PO Box 197 Parkville 3052
Contact: Julianne Bell
Acting Secretary Phone/fax 98184114 mobile 0408022408
Website: www.royalparkprotect.org.au
Mr Don Nardella MLC
Chair
Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Committee
Parliament of Victoria
Spring Street
Melbourne Victoria 3002
23 March 2004
Dear Mr Nardella
I also speak for the Royal Park Protection Group, which was formed to oppose alienation of Royal Park for carparking, sporting facilities (chiefly the State Netball and Hockey Centre) and private housing development (alias the 2006 Games Village) in Royal Park.
I note that in your discussion paper that it is recorded that “community feedback on Melbourne 2030 indicates a strong degree of support for the retention of open space particularly in light of increasing urban densities.” This accords with our experience listening to the voice of our huge network of community groups about open space retention.
We have a great deal of disquiet, however, over the comments recorded in your discussion paper Pages 67 and 68 over public open space and parks by planners. For instance we consider it outrageous that Professor Kevin O’Connor of the University of Melbourne said, “the role of public space is changing … so that in some senses possibly at the moment open space is less significant. My second thought is that again I think there is possibly some benefit in concentrating it rather than having lots and lots of little bits. The success of places like Jells Park and the other Board of Works Parks suggest that a big lump in a corridor is something that people respond to - people can get themselves organised to get there.”
PPL Vic considers that public parks and public open space, easily accessible from home without car travel or public transport travel, in easy walking distance from home, within in one’s neighbourhood, is a citizen’s right. This applies especially for families with children and the aged. There should be social equity in the provision of open space for recreation. It must be available to all regardless of suburb. Parks/open space should be provided on a ratio according to the density of development proposed. In addition, existing parks should be retained as sacrosanct and never alienated for sporting facilities, carparking or freeways as has been done in the City of Melbourne with our prime parks – Royal Park, Princes Park, Melbourne Park, Yarra Park and the Carlton Gardens.
Melbourne 2030 appears to have overlooked the links between parks public health and well being. In a Study “Healthy Parks, Healthy People (The Health Benefits of Contact with Nature in a Park Context)” The Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences of Deakin University has drawn up a summary of the contribution of parks to human health and wellbeing.
One of the PPL groups, The Nunawading Park and Action Group, claims that in line with the Australian average 20% of Nunawading residents are overweight or obese. They point out that the obesity epidemic is not only caused by poor diet but by poor urban design and planning decisions. Simple, broad acre open space that is central to local communities is a vital resource that will allow them to take control their health and either help manage or prevent the many serious illnesses caused by obesity. In addition there is a clear need for increased activity for older people to promote increased longevity, independence and to stay out of institutionalised care for as long as possible. In the future, low cost health management plans for residents wanting to control or prevent health problems may well prescribe regular use of local open spaces such as Nunawading Park - provided of course that it has not been lost to infill development. Clearly, the health and economic benefits that this area can bring to the local community in the long term far outweighs any other short term benefits from using the land for medium or high density housing.
Of supreme importance is the role of urban parks in helping maintain biodiversity and habit. This applies to linear parks such as the Mullum Mullum Creek and its valley, which comprise a series of islands of bushland and open space connected by a thin ribbon of nature, in a sea of urban development. Its viability as a natural ecosystem is enhanced by its connection to Melbourne's most important wildlife corridor, the Yarra Valley.
Its values are further enhanced by open space links along its many tributaries and greenlinks over low saddles to the neighbouring valleys of Harris Gully / Andersons Creek, Ruffey Creek, Koonung Creek, Dandenong Creek, Narr-Meian Creek (Jumping Creek) and Brushy Creek.
Its location and shape have meant that it is possible for a great many local residents and visitors to have close access to nature from within their own neighbourhoods. A very wide variety of indigenous plant communities, and rare and uncommon plants are present along the creek, including a number of native orchids and native grass areas. These provide habitat for a wide diversity of animals, birds and insects. Native animals present in the valley include Kangaroos, Wombats, Koalas, Platypus, Echidnas, Sugar Gliders, Ringtail and Brushtail possums.
This is one of the areas threatened by the extension of the Eastern Freeway. Unfortunately I did not have time to provide photos. I have chosen Devilbend on the Mornington Peninsula as one of my “cases” to illustrate the importance of protection of biodiversity and habit and of showing the possibility of regeneration of land once used for farming.
In its policy “Linking Open Spaces” announced in 2002 the Bracks Government recognised the importance of maintaining wildlife corridors in the urban environment. Unfortunately approval was given for the construction of a new suburb on Parkville across the wildlife corridor linking the Moonee Ponds Creek and Royal Park.
