NEWS DESK
Weeds make way for natives at coast park WEEDS and non-indigenous grasses are being replaced by native shrubs and grasses on the cliffs at Flinders. The planting is part of improvements being made to the section of Mornington Peninsula National Park that begins at Flinders and stretches along the Bass Strait coast to Cape Schanck. A team led by Parks Victoria ranger Kim Cott has been planting at the Picnic Point car park and near Mushroom Reef where weeds have been manually and chemically cleared. “We are revegetating small areas around the car park in an effort to restore what was a rather degraded site,” Ms Cott said. “The aim is to enhance conservation values, combat some of the weed problems and improve the general amenity of the area.” Ms Cott said some plants came from Mornington Peninsula Shire’s nursery and others were grown by the volunteers at the Seawinds nursery at Arthurs Seat. “All the plants are natives with local provenance. The seed was collected locally and species being planted are those which would naturally occur along that
stretch of Flinders coastline and are mainly understorey species – shrubs and grasses.” Helping Ms Cott were students from the federal government-funded Green Corps and volunteers from Conservation Volunteers Australia (CVA). “Parks Victoria regularly has volunteers from these groups and we try and expose them to a number of conservation projects throughout the national park and peninsula,” she said. “CVA often has international volunteers and it’s a wonderful way for them to see some of Australia’s amazing national parks as well as doing something good for the environment” Changes to the car park at the western end of Flinders Golf Course have reduced the number of vehicles that it can hold, resulting in cars being parked on nearby nature strips on nearby houses (‘Car park wipeout for surfers’, The News 8/2/11). At that time the ranger-in-charge of the southern peninsula Chris Rowe said the car park was crowded “about a dozen times a year”, particularly when there was good surf at the nearby breaks.
“It’s a challenge. We had money to improve the sites with infrastructure that’s at West Head and the ocean beach as well,” he said. “At King St there’s been a ripple of
criticism that goes back to the property owners as well.” Mr Rowe said nature strips were “not owned; they’re public land”. Keith Platt
Planting time: Green Corps team leader Eldvitch Belzober, Matt Landy, Masayo Yamabe and Parks Victoria ranger Kim Cott have been working on garden beds at a clifftop car park at Flinders.
Shire plans put Green Wedge at risk OPINION By David Harrison MORNINGTON Peninsula Shire officers are seeking to change green wedge rules to permit now-prohibited business activity – plus expansion of existing businesses – on land where this is now banned. The officers’ ambitious plan would require changes in state law, or would see the changes incorporated into the Baillieu government’s promised standalone Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme, work on which has begun. If the shire achieves its aims, the peninsula’s most scenic rural areas could be cracked open for intensive development on a scale more intense than allowed in any of the other 11 green wedge zones surrounding Melbourne. The Mornington Peninsula proposal has echoes in a Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission draft report, “Unlocking Victorian Tourism”, which urges the opening-up of national parks and green wedge zones for tourism. The VCEC report states that controls on land use in green wedge areas such as the Mornington Peninsula and the Yarra Valley “discourage investment in tourist facilities”. It recommends that the state government “introduce a more flexible approach to tourism-related investment in regional and green wedge areas”. The shire officers’ aim for dilution of green wedge planning controls permeates the shire’s Green Wedge Action Plan, presented to councillors on 20 December. Councillors voted to have the document put on public exhibition, but did not approve it. They queried why the action plan was preceding the unfinished and far more important Green Wedge Management Plan. The action plan, if approved, would be incorporated into the management plan. The action plan is not the first shire foray into seeking more intensive development on green wedge land. Its recent proposal to allow substantial caravan and camping parks on land parcels of 40 hectares or more – vigorously opposed by both propo-
PAGE 10
Mornington News 5 May 2011
nents and opponents – went to a panel hearing, whose report caned the shire and suggested it go back to the drawing board. Now the shire officers’ focus appears to be to open up small land parcels currently not permitted to have businesses. Their plans mention specifically restaurants and tourist accommodation, but could encompass other business ventures with no links to green wedge land. The shire plans run directly counter to the state government aim of maintaining green wedge zones as the “lungs” of Melbourne – vital agricultural and recreational zones. They are also at odds with the Mornington Peninsula Shire’s own stated aim – in the action plan – to “Rigorously oppose any amendments to the urban growth boundary that would result in a loss of green wedge land”, since many of these small green wedge blocks abut urban areas. So, while the urban growth boundary would not move, the shire’s plans would effectively allow peri-urban activity such as tourist accommodation on small green wedge blocks – with much the same development result that moving the boundary would achieve. The shire also states its aim is to “Rigourously [sic] oppose any amendments to the Green Wedge Zone which would reduce the minimum lot size requirements”, even though its proposals are aimed at achieving precisely that result. The action plan is in five parts: 1 Occupation and Settlement Pattern. 2 Agriculture and Rural Land Management. 3 Biodiversity, Conservation and Management of Environmental Risks. 4 Landscape, Recreation and Tourism. 5 Coordination and Implementation. According to part 4 – on which this article focuses – shire strategy appears to be twofold: Firstly, lobby to abolish the “in conjunction” rule, which requires a green wedge business to be linked to agricultural activity such as restaurants established on vineyards to sell wines
