesthetically. With serious climatechange issues, it seems obvious that new buildings and evenrenovations should be designed to adapt to their local

environment to save water and power and to make homes,in particular, suitable for local conditions.

Residential and commercial planning must have clearguidelines and procedures that make it simpler for council toprocess permits and make it easier for ratepayers to improvethe environment in a positive way. Councils needs to adopta can do approach rather than all the reasons whycommunity initiatives can’t be carried out. Our communitiesneed governments at all levels to take a proactive approachto ensure that there is a smooth and efficient process andthat only appropriate development complying with forwardthinking environmental strategies are permitted.

Roger Taylor, Transport Strategist

Sustainability has become the new buzz word. It is used todescribe a vision for our cities, our transportation systems,energy use, even a way of life. Governments are nowembarking on a wide range of ‘sustainable solutions’-numerous programs, strategies and investment projects butdo we really know what sustainability means?

The term ‘sustainable’ is at best a concept that is specific toa given community, location and time frame. If you were toask an African villager what sustainable transport means hewould probably shrug is head and say he walks or rides amule, or perhaps a bike if he can afford one.

Curitiba’s world class public transport system is based on buses.Zurich’s is based on a seamless service that uses trains trams andbuses but also includes bikes and walking as legitimate modesof travel. Both of these systems are described as models for‘sustainable transport’. Both operate far more effectively andefficiently than our transport system in Melbourne but thequestion needs to be asked - will these models remainsustainable in our changing world in the future?

When Cuba endured its peak oil crisis in the late 1980s andthe early 1990s its economy collapsed, factories closed andthe roads were empty. Per capita energy consumptiondropped by a factor of eight within two years. The only wayto travel in a car was by pushing it. Cubans still had to travelbut learnt to travel with little or no oil. They bought amillion cheap bikes from China and made another millionlocally and learnt to ride them – they had no choice. But theCuban transformation that occurred during this so called‘Special Period’ was profound and resulted in a totalreconstruction of the entire economy and in the process gavethe term ‘sustainability’ a new meaning – one couched interms of survival not choice. It also provided some lessonsand a warning for other societies for the future.

The Cuban experience occurred as a result of the suddencurtailment of a single resource – oil. That is something allsocieties will experience within the next few decades but thatis only the beginning. All of the planet’s resources are now

being consumed more quickly than they can be renewed.Some of them, like oil, rock phosphate, topsoil andunderground water are essentially non renewable or havevery slow rates of renewal and many of the natural systemsthat produce our renewable resources such as food and livingessentials have become increasingly stressed andimpoverished. Declining yields will result in a reducedcapacity to support life – for all species including humans.So what might appear sustainable today may not be remotelysustainable in the future, and climate change will onlyexacerbate this problem.

This has enormous implications for our cities and societiesin general. The global changes in store, of which climatechange is only part will reshape and resize our cities. It willultimately determine the way people live, the number ofpeople living in them and the way they travel.

But this process (of collapse and renewal) is not new. It hasbeen repeated constantly over thousands of years butgenerally on a much smaller scale ie local or regional. Thechallenge has always been to adapt to the changingenvironment. If societies are to do this they would do well toanticipate the kind of world we will be forced to live in overthe ensuing decades, start planning accordingly and learnfrom past mistakes. This will need a new mindset –not basedon business as usual approaches that pervade governmentthinking and planning today but a back to basics approachthat challenges all of the accepted ‘wisdom’ and underlyingassumptions today.

Some of the questions that need to be asked might include:

• How many people can be supported globally and inMelbourne by say 2020, 2050 or 2100 and at whatstandard of living

• How will people live in the future • What jobs will have value and how many will have them • Where will the food come from to feed people (and in

what quantity and quality) – particularly those in the cities

continued on page 21

PPllaannnniinnggv

Sustainable transport

PPllaannnniinngg


• What resources will be available to maintain and operatecity services and its infrastructure and will governmentsand the community in general have the capacity toprovide it?

• How much of the infrastructure we are building todaywill have value in the future?

These are only a few but there are many other questions thatneed to be asked. What should be clear however is that city andtransport planning can no longer be considered in isolation.

If city and transport planners wish to remain relevant theywill need to emerge from their planning silos and startasking similar questions and understand that their futuresare also linked with the changing world around them. Theywill do us no favours if they persist with the ‘business asusual’ approaches that still pervade government policy andstrategy today.

Roger Taylor is a member of the Australian Institute of TrafficPlanning and Management, Victorian Branch committee and

has convened many forums on transport and city planningissues. Roger uses these forums to challenge established thinking,promote new ideas and develop a better understanding oftransport, often based on lessons learnt elsewhere. Roger haswritten papers on sustainable transport, city planning, roadsafety, infrastructure planning, and a number of environmentaltopics, and co-authored a water strategy for Yarra Valley Water.In March 2005 Roger was invited by the Department ofSustainability and Environment to give a presentation onMelbourne’s transport at the Sustainable City conference heldjointly by the Swedish and Victorian State governments inMelbourne.

Roger is currently organising a public forum titled “SustainableCities Sustainable Transport - what kind of world should we beplanning our cities and transport systems for?” to be held at theDOT Theatrette on the 26th March. Facilitator Dr. NormanSwan. For further information phone 9813 1529 or [email protected]

After 16 months of deliberations, 23 days of public hearings,142 witnesses, and $3 million of taxpayers’ funds theParliamentary Committee into Public Land Developmenthas come up with a report almost as incoherent as Joh’sevidence to the Fitzgerald Royal Commission.

Michael Forde (Counsel examining):- What do youunderstand by the doctrine of the separation of powers underthe Westminster system?Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen:- No, I don’t quite know what you’redriving at… I believe in it very strongly, and despite whatyou may say… Between the Government and the – Is it?…Well you tell me! And I’ll tell you whether you’re right ornot. Don’t you know?

Questions which needed to be considered by theParliamentary Committee are: What is the public interestwhich needs to be protected? Where’s the balance betweendemocracy (rule by the majority) and justice (rights of theindividual)? What weight do we give communitystakeholders, lobby groups, and vested interests (or are theythe same thing)? Do owners of public land have proprietaryinterests? What place is there for inter-generational equityand indigenous rights? What penalty regime should apply,with what enforceability?

From its inception this Opposition-dominatedParliamentary Committee had its problems. Was it inquiringinto public land, or Crown land, or public open space, or

green wedges, or the public land planning zones? Takingadvantage of the confusion, the Government invoked anarrow definition of public land intended to stifle debateand nobble public servants called up to give evidence.

