04 May 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — It is a great pleasure to make a few comments on proposed amendment C93 to the Wyndham planning scheme.
The intent of the amendment is, from my perspective, threefold: it essentially allows the Werribee South Green Wedge Policy and Management Plan to become a reference document for the Wyndham planning scheme; it implements the Werribee South green wedge management policy, which is clause 22.08 of the Wyndham planning scheme; and in particular it amends the schedule to the green wedge zone, hence requiring ratification by both houses of Parliament, because that is a variation to the subdivision controls in the zone.
Before I get involved in the detail of the amendment, I congratulate Wyndham City Council on the process it has undertaken. The planning process under the former government had greater longevity than was perhaps desirable.
However, the amendment was first authorised in March 2007, in the relatively early days of the 56th Parliament, and was exhibited in July. The panel process took place in March 2008. It has taken some time to get through the process. The important thing is that it has actually come through the process. My understanding is that it has now been approved by the minister with some minor modifications to the amendment that was originally exhibited. The amendments that have been made are basically in line with the panel recommendations and are supported by the council.
Strategic justification for the amendment came from the Werribee South Green Wedge Policy and Management Plan, which was completed over the last decade. It has been supported by the council and now signed off by the minister. I am very pleased to hear that it also has the support of the opposition, albeit to some extent in a qualified manner.
The area affected by the amendment is part of the ring of green wedges that surrounds Melbourne. It is a critically important part of planning for the greater metropolitan area and for the Port Phillip and Western Port region, and it is important that we get it right.
The intent of the amendment is to introduce a new local policy to support current land uses — there are a variety of land uses, and I will refer to those in a minute — that occur in the green wedge. It tightens the subdivision controls, and it means that landowners will no longer have the opportunity to excise a vacant lot unless there are two or more existing dwellings on their land. General subdivision can only occur where each new lot is the productive size of 15 hectares.
Sitting suspended 1.00 p.m. until 2.03 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — When time caught up with me at 1 o’clock we were talking about the Werribee South green wedge policy, and I was referring to the three documents contained within that policy: the incorporated documents and particularly the specific subdivision provisions.
Firstly I will deal very quickly with the subdivision provisions. Essentially the variation to the minimum subdivision areas relates purely and simply to the Werribee South intensive agriculture precinct, which is, as is usual in planning schemes, defined on a map.
The intention is to vary the minimum to 15 hectares except where two or more dwellings exist on a lot. Where they lawfully exist as of today, there will be the opportunity to create two lots, with a minimum of 4000 square metres and a maximum of 5000 square metres, which each contain additional dwellings. Beyond that the minimum lot size becomes 40 hectares in the Werribee South intensive agriculture precinct, and on other land in the areas it becomes 80 hectares.
I think the member for Richmond and the member for Tarneit both referred to the desirability and almost the essential nature of the preservation of the green wedge. As someone who has a significant amount of the Mornington Peninsula green wedge in my electorate, I certainly share those views.
The Werribee South green wedge, which abuts Port Phillip Bay, is a very complex area. It consists of eight different precincts: the intensive agricultural precinct, which I have just been talking about; the Royal Australian Air Force precinct; the dryland farming precinct; the tourism and recreation precinct, which is primarily comprised of the Werribee zoo; the Werribee South township precinct; an area for a proposed marina; the western treatment plant; and the rural residential precinct.
The significance of the intensive agriculture area is that it is very close to the existing urban area, and, as other speakers have mentioned, it is an area that is subject to a very rapid pace of growth. It is important that we protect it, not only because it is green wedge but also perhaps for a far more important reason as far as I am concerned, and it is a matter that has become a hobby horse of mine — that is, the necessity to protect high‑quality agricultural land that is close to the metropolitan area.
In 2010 we saw the unfortunate loss of some high‑quality agricultural land in the Clyde area, so I took with a grain of salt the member for Richmond’s suggestion that he would be closely watching this government’s form with regard to green wedges.
The former government extended the urban growth boundary substantially and did so in a manner that allowed the removal of a substantial tract of prime agricultural land. Not only was it prime agricultural land; it was prime agricultural land that could easily have been served by the south‑eastern treatment plant, so a significant opportunity to utilise high‑value land in a productive manner has unfortunately been lost.
The amendment will provide a greater level of certainty for the Werribee South community. That certainty is important for the community, and I am pleased that support for this motion — and the debate that we have had — is bipartisan, because nothing in planning schemes is set in concrete. They are very much a creature of the government, the municipality and to some extent the fashions of the day.
In this case this motion sends a strong message to the people of Werribee South and to those who might have other ambitions for the land that it is the view of both sides of the Parliament that this highly productive land should be retained for agricultural production for many years to come.
Legislative Assembly 4 May 2011
Printer Friendly Version...