Council passes Master Plan
AT the Council Meeting held on Monday 19th July 2004, Banyule
Council voted to
approve the Rosanna Parklands Master Plan.
Ignoring the petition of 1578 people (1300 local residents, plus local business
owners and park users) and despite heated debate, Cr Melican moved that the proposal
be accepted. Voting in favour were Crs Jenny Mulholland, Sean Rawson, Greg Ryan,
and Colin Brooks.
Cr Dean Sherriff tabled a motion to delay a decision on the Master Plan so that
more time could be spent ironing out those issues that remained unresolved. Cr
Sherriff identified problems with the Master Plan including:
1. The plan before Council was incomplete. Council officers
had been working on amendments up to the last minute following intervention from
the Department
of Sustainability and Environment.
2. The Department identified 67 State significant, high conservation
value, river red gums that were endangered by the masterplan on the western boundary
alone.
There are more also on the eastern side of the park.
3. Cr Sherriff was concerned that these environmental issues
had not been identified by Council environmental officers prior to the intervention
of the Department and that more time needed to be taken to assess the environmental
concerns raised
by other such potential shortcomings.
1. 4. Cr Sherriff made the point that he did not understand
how Council classified some trees as a weed species which justified their destruction.
He compared this to cutting down all of the elm trees in Ivanhoe because they
were not a native
species. This would incur the outrage of the community.
2. 5. Significantly, Cr Sherriff went on to label Council’s
consultation process as a sham, a farce and close to being a rort. He said that
the Working Party appeared to be stacked with Council officers outnumbering local
people and that to hold a working party over the Christmas break was unsatisfactory.
He said that the process was loaded. “It was no-ones fault,” he said, “but
the process was mucked up.”
Cr Rawson said that the whole issue of the Rosanna Master Plan had divided the
community and he acknowledged that the park was unique and that Ellis Stones,
its designer, was a visionary. Despite saying that he would have preferred the
item to be deferred, he would vote in support of the Master Plan.
Cr Ryan said that he was exasperated by the objectors at the meeting and that
Council was there to make hard decisions. He did not think that the people of
Rosanna had the final say on how the park would be administered, but that he
would administer the park on the behalf of all Banyule residents who wanted greater
access via paths.
(However, in a later debate before Council regarding the proposal to build a
health centre on Malahang Reserve, Cr Rawson argued that people in West Heidelberg
were sick and tired of others outside their area telling them how to run their
own affairs.)
The Mayor, Cr Mulholland supported the Master Plan arguing that the community
consultation was adequate.
Other Issues
· The first issue on the agenda was whether Council would
accept RoPPA’s petition against the Master Plan with a final total of 1578
signatures. One resident argued that the petition should be rejected because
not all signatories were local residents. However, 1300 people were local residents,
the others being park users from outside the area or local business owners who
lived outside the
area.
· The member for Ibbot ward, Cr Melican argued that the
people signing the petition had been mislead by RoPPA being told that the path
would be a concrete bike path and that this negated its legitimacy. However,
the Council eventually voted to
accept the petition.
Questioning Council
A number of residents also asked questions of Council relating to the Master
Plan.
1. Elizabeth Sleigh asked why the Master Plan pointed to Turnham
St as being an on-road link to the Principle Bicycle Network and whether the
western path would link up to it despite Council saying that the Rosanna Parklands
was not
part of the bicycle network.
2. She also asked why if the path was now to be designated
as “general purpose path” it was still to be 2.1 metres
wide while all other general purpose paths were shown as 1.8 metres
wide in the Master Plan.
3. She also asked why the Bicycle Victoria web site
was still showing the western path in Rosanna Parklands as a major
metropolitan campaign for bicycle network paths and including a direct
e-mail link for any members throughout Victoria to contact Banyule
and support the construction of a bicycle path through the Parklands
despite Council having declared at 16 February meeting that it was
not to be a bicycle path. And Council again stated in the Agenda
attachments for 19 July that it was not a bicycle path.