The separation of powers between the three arms ofgovernment, which so bewildered Joh, was just one of half adozen fundamental issues on which the Committee couldhave produced some useful insights, but didn’t.

The majority (Opposition) report condemns thisGovernment intervention as ‘a serious breach of theseparation of powers between Parliament and the Executive.’Curious, because a fair swag of the Committee’s findingscould well be portrayed as attempts by the legislative arm ofgovernment to intervene in decisions properly made by theexecutive arm of government, and open to review by thejudicial arm of government.

The minority (Government) report condemns the majorityfor political grandstanding, wasting taxpayers’ resources,making reckless allegations of corruption, and cruellydeceiving the many people who genuinely tried to engagewith the substantive issues.

In this context, let’s have a look at some of the questions theCommittee should have addressed, had it ever got serious…

An irrational taxonomyThe Committee’s battles over terminology were really aboutthe scope of its fishing expedition: the wider the net wascast, the greater the chance of hauling in somethingunsavoury. Instead of bickering, it should have attempted

Parliamentary enquiry into publicland development -

Now don’t you worry about that!David Gabriel Jones, The Public Land Consultancy

v


an analysis of the mess – to provide us with a conceptualframework for reform.

We surely know how a National Park differs from asuburban police station; how Caulfield racecourse differsfrom a railway siding; how Mud Island differs fromFederation Square – even though they’re all, in some sense,public land. But we need to analyse and codify thedifferences before we can construct effective instruments fortheir protection. The Committee didn’t even come close.Had it done so, we might have a starting point forconsidering, for instance, the relative roles of the legislature,the executive and the judici.

A system out of balancePublic land has yet to find its properplace within the Australian version ofthe Westminster system.

Here, the executive and thelegislature have never been as distinctas they are, say, in America. Ourministers are simultaneously parlia-mentarians and de facto heads ofdepartments. It is unremarkable thatexecutive government controls thebusiness of the parliament –including, in normal circumstances,its standing and select committees.So where do we turn for independentscrutiny of the executive/parlia-mentary government?

To ensure probity we have set a series of semi-independentagencies into the space between the bureaucracy, theparliament and the courts: the Victorian EnvironmentAssessment Committee (VEAC), the Commissioner forEnvironmental Sustainability, the Auditor General, theVictorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) andso forth.

The Select Committee wanders around within this space,recommending the establishment of ‘an independentadvisory board’ with undisclosed composition andfunctions. It recommends various ad hoc matters bereferred to the Ombudsman, and a wider role for theGovernment Land Monitor (but still limits its role to landtransfers rather than land holdings). It has a bob-each-wayon VCAT – accusing it of pro-developer bias, but elsewhereimplying that it would have been pro-objector – if only ithad not been bypassed by government. Finally, in pursuitof a wider political agenda, it pronounces the whole systemto be so shonky that we need an Independent Commissionagainst Corruption.

Moribund legislationOn private freehold we have, through 60 years’ evolution ofthe planning system, achieved a measure of equilibriumbetween the three arms of the Westminster system.Parliament has enacted the Planning and Environment Act1989 and the Subdivision Act 1988; State and municipalbureaucracies administer these Acts and their correspondingsubordinate instruments; VCAT and the Supreme Courtkeep us all relatively honest.

This has been a shifting equilibrium: it is a living systemwith functioning feedback loops. The legislature has madeextensive refinements since the Town and Country PlanningAct of 1944; the executive deals with a constant stream ofPlanning Scheme Amendments; and the judiciary is keptbusy as developers and objectors challenge not onlyindividual decisions, but the system itself.

No equivalent balancing principles and systems have everevolved for public land. Although it’s had large slabschopped out of it over recent decades, the Land Act 1958 isstill a product of the nineteenth Century, when the Port

Phillip Colony was administered byVice-Regal decree, and the Surveyor-General was an unelected member ofthe Executive Council.

The Crown Land (Reserves) Act1978 is not much better – despitelayers of patches, it also remainsmired in its nineteenth centuryorigins. Under its system of‘temporary’ and ‘permanent’ reserv-ations, parliament is called on tomake decisions about incon-sequential paddocks, while theexecutive can dispose of land withstate or even national significance.The regulatory system can only bedescribed as Dickensian. There areonly haphazard requirements forproposals to be put on exhibition, forpublic submissions to be considered,

for independent review or for judicial appeal.

The feedback blockage The absence of structured feedback loops for public land isat the nub of many of the cases placed before theCommittee. The time has surely come to build them – butfirst, we need some public policy work of the kind theCommittee failed to undertake.

What is the public interest which needs to be protected?Where’s the balance between democracy (rule by themajority) and justice (rights of the individual)? What weightdo we give community stakeholders, lobby groups, andvested interests (or are they the same thing)? Do owners ofpublic land have proprietary interests? What place is therefor inter-generational equity and indigenous rights? Whatpenalty regime should apply, with what enforceability?

Had the Committee applied its collective mind to suchquestions we might now have a policy framework withinwhich to address the future of public land. It didn’t, andwe don’t.

But perhaps we’re expecting too much. Sir Joh would havereassured us: ‘Goodness gracious. Now don’t you worryabout that.’

www.publicland.com.au

Public landhas yet to find

its properplace within

the Australianversion of theWestminster

system.

v


The environmental regime inthe UK is complicated to saythe least and the UK’smembership of the EuropeanUnion has added a furtherlayer of regulations andmatters to be considered andsatisfied in any planningmatter. It also provides allmeasure of bases for appealsby aggrieved third parties whowould otherwise have no

appeal right. In addition to the regulations that prescribewhen and how environmental assessment is to beundertaken in relation to projects, the European Directive2001/42/EC “on the assessment of the effects of certainplans and programmes on the environment” (the StrategicEnvironmental Assessment or ‘SEA Directive’) adds afurther layer to strategic planning and requires assessment ofproposed plans, policies or programmes against very broadenvironmental parameters (in addition to the UKrequirement for equality impacts and the like).

Strategic planning and regional planning in particular are keyelements of the UK planning system and are very muchdriven by economic, social and sustainability imperatives. Inaddition to the national statements of planning policy(Planning Policy Statements), which set the overarchingplanning directions (with far greater teeth than our SPPF),each region of the UK has a regional framework (theRegional Spatial Strategy) which puts into effect the nationalpolicy and sets the regional framework including establishingtargets, and the local planning frameworks (the LocalDevelopment Frameworks) are then to set out how (andwhere) these targets will be achieved and policies given effect.