made onsite from grapes grown onsite, both for consumption with meals and to take away. Secondly, achieve approval to allow activities proportional to the land size. At present, for example, a new restaurant must be sited on land 40 hectares or bigger, and can have no more than 150 patrons at any time. Clause 14 of action plan 4 (landscape, recreation and tourism) seeks councillor endorsement to: “[Enable] applications for extensions/alterations to existing restaurants in the Green Wedge. The scale of operation should be in proportion to the size of the property and the extent of agricultural or conservation activity on the land.” Approval of this would give enormous advantages to restaurants on small green wedge blocks that were established before green wedge laws came into force and that operate “as of right” outside the new green wedge land size and patron number requirements. An example is the T’Gallant restaurant at Main Ridge, whose permit allows it to operate on a site of only 15.81 hectares. It has tried twice to increase its size beyond the 60-patron limit it was granted in 1999. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has ruled that, legally, it can seek a permit amendment to allow more patrons, but last year refused its application for 314 patrons, ruling that, among other reasons, this was too intensive a use of the site. Shire councillors rejected its latest bid, for 190 patrons, on 31 January. The Foster’s Group-owned T’Gallant has appealed to VCAT. The shire has twice indicated it is willing to allow 150 patrons at T’Gallant. It proposed this number to the VCAT in 2009 in draft permit conditions, then again on 31 January, again in draft permit conditions in response to T’Gallant’s new application. This consistent shire support for 150 patrons on an “undersized” site could well persuade the tribunal to grant T’Gallant that number, allowing the restaurant to steal a march on its ri-
vals – or trigger a rush by them for the same, or greater, patron numbers. Ironically, one of the shire planner’s recommendations for refusing T’Gallant’s latest bid argued that approval “would provide an unfair advantage for T’Gallant over the establishment of new uses which are compliant with the [Green Wedge] Zone provisions ...” Perhaps the officer who wrote this recommendation was unaware of the shire’s proposal for proportional development on green wedge land. The shire’s push for “proportional” land use, combined with planned shire advocacy for an end to the need for green wedge businesses to have an essential link to agriculture (see below) is clearly aimed at opening the way for many more restaurants and other businesses on small green wedge land parcels. So much for the aim of the Mornington Peninsula Green Wedge Zone to act as Melbourne’s “lungs”, vital agricultural zones and scenic vistas of the city. The policy of proportionality could work upward as well as down. Perhaps the shire has not considered this possibility. Or perhaps the shire is prepared – or could be forced by the VCAT or the state government – to accept 400plus patrons on 40-hectare properties now permitted only 150. Clause 15 of Action Plan No. 4 deals with proportionality. It recommends: “Exhibit planning scheme amendment in relation to tourist accommodation in the Green Wedge. The scale of operation should be in proportion to the size of the property and the extent of agricultural or conservation activity on the land.” No minimum land size is stated. Clause 16 seeks to: “Investigate a policy/planning scheme amendment in relation to tourist accommodation in the Green Wedge, so that the permissible number of accommodation units would be in proportion to the area set aside for conservation activity (via binding covenants) either on the land or in designated areas.” It is not clear how this squares with
the vaguely worded Clause 17, which seeks “to prohibit group accommodation (multiple dwellings) in the Green Wedge”. But planners return to the action plan theme in clause 18 (“Advocate for review of the Green Wedge Zone and local schedules to provide flexibility to consider the expansion of existing uses on selected sites that would otherwise be prohibited”) and in clause 25. This reads: “Advocate further clarification of the ‘in conjunction with’ test which requires certain commercial uses in the Green Wedge to demonstrate an ‘essential association’ with Agriculture, Outdoor recreation facility, Rural industry, or Winery, and a ‘genuine, close and continuing functional relationship’.” The “in conjunction with” test is a legal reef on which many green wedge development proposals have foundered. To abandon it would blow an enormous hole in the green wedge raison d’etre – it would enable separation of restaurant from wine production, possibly to the point where not a single vine would need to be grown on the land accommodating the restaurant. Mornington Peninsula Shire bureaucrats must know these outcomes would result from the changes they are promoting, even as they tell councillors and the public they will “rigorously oppose” any steps to diminish the green wedge. If the shire is successful in its push to radically alter the green wedge planning rules, the face of the peninsula could be changed in ways that would diminish its appeal to the very people it aims to entice here. It could well result in a tourism development free-for-all – a “Billy Butlin’s meets the Gold Coast” future for the peninsula. Few, apart from the shire’s prodevelopment clique, would welcome that. The writer is a former Age journalist. He lives in Red Hill and is a member of Red Hill Community Action.