Council’s answer was that the western path was to be a bike path, but
due to public opinion it had been reduced in size and would used only by bicycles
and general traffic and that the maps marking the Turnham Ave bike link would
be changed in time. Council also stated that they would advise Bicycle Victoria
of their change in path status.
1. Sue McKinnon asked why, in February this year, Council
said that it must accept the Council’s insurance company’s suggestion
that the path had to be 2.5 metres wide to escape insurance liabilities.
Now Council has reduced western path width to 2.1 metres and still maintain
insurance premiums.
Council’s answer was that as the path would not be on the Principle Bicycle
Network, the new width would be a reasonable risk under the circumstances.
(This therefore implies that the insurance risk increases with the path being
used as a principle bike path and that the liability argument used by Council
to justify its initial proposals was dictated by the need of a bike commuter
path not because of the current earth paths.)
2. Michael O’Hara said that the Master Plan mentioned
that some of the paths may require different surfaces to comply with the
need to account for floods. He asked whether Council meant that the paths
would be substantially sealed to account for the 10 year flood. Council Officer,
Jim Parkes said that extensive areas of the paths would not be sealed. However,
the Master Plan does not specify how much of the path would be sealed. The
final decision will be up to Council.
3. Glenys Dolphin said stressed that there was a
personal interest involved in developing the Master Plan as defined
by a clash between personal and public interest.
In debating the Master Plan, Councillor Melican argued that he was voted in
on a platform of improved public transport and, that with bike paths, more
people would be encouraged to ride to work.
Don’t forget that Cr Melican also said he would lobby government to get
the Zone 1 rail ticket extended to Rosanna and Macleod. This would make a substantial
difference to local residents in their use of public transport. However, Cr
Melican is yet to achieve this goal.
RoPPA has some questions:
• Has Council had legal advice on the "Pandora's Box" of
potential liability claims that will inevitably result from pedestrians,
cyclists and dogs-off-lead on the same path?
• Hasn't the law changed so that Councils cannot be so easily
sued for tripping hazards?
• Has Council had legal advice on the Disability Discrimination
Act?
• Has Council undertaken a study to determine whether the benefits
of the Master Plan outweigh the costs? (If they don't, the paths do
not have to be built).
• Why have the wishes of the majority been ignored?
• Why are petitions from January 2003 reported but not public
meetings from late 2002?
• Why is Council changing the basic purpose of the Park? Does
this conflict with heritage considerations?
• Has Council addressed the underlying legal requirements in
respect of abuse of power, taking into account irrelevant considerations,
due process and no evidence?
• Is there any conflict of interest in Cr Melican's other roles
or responsibilities? Is he appropriately representing his Ward?
• Where is the money (for construction) coming from?
• Does Council know how many people use the Park?
RoPPA opposes the Master Plan, some of the reasons are:
1. Councillors Uninformed
When councillors were asked to vote on the Master Plan, there were
no details contained in the plan of how the construction will affect
the park.
The Mayor confirmed this.
In a Leader article (16/12/03), she explained that a Master Plan was
a funding vehicle and was not necessarily the finished product. The
article went on to say that “the community appeared confused
about the master plan process and what the end product would be.”
Yet it was this funding vehicle that councillors voted on.
When they voted Councillors did not know how many trees will be felled.
Or how many cyclists will use the park; or how they will use the park;
how they will integrate with current users. They still do not know
whether the numbers of cyclists will justify spending between $400,000
to $700,000 (Council estimate) on this project. Yet such benchmarking
is a fundamental principle of good management.
RoPPA argued that issues such as flood management, wetlands, creek
erosion and weed reduction should be looked at before the Plan was
passed. Melbourne Water which has responsibility for Salt Creek was
not involved in the Master Plan, yet issues such as flooding and drainage
should be addressed and priced before the paths are built.