These regional and local plans are prepared by RegionalPlanning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities respectivelyand are all the subject of review by independent panels andfor subsequent approval by the Secretary of State (equivalentto our Minister for Planning). The parallel for the exampleof housing for instance, would be Clause 12 MetropolitanDevelopment policy actually allocating housing targets to beachieved by each local authority with the LPPF clearlyarticulating the where, how and when the housing will beprovided with sites specifically ‘allocated’ for(re)development. But back to the point.

The framework for the preparation of these plans is set outin the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) whichincludes sustainable development as a central tenant.

Sustainability appraisal of plans and policies is mandatoryunder the Act and Regional Planning Bodies and LocalPlanning Authorities must, in addition, conduct anenvironmental assessment in accordance with therequirements of European Directive on Strategic Environ-mental Assessment. These requirements are reflected in theEnvironmental Assessment of Plans and ProgrammesRegulations (2004).

The purpose of sustainability appraisal, as required by the2004 Act, is to promote sustainable development through theintegration of social, environmental and economic consider-ations into the preparation of new Regional Spatial Strategiesand Local Development Frameworks and their respectiveDevelopment Plan Documents, including their revision.In practice a single process is pursued to satisfy bothrequirements to prepare a Sustainability Appraisal and aStrategic Environmental Assessment to meet the EUdirective. It is intended to be an iterative process, withcommunity consultation throughout, rather than being astandalone process. This letter from London sets out anoutline of the implications of the European Directive and thelessons that might be considered in the Victorian System.Article 1 of the European Union Directive states that itsobjective is to provide for a high level of protection of theenvironment and to contribute to the integration ofenvironmental considerations into the preparation and adoptionof plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainabledevelopment.1

The Directive defines “environmental assessment” (Article2(b)) as a procedure comprising:• preparing an Environmental Report on the likely

significant effects of the draft plan or programme;• carrying out consultation on the draft plan or programme

and the accompanying Environmental Report;• taking into account the Environmental Report and the

results of consultation in decision making; and• providing information when the plan or programme is

adopted and showing how the results of theenvironmental assessment have been taken into account.

The required Sustainability Appraisal to be undertakenunder the UK legislation is also likely to encompass othertypes of appraisal such as Equality Impact Assessment,Integrated Impact Assessment or Health ImpactAssessments. It is not a straightforward process and iscomplicated by the need to satisfy two sets of requirementsmaking the resultant reports very complex and detailed.

Guidance has been prepared to assist planning authorities inthe preparation of Sustainability Appraisal and StrategicEnvironmental Assessment in parallel with the developmentof their strategic plans. The level of detail prescribed is

SSuussttaaiinnaabbiilliittyyJudy Nicholson, ARUP London

Letter from London - Sustainability appraisalsand strategic environmental assessments


comprehensive with the scope covering all measure ofeconomic, social, environmental and socio-politicalindicators. Given the scope of the regional and local planningstrategies, which are very much economic based, the data tobe collected as the baseline information for the assessmentwould generally overlap with the evidence base to be gatheredas the first stage of the strategic planning process.

The process prescribed also requires the Regional or LocalPlanning Authority to seek the views of four statutoryenvironmental consultation bodies designated in the EURegulations (the Countryside Agency, English Heritage,English Nature and the Environment Agency) on the scopeand level of detail of the environmental information to beincluded in the Sustainability Appraisal report. These bodiesare among the ‘specific consultation bodies’ listed in theguidance and it is considered desirable for other bodies to beconsulted as the Local Planning Authority considersappropriate, with a balance between those concerned withsocial, environmental and economic issues.

The process prescribed for the preparation of theSustainability Appraisal and Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment is typical of the standard EES process inestablishing baseline information, identifying indicators,predicting and assessing potential implications of alternateactions (including the no action option), specifyingmitigation measures and critically, establishing a frameworkfor ongoing monitoring of impacts across all indicators. Inaddition the process calls for the identification ofsustainability issues and environmental problems and for

these to form the basis of objectives for the strategic plan andthe appraisal. The EU directive requires that the final reportmust detail each of these aspects and provide the rationalefor the selection and rejection of options and theimplications and mitigation measures to be employed.

The identification of issues and problems to form the basisof development of a Sustainability Appraisal frameworkprovides a way in which sustainability effects can bedescribed, analysed and compared. The framework consistsof sustainability objectives which, where practicable, may beexpressed in the form of targets whose achievement ismeasured using indicators. The indicators are to be used inmonitoring the implementation of the strategy plan.

For each target and indicator selected, guidance directs thatenough information is needed to answer the followingquestions:• how good or bad is the current situation? Do trends

show that it is getting better or worse?• how far is the current situation from any established

thresholds or targets?• are particularly sensitive or important elements of the

economy, physical environment or community affected,e.g. skills shortages, endangered species or rare habitats,vulnerable social groups?

• are the problems reversible or irreversible, permanent ortemporary?

• how difficult would it be to offset or remedy any damage?• have there been significant cumulative or synergistic


effects over time? Are there expected to be such effects inthe future?

Sustainability objectives are distinct from the objectives ofthe strategic plan being developed although they may insome cases overlap with them. They are seen as providing away of checking whether the plan objectives are the bestpossible ones for sustainability.

The EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive directsthat the report should provide information on inter alia:• the relationship [of the plan or programme] with other

relevant plans and programmes • the environmental protection objectives, established at

international, [European] Community or [national] level,which are relevant to the plan or programme and the waythose objectives and any environmental considerationshave been taken into account during its preparation(Annex I (e))

• relevant aspects of the current state of the environmentand the likely evolution thereof without implementationof the plan or programme and the environmentalcharacteristics of the areas likely to be significantlyaffected (Annex I (b), (c))

• any existing environmental problems which are relevantto the plan or programme including, in particular, thoserelating to any areas of a particular environmentalimportance, such as areas designated pursuant toDirectives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC (Annex I (d))

• …the authorities…which, by reason of their specificenvironmental responsibilities, are likely to be concernedby the environmental effects of implementing plans andprogrammes…shall be consulted when deciding on thescope and level of detail of the information which must beincluded in the environmental report (Article 5.4 and 6.3).

The process for the evaluation of options and identificationof the preferred option is to be based on an analysis of therespective predicted social, environmental and economiceffects of the options being considered. Guidance directsthat these effects or changes should be described in terms oftheir magnitude, their geographical scale, the time periodover which they will occur, whether they are permanent ortemporary, positive or negative, probable or improbable,frequent or rare, and whether or not there are secondary,cumulative and/or synergistic effects.

Consequently, the report is to include mitigation measuresto prevent, reduce or offset significant adverse effects ofimplementing the strategy or plan. The EU directive requires the report to set out informationthat may reasonably be required taking into account currentknowledge and methods of assessment, the contents and level ofdetail in the plan or programme, [and] its stage in the decision-making process (Article 5.2).