To answer some of your questions posed in your discussion paper on page 70 Page
With your permission I would like to make a number of observations about the assumptions on which the Melbourne 2030 is based:
1 We consider it fallacious to conclude that 25,000 settler arrivals will continue to arrive in Melbourne every year and that an extrapolation can be made that there will be 750,000 settlers in the next 30 years. (In 2002/3 23,109 settler arrivals arrived in Melbourne and in 2001/2 21,374.)
Changes to patterns of migration may well occur in the coming years. A proportion of the
humanitarian program is to be directed to settle in rural Australia, so this will reduce the numbers staying in Melbourne.
2 We contest the idea that intakes of migrants and refugees will necessarily want to live in high-rise/high density accommodation as promoted in Melbourne 2030. Business and probably skilled migrants who are in upper income brackets can afford houses and won’t be candidates. Migrants in the family migration categories and even refugees are entering Australia to join family networks and seek accommodation for reasonably large families usually in the outer suburbs. I do not have time to expand on this here.
3. In municipalities such as Mitcham where high density and high rise apartments are being proposed for “empty nesters” - middle aged to elderly couples and singles who have left home the reality is that the population is notable for the number of young families. No demographic studies research appears to have helped shape the Melbourne 2030.
4 We take issue with Justice Stuart Morris VCAT President when he says, “…economic factors are also critical in the making of decisions about new development. Like it or not, the market will play a significant role in the type of development which will occur in Melbourne and where it is located”. (Quote from his paper on the role of VCAT delivered at the Melbourne 2030 Conference held on 20 November 2003.) Construction of new housing is therefore developer driven. The developer builds and the consumer has to take what its available.
Argument for
Retention and Provision of Public Open Space in Metro Melbourne
Cases of Threatened Open Space and
Parkland plus Loss of Open Space
Documented below are cases from a range of organizations. Threats range from
See photos illustrating these examples.
1 Devilbend Park on the Mornington
Peninsula
Location: Most of Mornington Peninsula’s ‘islands’ of remnant habitat have been reduced to very small islands Just two large islands remain in public ownership: Greens Bush and Devilbend. These are the two remaining publicly owned islands offering the prospect of complete restoration as wildlife refuges. See map. Devilbend was previously a reservoir simply filled from Cardinia Reservoir and others and used for summer peak, not used since early 1990’s.
Threat: Devilbend considered as a whole has a very
high potential to harbour biodiversity if it were fragmented it would be
unsustainable. Melbourne Water has
chosen to fragment the site. At present the land is a mosaic of bush and cleared
paddocks. Melbourne Water has conveniently accepted a
disproved myth that restoration of cleared land is expensive. There are many
examples available to prove that it can be restored economically. To succeed
all the land must be kept together in one holding – in public ownership.
It is part of
the Ecosphere Reserve under UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program. The Victorian Government approved the
program two years ago. It is intended
that man find ways of living sustainably with the environment. It is hard to see how this can succeed given
Melbourne Water is a corporation.
Value: Devilbend contains some of the most valuable
remnants of natural vegetation left on the Mornington Peninsula and many highly
significant faunal species. The recent
Ecology Australia (2001) report, commissioned by Melbourne Water (MW),
confirmed this. This is quoted here.
The pictures are from this report.
Some of the more significant biota that exists at Devilbend includes:
Grassy Forest and Swamp Scrub vegetation remnants of state significance and Wet Heath and Wet Herbfield remnants of regional significance.
The highly significant faunal species found at
Devilbend comprise a diverse mix of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds and
fish many of which have large and/or specialised habitat requirements (eg.
Powerful Owls, White Bellied Sea Eagles and Southern Bell Frogs to name just a
few. An
example of a species significant at the National level is the nocturnal
Australasian Bittern, which lives in wetlands. (See photo)
If managed effectively, Devilbend may also provide a great opportunity for the reintroduction of some of the many endangered species that have been lost to the region through past land management practices (eg. New Holland Mouse and Bandicoots to name a few).
Recent studies have observed that species in fragmented habitats often become extinct long after change has occurred, thus the ecological cost of past and present habitat degradation, is yet to be paid.
Future uses for
public recreation/ conservation include: Defined walking trails in reserve, equestrian
trail sensitively placed, use pump station site as management base; visitor
centre; research & education and the Biosphere Centre; use Loders Road
segments and pumping station for fund generation enterprises strictly within
Green Wedge conditions.
2 Mitcham
Location:
It is proposed to build an apartment block next to Mitcham railway station. Adjoining streets are low rise and tree-lined.
It is proposed to build a 14 storey, 192-apartment block, almost 100 metres long, next to the Mitcham station. There will be no garden associated with the flats or play ground. Although the residents are supposed to use the train, the developer has a carparking dispensation for the 171 car spots not provided for in the design. The building will overshadow and overlook the playground of the next-door Primary School and sacred garden at the Church. It is expected that there will be noise reverberation from the trains. The Council denied there would be an overlooking problem given that there are no residential neighbours within 9 metres (the suggested guide for assessing overlooking). The building is, however, almost 50 metres tall! There appears to be no plan for the City, no height controls and no plans for the control of developments on large industrial sites (as manufacturing businesses close and sell up). Traffic is another issue but Council says that this will be solved with the tollway between Mitcham and Frankston, due at best in 2008.