2. The Master Plan will Promote Conflict
• The mix of pedestrians, dogs-off-lead and cyclists will promote
conflict. Dogs will conflict with cyclists, cyclists will conflict
with pedestrians. The Master Plan is not sustainable. Council will
be forced to declare a shared path. Victorian Law allows fines of up
to $500 if dog a "rushes at" or "worries" any animal
or person. Dog owners will be forced to walk elsewhere in the Park
and will create another set of informal trails similar to those existing.
We will have gone full-circle. The owners of the 33,000 dogs in Banyule
contribute financially and deserve more consideration.
• The solution is the unused land along Ellesmere Pde. The Council's
own bicycle route map shows a bicycle route along Ellesmere Pde. Council's
Option 3 included a bicycle route along Ellesmere Pde. Option 3 received
the most votes.
3. The Majority has been Ignored
A survey canvassing 3 options was undertaken by Banyule Council. In
a report to Council on 8 December 2003 by Jeff Parkes, Manager, Community
Programs at Banyule Council reported that a total of 485 comments were
received. Of the three options in path construction displayed by Council:
107 people favoured a bike path outside the park in Ellesmere Parade
running parallel to the railway
23 people favoured a sealed bike path inside the park
23 people favoured an unsealed path inside the park
87 people supported a proposal by RoPPA which called for no formal
trails but for better maintenance to be taken out on existing trails.
• Option 1 received 6% of the votes
• Option 2 received 6% of the votes
• Option 3 received 27% of the votes. Why is Option 3 discarded?
• Of the 401 submissions received by Council, 88% selected options
avoiding a shared path in the Park. Yet the Master Plan under consideration
is basically Option 2 (a 2.5 metre wide path intended for bicycle traffic).
Option 2 does not have the support of the majority.
• Not one letter of support for a 2.5 metre wide bicycle path
in the Park has been identified by Council as having been received.
• What is the real reason for discarding Option 3? The report
is silent.
Banyule Council argues that it has pursued extensive community consultation.
RoPPA disagrees. The consultation process has been managed to minimise
objection to the plan.
• A notice announcing the Master Plan was sent to 300 houses
around the park. Residents living west, north and south of the park
were not canvassed.
4. The Proposed Paths are a Waste of Money
• Commuter cyclists will continue to use Ellesmere Pde, it is
a direct and effective bicycle route.
• Recreational cyclists on BMX or mountain bikes will continue
to use the undulating dirt trails and bumps already in the Park.
• Many pedestrians, joggers and dog-walkers prefer grass to
pavements.
• If drainage and maintenance issues were addressed, the existing
paths could be maintained at a satisfactory standard and a great deal
of money could be saved.
• The Sport and Recreation Victoria, "Access for All" document
recognises the need to retain earth tracks in places and states "earth
tracks can be made more accessible by the use of chemical stabilisers
which help to keep them firm and relatively mud-free". The potential
for compacted earth paths has not been investigated sufficiently.
5. There has been No Effective Choice
• Council advise that paths must be built to provide access
to "facilities" and that the facilities include BBQ's, bench
seats, drinking fountains and rubbish bins. As a community we might
prefer to relinquish these facilities and retain the Park in a more
natural state. We have not been allowed that choice.
• New facilities face the inevitability of vandalism and grafitti
that cover every development in public places, (such as the seats,
signs and dog waste disposal units already in the park). Can we chose
not to have them?
• Council arranged a questionnaire with 3 options, all including
paths. The community was frustrated by the lack of effective choice.
If broader options were eliminated by an earlier phase (as indicated
in the report), where is the documentation explaining the decisions
already taken and how they were made?
• Option 3, the most popular option, was effectively excluded
from consideration by the Working Party. The Working Party were not
presented any evidence and effectively not allowed to discuss Option
3.
6. Interpretations are Setting a Precedent and are Misleading
• Council appear to be setting a precedent. Every single bench
seat, walking trail, rubbish bin, information sign in every Council
park will require a 1.8 metre wide path for access. Every shared path,
no matter how minor, will require a 2.5 metre wide path with an additional
1 metre zone clear of vegetation on either side (a 4.5 metre wide swathe).