Information to be provided in the Environmental Reportincludes:• the likely significant effects on the environment,

including on issues such as biodiversity, population,human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climaticfactors, material assets, cultural heritage includingarchitectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and

the interrelationship between the above factors. Theseeffects should include secondary, cumulative, synergistic,short, medium and long-term, permanent andtemporary, positive and negative effects (Annex I (f ) andfootnote)

• an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternativesdealt with (Annex I (h))

• the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully aspossible offset any significant adverse effects on theenvironment of implementing the plan or programme(Annex I (g))

Whilst the Victorian planning regime is not subject to ascomplex environmental controls as the EU member states,planning decisions are to take account of internationalagreements to which Australia is party as well as considerpotential environmental effects (s.60(1)(e). The frameworkfor Regulatory Impact Assessments provides a broad brushassessment of potential implications of new regulationsacross different sections of the economy and society butthere is no such requirement for the evaluation of a proposedplan or strategy; only if it becomes a new regulation. TheStrategic Assessment Guidelines to be considered for anyproposed Planning Scheme amendment merely pose thequestions: Does the amendment adequately address anyenvironmental effects? and does the amendment adequatelyaddress the relevant social and economic effects? Thesequestions are perhaps at the other extreme of the extent ofinvestigation required in the UK for the development of anynew strategic plan or revision but perhaps there is areasonable middle point for the consideration ofsustainability objectives.

The revisions to Melbourne 2030 for Melbourne@5Million are light on in terms of any sort of rigorousassessment against sustainability objectives although therevision at least touches on an employment strategy beingintegrated with land use. It would be interesting to see howthe revision would fare if there was a rigorous assessment ofthe plan or policy against environmental, social andeconomic parameters and indicators as would be required inthe UK. Housing affordability is mentioned in thedocument but a word search revealed that sustainabilityfails to get a single mention. ‘Sustainable’ gets six mentionsto describe ‘sustainable options for outward expansion’;’sustainable communities with jobs and housing in growthareas’; ‘sustainable growth’ of regional areas and the like.There is no mention of sustainability indictors or what‘sustainable outward expansion’ actually means and how itmay be monitored against key indicators of sustainability.Whilst the UK system is in many respects is incrediblycomplex and painstakingly slow, we just might be able tolearn something from the UK system about getting seriouson environmental and sustainability matters at the verybasic level of strategic planning.

1 A Practical Guide to the Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment Directive Office of the Deputy PrimeMinister 2005:9

v


Lisa StubbsI have been working at Contour Consultants since 2003where I worked as a student planner. I first became involvedin the VPELA YPG Committee in 2006 and was part of theNexus Ball Committees of 2007 and 2008. It has been a funyet challenging experience and I have met lots of interestingpeople along the way.

In October 2008 I purchased my first house in Mont AlbertNorth and I have spent far too much time searching forwhitegoods, furniture and walking the aisles of Bunningslooking for things I never knew I would need, likemultigrips.

In 2009, we are looking forward to welcoming new youngprofessionals to the group and assisting the VPELA Boardwith a range of functions including the Conference inSeptember. Be sure to attend our first function on 24 March– the comedy night promises to be lots of fun and half ourprofits will be donated to the Victorian Bushfire Appeal.

Dianne HawkeMy name is Dianne and I have recently begun working atthe City of Melbourne.

In September I returned from an 8 month stint of travelingaround Africa, Spain and the States, and am enjoying havingan income and my own bed again! I love to travel and rock-climb, and I’m trying to learn Spanish at the moment, withlittle success. I come from a pretty big family (5 kids), and 2of us are town planners!

I’ve been involved in the VPELA young professionals foralmost 3 years now, and jumped at the opportunity to beone of the co-conveners, as I love helping to arrange socialevents, to give us all a break from the daily grind! I especiallylike being in the YPG as its given me the chance to makesome really good friends in the industry, and there are alwaysfamiliar faces at the VPELA seminars and events throughoutthe year. Jess and Megan have done such a great job over thepast few years and I just hope Lisa and I can live up to them!

YYoouunngg PPrrooffeessssiioonnaallss GGrroouuppMeet our new convenors

Dianne Hawke (extreme left) and Lisa Stubbs (extreme right) enjoy a chat with past convenors Meagan Merrittand Jessica Cutting (middle).

This column aims to identifykey planning issues beingdealt with by Panels Victoriaand a reference guide to casesthat provide a precedent or areof general interest. All reportscited are available on theDPCD website.

The Point Lonsdale ResidentialDevelopment EES panelinquiry covers a broad range ofissues. The proposal is for a

waterway residential development at the entrance to the PointLonsdale Township proposed by Stockland Development PtyLtd. The proposal includes residential development includinga retirement village, aged care accommodation.

The Panel Enquiry (Executive Summary) report notes that:

Residential amenity and environmental sustainability wouldbe supported by:

• A tidally flushed canal lake system connected to the ocean(17.89 hectares);

• Restoration and development of a 56 hectare conservationreserve of wetlands and indigenous vegetation for transfer tothe City of Greater Geelong;

• Water sensitive urban design to reduce urban andstormwater run-off and to maintain water quality in thecanal system;

• A network of local recreation parks (13.7 hectares);• Controls on infrastructure, building and landscape design

and construction to enhance local amenity and integrationwith Point Lonsdale township; and

• A network of walking paths and bike trails (18 kilometres).The report is significant in that it considers issues of ClimateChange and sea level rise. It makes particular reference to theDraft Victorian Coastal Strategy (now finalised). Insummary the Panel stated that:

The Panel considered the implications of climate change andsea level rise in great detail. The relevant Councils andGovernment Departments did not disagree with theproponent’s expert advice that the proposal can beadequately protected. Numerous other submittors considerthat the risk is unacceptable. The Draft Victorian CoastalStrategy proposes a maximum sea level rise of 0.8 metres by2100 as a planning guideline. The Panel accepts that witha co-incident tidal storm surge and overland flood, the peakwater level might reach 2.35m AHD in Point Lonsdale,implying that substantial low�lying parts of the existingtownship will require protective embankments. Ifembankments are raised, as the proponent argues will have

to happen, the predicted peak water level might be restrictedto 1.65m AHD and, on this basis, the proposal is for aminimum floor level of 1.8 AHD for dwellings inthe development.

The Panel does not agree that it would be prudent to addto the number of houses that may require protection andtherefore recommends a minimum floor level for residentialand commercial building of 2.35 metres AHD. If theGovernment sets a sea-level rise guideline of more than 0.8metres this recommendation would need to be revised bythe differential.

The Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 and Clause 15.08-2 ofthe State Planning Policy Framework have now beenfinalized. The Panel’s discussion provides a usefulconsideration of climate change (albeit in the context of theDraft strategy) and joins an increasing list of cases bothwithin Victoria and interstate whereby climate change isbecoming a relevant consideration in decision making. Seealso Gippsland Coastal Board v South Gippsland SC (Red Dot)[2008] and Editorial comment 31 VPR.


PPaanneell RReeppoorrttMegan Carew

Climate change

v

Today I write this from the comfort of my train seat on theway to work.

Normally I would be driving for an hour to and from home…two hours lost in which I could be working. However, anaccumulation of points over the last three years has seenVicRoads give me a three month break from driving – andto my surprise, two working hours back a day.

At first I found the thought of limited mobility daunting,but with a little planning and organisation, life with publictransport has more positives than negatives.

The only negative I have found is the loss in conveniencethat I enjoyed driving door to door…alone in my big carpumping carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere, along thecheerless freeway.

On the other hand, the positive benefits of train travel arenumerous:

Hip pocket – I have halved my expenditure on fuel. Insteadof $600 a month petrol money, I spend $220 on a monthlyticket and say another $80 on a few taxis.

Health – Most of the time I ride my bike from home to thestation and chain it up. At the office we have two companybikes that I usually use anyway when going to meetingsaround the city. At first, the bike riding feels a bit hot andsweaty, but your fitness improves quickly and you learn todress lightly for the ride. Don’t pedal too hard and keep yourelbows out wide to maximise ventilation under the armpits– I like to call it the headless chook position! It is quitepractical to even wear a suit on a bike. The best way is tothink ahead and leave the jacket at the office and loosen thetie. A bike commute of 4-5 km can easily be made withouttoo much sweat! Of-course if your work facilities have ashower, you can by-pass the public transport systemaltogether and ride your bike all the way to work.

Environment – My ecological footprint has lesseneddramatically. I asked a consultant who estimates that I wouldbe saving 2.8 tonnes of carbon over the three-monthperiod, that I am not driving the car(calculated fromhttp://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/transport/fuelguide/environment.html ). Imagine if every family reduced toone car, instead of two or three, how much less congestedour roads would be and how much less polluted Melbournewould be. Think of how much room on the road for bikesthat would make and how much stress and obesity would berelieved. With one car, you wouldn’t need that double garageyou were planning, and you could save enough money topay the house off earlier!

Productivity – Driving time is not productive time. Duringthe hour long journey on the train I can read, work on thelaptop, or, perhaps most productive of all, have a little nap!Just don’t drool – not a good look and kids stare. Whichreminds me of one more aspect of public transport thatcould be considered positive or negative, depending on yourframe of mind after a long day in the office is;

Other passengers – I am sure you have your own opinionson that!

Of course the public transport system may seem a littledaunting at first, but here is some of the wisdom I havepicked up on how to cope with train travel and all its minor,yet potentially infuriating, trials and tribulations;

Buy a monthly pass to avoid annoying queues to buy a ticketand making that heartbreaking dash to the platform, just intime to farewell your train (and your dreams of eating dinnerwhilst it is still hot!)

Suburban trains leave very regularly, but if you are catchinga country train obtain a schedule at all costs! What couldbe more desolate than the empty platform of a countrybound train?

Learn which directions City Loop trains operate in themorning and evening to avoid doubling back on trips – timespent revisiting stations is a long way from a productivity gain!

Breakdowns on the system are frustrating, but the overallexperience is enjoyable and benefits your hip pocket, yourhealth and the environment.

But I won’t mention the train scheduling during theAustralian Open heat wave…

One thing I would like to stress is that cyclists need to beaware of cars, especially drivers not looking out for bikes.Motorists have a low tolerance for bikes darting in and outof traffic and not obeying road rules – I should know as Iused to be one of them.

So hop on your bike and give it a go! I’ll see you out there –I’m the cyclist in the suit looking like a headless chook…Sayg’day, won’t you!


RRoorryy’’ss rraannttRory Costello, Executive Director Villawood Properties

On yer bike!

v


�

� ��

�

�� !!��"�#��$%�&$��&'��!&� ��(��)�*+��,�-!� ��(��.��)�*+��,�-!��/�0��1��23�� 4&,5�%�,'��!-� 6��4&,5�%�%,�%&-��7��8� ��9��79� � �7��&'�!��,'�!',� :::9� ��9��79� �

+��:��;�

� ��8��<��Tuesday 21 April 2009 Crest on Barkly Motel, St Kilda

<=��>?#=)��@=��>�>?=)�"#/��>��+��"#/�An exploration of challenges facing Melbourne’s public land planners and managers

Speakers: -

• Dr Ian McPhail Commissioner for the Environment

• Marcus Spiller Director, SGS Economics & Planning

• Libby Mears Chair, Victorian Coastal Council or

• Liz Johnstone Chair, Central Coastal Board

• Prof Geoffrey London Victorian Government Architect

• Duncan Malcolm Chair, Victorian Environment Assessment Council

• Michael Buxton Assoc Professor of Environment & Planning, RMIT University

Themes and Propositions: -

• Melbourne abounds in surplus and underutilised public land. Instead of being a blight on urban form, this land could be a catalyst for urban re-birth.

• In 1950, the quarter-acre residential block was complemented by the 10-acre parkland/playing field at the end of the street. In 2050, what new forms of public space will complement our new residential forms?

• The foreshore is a finite resource (perhaps even a contracting resource). How will 5 million Melbournians use Port Phillip?

• Where land has environmental or landscape values (creeks, hilltops) those values will be simultaneously intensified and threatened by population pressures. How will we protect them?

• Planning schemes are ineffective instruments for making decisions about public land. How should decisions be made, exhibited and reviewed?

• We can no longer afford to have a huge proportion of our urban areas devoted to road reserves. It’s time to start reclaiming roads from cars.

• The area of land occupied by Melbourne’s roads is larger than most Victorian National Parks. How can this land contribute to attaining our conservation objectives (vegetation, stormwater, steet lighting)?

• We can no longer afford part-time public land (racecourses, markets, schoolyards…). It’s time to get multiple usage from these areas.

• Community debate around Melbourne 2030 has been focussed on certain issues (public transport, the UGB, neighborhood character…) but not on the role of public places … why not?

• Public open space is too important to be in private or institutional ownership (shopping complexes, university campuses…). It’s time to acquire public equity in such land.