Value:
The schools, the Church and nearby residents value privacy and open space plus the low rise neighbourhood character of Mitcham. Residential amenity is at question here with overshadowing, overlooking and overparking forecast.
3. Nunawading Park (also called Junction Road Park)
Description and Location:
It is an open area of land zoned as parkland (see Melways Map 48) The area of this park is about 11 hectares, but the total area of pockets of land of 57 hectares which remain after the building of the eastern freeway. The Springvale Road off ramp for the freeway was originally to travel through here.
Threats to
Park:
Since December 2000 when Whitehorse Council rezoned the land to residential and issued planning permits without public consultation, the Nunawading Park and Wildlife Reserve Action Group with community support has been opposed to the proposed sale of this land and subdivision for medium density development. Promises made by the Council to retain the land as a Park for continued community use have not been realised.
Value:
The Nunawading Park was agricultural land, which has regenerated since being designated as a park. It is now a recognised wildlife habitat (The creek now has a population of yabbies having been with the Mullum Mullum Creek Valley cleaned up.) Is valued as passive, public recreation. Hundreds of resident children attend the 7 schools and Kindergartens in the immediate vicinity of the park. Many more hundreds of over 50's occupy homes in the streets around the park. It is therefore an essential health resource in the community’s fight against obesity. It is part of a linear park and a wild life corridor as it connects with the Mullum Mullam Creek Corridor.
Open Space Per Municipality
The Centre for Urban Ecology recently published a survey showing the
distribution of open space within LGA's across Melbourne. Whitehorse is rated
the 6th worst in Melbourne for hectares of parkland per thousand residents.
(The inner suburban City of Yarra enjoys more open space than does Whitehorse
and the adjacent city of Manningham has almost three times the open space per
thousand residents than its neighbour. To make matters worse, for Whitehorse
residents, over the past decade Whitehorse Council has lost 29 parks and ovals
with surrounding open space to infill development. The Nunawading Park is one
of, if not the last significant, parcels of open space left in the city. The
Park is all the more necessary given the designation of Nunawading as an
activity centre under Melbourne 2003.
See map and photos of the site.
High-rise, high-density development and loss of the city park and open space with relocation of schools. See photo
High-rise, high-density development including freeway wall of 700 units. Loss of 20 hectares of open space with 2,000 trees axed. Open space of 4 hectares reduced even further to 1.8 hectares.
Recommendations concerning Provision and Retention of Open Space in New Developments in the Outer Suburban Areas
I would like to quote from Dr Clark’s paper in which he comments on Page 47 of the discussion paper “Best practice” and provides recommendations about implementation of the provision of open public space.
“This section
does not mention how ‘best practice’ varies greatly depending on one’s
viewpoint. Too often it appears to be
synonymous with greatest profit, which in turn depends on maximised building
and facility footprints in a given region.
New regional developments tend to start off with the minimally
acceptable proportion of public open space.
There is no profit for developers in natural parkland, so the parks
provided tend to be developed with active sporting facilities. Over the years, whatever is left comes under
pressure for encroachment for all sorts of variously worthy causes such as
carparks, kiosks, children’s hostels, public toilets, barbecues and picnic
tables, paved tracks, information centres, mobile phone towers, more sporting
facilities, swimming pools, memorials, heritage buildings, electricity
substations, ventilators for tunnels, bus shelters, roads and road widening,
advertising signs and so on.
Melbourne’s parks have all of these and more. If London’s Hyde Park and New York’s Central Park had been
alienated over the centuries at the same rate that has been experienced at
Royal Park over the last 150 years, they would now be only a few percent of
their present size.
What I am proposing for outer suburban development is that at the outset, the proportion of associated public open space needs to be fixed, not only in total but in terms of the area that is to remain inviolate as undeveloped parkland. The total area of developed parkland needs to be big enough at the outset to accommodate all of the worthy improvements foreseeable, plus a contingency. Such proportions would need to be fixed as minima by statute. Ideally, it would be on a per-person basis, which would lead to bigger reserves in areas destined to have higher population densities and hence higher housing densities. This may reduce any advantage of higher density developments.
The practical
implementation of rules for such schemes would not be easy, but it needs to be
done regardless….
The Protectors of Public Lands Victoria trusts that you can consider our recommendations and our call that our parks and open space not be sacrificed for illusory gains from greater density of residential developments.
Yours sincerely
Julianne Bell
Acting Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands (Victoria)
List of Photos/Illustrations shown on
Powerpoint.