Hansard - Planning and Environment Amendment Bill

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT AMENDMENT BILL
Second reading

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) – It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2007. One just has to listen to the contribution from the member for Ballarat East to see how those opposite are simply apologists for the failed planning system this government has been responsible for. It has failed this community. This system has been in place for eight years and nobody in Melbourne supports it. To have the member for Ballarat East stand up in this chamber and say that councillors have the audacity to knock back planning applications – –

Mr Howard interjected.

Mr WAKELING – As a former councillor, I know that councils will often knock back planning applications because councillors represent their local communities. Unlike the member for Ballarat East, I was proud to represent my community.

The Planning and Environment Bill is just another attempt by this government to try to fix the failed planning system which was put in place under the Melbourne 2030 plan. The Planning and Environment Act is to be amended to extend the powers of the much-loved VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) system. It will be able to cancel or amend planning permits issued at its direction. It will streamline the planning system operations through enacting further recommendations contained in the Carbines review which are aimed at removing red tape and doing away with planning delays. It will also clarify the general responsibility of a municipal council as a planning authority for any planning scheme in force in its area and will also alter the time frame when councils review their planning schemes, from three to four years.

I listened to the member for Yuroke's contribution to the debate. Whilst from time to time she makes a good contribution to debates in the house, I listened to her trying to explain the benefits of Melbourne 2030 in her own electorate.

I can tell you, Acting Speaker, that as someone who has the urban growth boundary running through the middle of my electorate, Melbourne 2030 is loathed by the people in Melbourne's east.
This bill is about spin; it is not about substance. This has more to do with fixing the mess in which this government has put Victoria's planning system. This government is clearly out of touch with community expectations with respect to planning. By any measure, Melbourne 2030 is an abject failure. This government will thrust upon the Victorian community and the Melbourne community an additional 1 million people. In the city of Knox there is an expectation that by the year 2030 my community will have to put up with an additional 15 000 houses.

I should explain to the house that in the city of Knox there is not a lot of land left on which you could put 15 000 houses, so what is going happen?

They are going to subdivide every second house lot in my municipality and implement what they colloquially call 'infill development' but which the local community knows as housing units. My community is going to be forced to accept units at the behest of this government.

If members think that is not bad enough, recently the planning minister would not rule out categorically the idea that they were going to be toying with removing planning powers from local government. They were potentially going to hand it over to some new body. This clearly demonstrates that this government is all about centralising planning powers.

The bill will strengthen VCAT’s role, from it having an adjudicative role to more of an interpretative role.

It is all about strengthening the role of VCAT. I, as a former councillor, know only too well how VCAT is acting as the Labor government's muscle to force the failed Melbourne 2030 policy onto the Victorian community. One only needs look at the numerous applications for planning developments which were rejected unanimously by councillors of all political ilk in Knox City Council, only to see those decisions overturned by VCAT.

Why were they overturned? Because the applications fell within the domain of Melbourne 2030 in meeting its planning controls and the requirements of the government's policy. But one thing it did not take into consideration, which is a group I am sure the member for Ballarat East is not concerned about, is the local community.

The local community did not want the housing; Knox City Council did not want the housing.
There was only one group that did – that is, some person sitting in Melbourne – not out in the city of Knox – adjudicating in a VCAT hearing, who has never been to Knox, never been to the street, did not care about the impact on the local community, was not concerned about the people in Knox, but more importantly was not even concerned about the people in Ballarat East. It is more about imposing unwanted housing on a community that does not want this to occur. This is all about ensuring that VCAT acts as the political muscle for the Labor government with respect to its failed Melbourne 2030 policy.

Of all the applications that have gone through Knox, one stands out in my mind, and that involves the land that was once owned by Sir George Knox, who served as a member and as Speaker of this house for 33 years. His property was sold to a developer who told the community he would build 88 two-storey units there. He did not care where they went, on the north of the property or on the south of the property, but he said he would build 88 two-storey units. The council did not want this development, the community did not want it and abutting residents did not want it. The only ones who wanted it were the developer and VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal). It was opposed by every member of the council, and it was opposed by the community at public meetings. It went to VCAT, and what did VCAT do? It ticked it off, for one important reason – because it met the needs of Melbourne 2030. It did not meet the needs of the local community, it did not meet the needs of abutting residents and it did not meet the needs of the concerned councillors, but it met the needs of this government's policy.

It can be seen that this government is about imposing planning policies which are unwanted and which have failed. What the minister should be doing is recognising that 2030 has failed. What the minister should now do is walk away with his tail between his legs, acknowledge that he has messed up and acknowledge that this is a failure, and come up with new planning controls, because the people in my community and the people of Melbourne will not put up with 2030. Let us just remember that Melbourne 2030 is predicated on this government's providing housing around activity centres.

A central plank of the activity centres is that public transport will be provided. One only needs to go out to my community to see the lack of infrastructure for public transport. This is a government that promised in 1999 that we would get a tramline to Knox and that we would have a Rowville feasibility study. Eight years later nothing has been done.

This government is putting housing around those activity centres but failing, despite its own policy document, to provide the necessary infrastructure for public transport.

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr WAKELING – Those opposite can carp and whine as much as they like, but the reality is that the government's own policy has failed to provide the necessary infrastructure around its activity centres. The community does not want this policy, the people in my municipality do not want it and the residents of Ferntree Gully do not want it. It is about time the government started listening to the concerns of the Victorian community, recognised that this policy is a failure and put in place the necessary legislative changes to ensure that we have a planning system that will take us forward and not backwards.

Source: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard/assembly.htm