• The Parks Charge levied on Melbourne ratepayers will double to $200 million per year. How should it be spent?

Tuesday 21 April 2009 Crest on Barkly Motel, St Kilda

Inquiries – [email protected]

Australian workplaces reflect our culturally diverse society,and throughout our history, this rich diversity hascontributed enormously to the development of industry andbusiness and organisations.

We are encouraging all Australian workplaces to celebratetheir cultural diversity through food during the week of 16-22nd March 09.

Food is one of the most accessible ways to experienceanother culture. It’s also a great way of bringing colleaguestogether, which can boost morale and understanding, andcontribute to a more engaged workforce.

An initiative of the Scanlon Foundation, A Taste ofHarmony coincides with National Harmony Day and issupported by the Australian Multicultural Foundation andthe Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

Our vision is for all workplaces – big or small – to participateby gathering colleagues together over a delicious lunch madeof foods from different lands. I am also hoping to seerestaurants offering workers lunch specials and banquetsreflecting different cultural foods.

I have worked in business for many years, both in domesticand foreign markets and one of the things I enjoy mostabout Australian workplaces is our rich diversity. Australianscome from over 130 different countries and more then 43per cent of us were born overseas or have at least one parentborn overseas.

Workplaces are made up of people of different colours,religions and ethnicities. Each of us bring different skills toour workplace whether it be in an office, on a constructionsite or at a factory.

To us, food seemed like the most logical way to celebratebecause one of the greatest benefits of being a culturallydiverse nation is that we have an extraordinary array of foodto choose from. Also, traditionally the act of breaking breadtogether symbolised everyone at the table was equal, butnowadays it’s one of Australia’s favourite ways to socialise.

By participating in A Taste of Harmony you have guaranteedyourself one lunch feed in March that will surely beat theregular sandwich!

For further information visitwww.tasteofharmony.org.au


CCoommmmuunniittyyPeter Scanlon, Chairman Scanlon Foundation

Celebrating diversity at work

29 Coventry StreetSouthbank Victoria 3006Australia

Collie provides services in Strategic Planning, Development Planning, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture across all land uses for the private and public sector.

+61 3 8698 9300+61 3 8698 9399

[email protected]

v


The continuing bushfire issuesfacing our community gives rise tomany future planning discussions,not the least of which will beroadside vegetation and access.

I understand many deaths occurredas a result of vehicle accidents toresidents while fleeing due to poorvisibility and fallen trees.

The first lesson would seem to require a minimum level ofaccess for remote communities subject to fire threat. Thiscould involve a requirement for two road access links withsome physical separation, i.e. not both in the same valley.

Tragic consequences can flow from single access areas wherefire engulfs the road – fire appliances can’t get in andresidents can’t get out.

A further concern is the proximity to the travelled road ofthe adjacent vegetation. We are generally familiar with theissue of “clear zones” along roads which sets out a “safe”distance between vehicles and roadside objects, i.e. largetrees. High speed roads have desirable clear zones of about6m to separate errant vehicles from trees, etc.

In the recent fires however, a much greater distance wouldappear to be necessary to protect the road and vehicles usingit from falling trees. As we can see from the injuries to firefighters and the vehicle accidents for fleeing residents fromfallen trees, the long term and immediate impacts of a firestorm on access and safety can be very serious.

In the aftermath of these fires, we will need to reassess manyaspects of planning and land use. In many cases, the nativevegetation along the rural road reserves is a high qualityremnant example of what would have been common in thearea generally. These areas contain many large trees whichare unforgiving to errant vehicles. In fire areas they also posea further threat.

We need to review our practices and perhaps establish floraand fauna reserves adjacent to existing road reserves toprovide a safer separation. Unfortunately, this will come at acost as much of the land would need to be acquired orcompensated in some way.

I am encouraged that the Premier has advised that theRoyal commission will look at all aspects of the bushfiretragedy.

Henry Turnbull is Managing Director of theTraffix Group and a former President of VPELA.

Bushfire Tragedy – Access Issues

1. Indigo2. Alpine3. Ararat4. Baw Baw5. Campaspe (A tented area is a camp. Cleo

experimented with the lives of slaves to discover apainless way to die and she settled on the bite ofan asp, an Egyptian cobra)

6. Corangamite (co-rang-a-mite)7. Glenelg8. Horsham (sham whore)9. Mansfield (Jayne Mansfield)10. Mount Alexander11. Moyne12. Mitchell13. Strathbogie14. Pyrenees (ie, between Spain and France)15. Queenscliffe16. Northern Grampians17. South Grampians18. Mildura (mildew Ra)19. Latrobe20. Benalla21. Colac-Otway22. Hepburn

Cryptic answers

v

Joseph Monaghan, Russell Kennedy

Capital Benefits (Mont Albert)Pty Ltd v Whitehorse CC[2008] VCAT 2436 (“CapitalBenefits”)

Clare v Maroondah CC [2008]VCAT 606 (“Clare”)Two recent decisions havereinforced the Tribunal’s previousinterpretation regarding clause

52.01 of the Scheme and its associated schedule in relationto who may decide upon the form of any required publicopen space contribution for subdivision.

In Capital Benefits the applicant sought approval tosubdivide the land into 6 individual lots with differentfrontages and shapes surrounding the various buildings ofthe former Camberwell Church of England Girls GrammarSchool, St Georges Avenue, Mont Albert. Whitehorse CChad granted a permit which required a 5% public open spaceland contribution. The applicant applied to the Tribunalpursuant to section 87A of the Planning and EnvironmentAct 1987 seeking a determination that the public open spacecondition should be replaced with a condition requiring apayment to the responsible authority of an amount equal to5% of the site value, and that in the alternative should landbe required, that a different area of public open space to thatrequired by Council should be set aside.

In relation to Council’s requirement for a cash contribution,the Tribunal agreed with Senior Member Byard’s decision inTrethowan v Mornington Peninsula SC & Ors [2002] VCAT1677 and found that clause 52.01 of the planning schemeand its schedule do not allow the permit applicant to electwhether such a contribution is to be made by way of land,money, or a combination of both. Rather, that discretionsolely lies with the council. In relation to the location of thepublic open space contribution, the Tribunal preferred thelocation suggested by the Council because it provided agreater amount of public open space to the public domainand took better advantage of the natural features of the site.

Clare was an application for review under section 80 of thePlanning and Environment Act 1987 of a condition in thepermit requiring the applicant to pay a sum equivalent to5% of the site value of the land. The applicant argued thatas a proposed public open space reserve (in excess of 15% ofthe total site area) had been included on the plans for nativevegetation net gain purposes, it was unfair and unreasonablefor the Council to require a 5% cash contribution.

Maroondah CC argued that it was a decision for Council asto whether it required a contribution of cash, land, or a

combination of both, and that the Council’s decision wasnot reviewable by the Tribunal and was not a matter onwhich the Tribunal could substitute its own view, unless theTribunal was satisfied that the Council’s view wasunreasonable according to Wednesbury principles (i.e. theCouncil’s decision was so unreasonable that no reasonabledecision maker acting according to law could have made it).

The Tribunal agreed and found that there was no provisionin the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of sucha decision under the review provisions in section 77, 79, 80,82, 149(1), although there might be a possibility of anapplication for a declaration under sections 149A or 149B.As such, the only basis for review in relation to theproceedings was according to Wednesbury unreasonablenesstest. In this instance, the net gain area was inconsistent withthe needs of the Council for public open space as the areawould not be readily accessible by members of the public,and also, because the Council already had ample public openspace, its needs may have been more for the developmentand enhancement of those spaces, rather than the provisionof more land.

Western Water v Rozen & Anor [2008] VSC 382This was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria byWestern Water against the Tribunal’s decision in Rozen vMacedon Ranges SC [2007] VCAT 1814 to grant a permitfor four dwellings on four lots. As the proposed developmentwas within an open potable water supply catchment, theInterim Guidelines for Planning Permit Applications inOpen Potable Water Supply Catchment Areas (“theGuidelines”) applied (the Guidelines were issued by theMinister for Planning in August 2000 pursuant tos.60(1)(b)(ii) (now amended) of the Planning andEnvironment Act 1987). The Guidelines provided for amaximum density of 1 lot per 40 ha, unless:

• a catchment management plan or similar projectaddressing land use planning issues had been preparedfor the catchment, and the objectives, strategies andrequirements of the plan or project have been includedin the planning scheme; and

• a land capability assessment (“LCA”) showing a greaterdensity was appropriate, had been prepared in accordancewith the Code of Practice – Septic Tanks, On-siteDomestic Wastewater Management, EnvironmentProtection Authority, March 1996 (the “Code”).

The density of the proposed development exceeded thebenchmark of 1 lot per 40 ha. However, the Tribunal foundthat a greater density was acceptable because the permitapplicant had provided a satisfactory LCA.

The Court held that a satisfactory LCA in itself was notenough to embrace all the facts relevant under the planningscheme as to whether a proposal was appropriate. In


CCaassee NNootteessNews from the legal world

particular, wider policy considerations of risk and theGuidelines were still relevant considerations. Compliancewith the Code and the provision of a satisfactory LCA wastherefore not of itself sufficient. The resultant density of thedevelopment within the catchment needed to be consideredin light of the Guidelines. In this respect, the Tribunal’sapproach of accepting a satisfactory LCA, coupled withdesign of the septic tank system in accordance with the Codedid not adequately address the cumulative risk factorassociated with additional dwellings/septic tank systems inopen water supply catchments recognised by both theGuidelines, the planning scheme policies, or within thecontext of the precautionary principle.

The Court also held that the Tribunal had misapprehendedand misstated the precautionary principle when it tookthe position that risk of irreversible environment damage

was necessary to invoke the principle. A serious risk ofenvironmental damage could also invoke the principle,and the Tribunal had not correctly addressed the conceptof serious.

The appeal was therefore allowed and the matter remitted toa differently constituted Tribunal.

The decision has significant implications for development inopen potable water supply catchments in that it is nownecessary to take account of the wider policy considerationsof risk and the Guidelines, in addition to compliance withthe relevant septic tank code of practice (note the EPA hasjust released a new code of practice, currently under review,the Code of Practice – Onsite Wastewater Management,December 2008).

It is widely accepted that striving to become Carbon Neutralis a socially responsible and environ-mentally credibleobjective for any organisation. The VPELA boarddetermined in 2008 that even though VPELA is a smallorganisation, striving to attain Carbon neutrality wasimportant to demonstrate environmental leadership tomembers and the broader community.

Following is a very brief summary of VPELA’s journeytowards Carbon Neutrality. The complete carbonmanagement report will be available shortly on VPELA’sown website at www.vpela.org.au.

Establishing VPELA’sGreenhouse Emissions Inventory

Establishing the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is alwaysthe first part of a carbon emissions report. This meanscreating a list of emissions sources and quantifying each one.Generally for an office based organisation this begins withmeasuring and monitoring electricity consumption, to lookfor irregularities that might indicate poorly performingequipment or management practices that could be improved(i.e. ensuring lights and equipment are switched off whennot needed). The VPELA tenancy operations over theprevious 12 months scored an impressive 4 stars out of 5 ona preliminary NABERS1 rating. This indicated a highlydisciplined approach to conserving energy. Many tenanciesdon’t even achieve 1 star first up!

Measuring the base building energy usage is important butoften difficult. Unfortunately building owners have littleincentive to compile and record energy use data in a form

easily applicable to energy reporting. While tenants ratherthan owners are responsible for the outgoings, influencingthe energy efficiency of the base building is often aproblem and this split incentive is a major area of concernfor governments and agencies trying to reduce overallenergy consumption.

Usually the most contentious part of any emissionsinvestigation is determining where the boundaries need tobe drawn around the organisation, and to what extent itshould take responsibility for emissions created by others onits behalf.

The GHG Protocol which provides guidance on thisrecommends that where an organisation is able to exercisechoice, then these choices should be at least partly governedby the need to conserve energy and to pollute less. Wherethe choice rests with the customer then the customer shouldat least report on the emissions. This way they can take stepsto reduce emissions in future.

A large part of VPELA’s operation is the organisation ofevents, and an organiser generally has the choice ofdetermining which venue to select. Therefore it istheoretically able to select a venue with lower emissions.Unfortunately at the time of writing, venues do not publishefficiency ratings and it would be impossible for VPELA tomake any kind of informed choice.

The decision to include venues and accommodation in theinventory was however determined by VPELA who gavemembers the choice of paying extra when booking in for theconference in order to offset emissions from their attendance.

Another question to be considered was whether air travelinto Victoria from interstate guests should go on VPELA’s


EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttVPELA and Carbon Neutral

v

Peter Shuey, Ark Climate


emissions account. Given that VPELA does have the abilityto choose where to invite guest from, and interstate gueststhemselves have little choice of their mode of transport,these emissions were also included..

The final figure for VPELA’s carbon footprint for 2008before offsets is 44 tonnes of CO2 equivalent,

This is equivalent to 2 average Australian households. (or 12cows burping for a year!)

Becoming Carbon Neutral

Having compiled an emissions inventory and identifiedopportunities for reduction, an organisation wishing tobecome Carbon Neutral will then look for an appropriateform of carbon credit which can be used to offset remainingunavoidable emissions.

Like most organisations VPELA expressed a strongpreference for supporting locally based renewable energy andabatement projects. Unfortunately since Australia’sratification of Kyoto, and the subsequent release of thefederal Government’s White Paper on the Carbon PollutionReduction Scheme in December last year, the use of suchprojects to attain Carbon Neutrality becomes problematic.

This is because Australia is now subject to a cap on its totalemissions. Unfortunately once the cap is in place it not onlydetermines the maximum amount of net emissions that arecreated in Australia, but it effectively determines theminimum emissions as well. Australia has been issued withKyoto permits equal to approximately 3 billion tonnes ofCO2 to cover the 5 year period from the beginning of 2008to the end of 2012. These permits will be progressivelyreleased over that period at a rate of about 600 million peryear.2 These Kyoto permits are effectively turned into CPRSpermits and sold to large scale polluters such as energyproducers who must purchase them on behalf of theirconsumers. The number of permits available effectively capsour total emissions so that as they become progressivelyscarce, polluters must find ways of reducing emissions

The issue is now what happens if an organisation reducestheir emissions by buying GreenPower or some other type ofoffset in order to become carbon neutral. Such an action willinitially cause Australia’s total energy use to drop. Howeverthe consequence of this will be to free up permits forsomeone else to use. In other words while an organisationmay have reduced their emissions at an entity level, now thatsomeone else can take up those permits, Australia’s emissionsas a whole will not change. This goes for all emissionsabatement within Australia at the present time, and throwsinto doubt the idea that anyone can claim Carbon Neutralityby offsetting emissions with locally sourced abatement.

Since this problem came to light the ACCC has beenstruggling to come up with a policy to regulateenvironmental claims based on reduction of emissions at thelocal entity level.

At the moment for those of us advising clients on what theycan say about their abatement efforts, we are tiptoeingaround some highly problematic language. PreviouslyGreenPower providers made the claim that “BuyingGreenPower reduces your impact on the environment”. The

GreenPower authority is now more cautious advising thatstatements such as “GreenPower reduces your emissionsfrom electricity consumption” may be more appropriate.

The government has advised that under the CPRS cap,anyone will be able to purchase Kyoto permits and surrenderthem in order to claim that they have reduced theiremissions, and anyone is free to purchase an abatement creditfrom a Kyoto annex II (uncapped) country such as China.

Unfortunately these are not acceptable to many Australians.Most organisations wish to see their money and efforts go toreduce emissions at a local level, and the voluntary cancell-ation of an Australian Kyoto permit in most cases will simplylead to another organisation choosing to offset their ownemission through the purchase of a foreign sourced offset.

Fortunately this situation has stirred up a torrent of criticismfrom various players within environmental groups and thecarbon markets industry. An organisation called theVoluntary Carbon Markets Association (See vcma.org.au)has now been specifically created to assist with policy andlobbying efforts to resolve this situation.

The National Carbon Offset Standard discussion paperreleased by the government in December has become arallying point for this discontent and many are calling on thegovernment to ensure that a system be put in place so thatfor every ton of voluntary abatement that can be verified, aKyoto permit is cancelled. If this can be done organisationssuch as VPELA will be able to invest in renewable energyand other local abatement efforts in order to become CarbonNeutral. Recent remarks from the Minister for ClimateChange have indicated that the government may beprepared to move on this issue*.

Until then like every one else, VPELA’s emissions remain upin the air! Having said that VPELA is still in a position toreduce emissions through a series of initiatives over the nexttwelve months and will be actively tracking their performanceagainst the standards we have identified for them.

About the author

Peter Shuey is a Director of the Emissions and Energyconsultancy the Ark Climate Group. He is Secretary andChair of the Technical Committee for the Voluntary CarbonMarkets Association and also lectures in Carbon Accountingat the National Centre for Sustainability (Swinburne).

*Responses to the National Carbon Offset Standard can befound on the website of the Department of Climate Change.

1 NABERS previously Australian Building GreenhouseRating (ABGR)

2 . This figure is equal to Australia’s 1990 emissions plus 8%,which is Australia’s allowable increase under its Kyotocommitment. v


Verity Castles (ex Melbourne City Council) hasreturned from her working holiday in the UKand joined Bosco Jonson’s planning team.Contact details are:

Bosco Jonson Pty Ltd, 16 Eastern Road (POBox 5075), South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205.

Ph: (03) 9699 1400, Fax: (03) 9699 5992

[email protected]

Brett Davis has formed his own company DavisPlanning Solutions and can be contacted:

C/15 Sawson Street South, Ballarat 3350

[email protected]

His new website is www.davisplanning.com.au

Congratulations to Chris Goss (Orbit Solutions& VPELA Board member) and his lovely newwife Sarah who were married on 1st February2009. VPELA wishes you both every happiness.

Catriona Maclean has moved from Beca and isnow a Strategic Planner with Aurora Projects.She can be contacted on 0400 431 900 oremail [email protected]

Deb Neumann (SKM)and Ross Edwards arethe proud parents ofbeautiful litt le OrlaAlban Edwards, born 28June 2008, weighing3.09 kg. She is a DavidTennant fan already!

Julie Reid has recently moved from BaysideCity Council to take up the position of GeneralManager City Development with WhitehorseCity Council. Her contact details are: City ofWhitehorse, Locked Bag 2, Nunawading DCVIC 3131

[email protected]

Ph: (03) 9262 6306

Fax: (03) 9262 6379

Mobile 0400 584120

Peter Sagar has accepted a position as theSenior Program Manager, Ringwood TransitCity,Urban Development Division, Planning &Local Government Group.

He can be contacted at:

Level 3, 55 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic 3000Ph: (03) 8644 8875

Andrew Walker formerly of DLA Phillips Fox hasleft to join the bar. He can be contacted on:

[email protected]

Congratulations to Bronwyn O’Brien (ClaytonUtz) and Peter Quinn (former VPELA BoardMember) on their recent marriage. What agorgeous blended family they have together!

IITTKKIn the know

MMoovviinngg FFoorrwwaarrdd 22000099…more pics

1 Brian Howe, Bill Chandler& Renate Howe

2 Robert Kinghorn, AdamTerrill, Gregoria Todaro& Stephen Davis

3 Veisha Berzkalns, Joseph Nasr& Intan Soedarsono

4 Nick Brisbane & Geof Snell

2

3

4

1