The implications in terms of money, environment and community angst
are considerable.
• I have legal advice (from three sources) that the Council
interpretation of the law in respect of liability and disabled access
is incorrect and that therefore the community has been mislead. The
Disability Discrimination Act is predicated on "reasonableness".
If the costs outweigh the benefits, it is not reasonable to spend public
funds.
• There are no current Australian Standards for disabled access
in parks. The statement in "Banner" that Australian Standard
AS1428 governs the design of paths in parks is misleading (the relevant
part of the Standard has not yet been published).
7. Strategies are Invalid and Inconsistent
• Council's bicycle "Strategic Statement" affects
Rosanna Parklands. Adjacent residents and affected Park users should
have been given reasonable opportunity to express their opinions. As
an interested, local resident I cannot recall any past opportunities
to comment on this statement. In my view, this strategy is invalid.
• Council's bicycle route map clearly shows the Macleod-Rosanna
link in Ellesmere Pde. Yet Council determined that Option 3 of the
questionnaire (bicycle path along Ellesmere Pde) was unacceptable.
8. Consultation Process Flawed
Council:
• initiated the Master Plan
• selected the Options (all with paths)
• ignored the community response
• selected the members of the Working Party (no elderly, no
youth, no environment, no heritage, 2 bicycle, 4 Council Officers)
• determined the (narrow) Terms of Reference
• wrote the Minutes (but did not present both sides)
• wrote the Working Party "Points of Agreement"
RoPPA doesn't agree with the outcome.
We ask Councillors to consider the implications of the precedent created
by this Master Plan. Anywhere a bicycle could be reasonably expected
to go will require a 4.5 metre wide corridor. We need to consider the
effect on all parks in the municipality.
Doug Franklin
Hon. Pres. RoPPA
15 February 2004
Copy of a letter sent 25 June 2004 to:
Mr Julian Edwards, Development Planner, Banyule City Council, 44 Turnham Ave.,Rosanna
JulianEdwardLetter
Dear Julian
Rosanna Parklands
Objection to Banyule Planning Scheme Application No. P284/04
On behalf of the Rosanna Parklands Protection Association (RoPPA)
this letter is to register our objections to Banyule Planning Scheme
Application No. P284/04. Our objections are outlined under general
headings on the following pages.
We believe that Rosanna Parklands is one of Banyule's most precious
assets and that it deserves inspired custodianship. We believe Council
has adopted an inappropriate solution based on inadequate investigation.
The path proposed in the Master Plan is as-wide-as the Main Yarra
Trail. It is out of scale with the Park and the likely number of users.
The concurrent use of the path by pedestrians, cyclists and dogs off-lead
exposes users to the danger of collision. The path also conflicts with
the character of the neighbourhood. From the details provided, it is
not clear that the path can be constructed in complete accord with
all requirements for the protection of vegetation and wildlife. Councillors
were not informed of the numbers of trees to be removed or lopped at
the time they approved the Master Plan. Councillors approved a path
that passes under 149 trees that were subsequently rated as hazardous
because of the path. Many more would be rated as hazardous if a more
extensive assessment was done.
In order to gauge the opinion of park users and the local community
we have, over the last 14 days, circulated a petition with the following
'prayer':
We the undersigned request the Mayor and Councillors of Banyule to:
• preserve the natural character of Rosanna Parklands
• protect and support the indigenous flora and fauna
• recognize the passive recreational value of this unadorned open space
We therefore request that Banyule Council:
• scrap the existing Master Plan
• reject Planning Scheme Application No. P284/04 and,
• develop a Master Plan that meets the above criteria
This petition has now been signed by about 1300 people and acts as
an indicator of the nature and extent of local opinion. The petition
is appended to this letter and forms part of our submission.
On the one day we campaigned in the Park (Saturday 12 June), the petition
was signed by the majority of people we approached, including numerous
cyclists. Many of these cyclists had 'mountain' bikes and appeared
to enjoy recreational cycling along the existing earthen trails and
across the grassy areas. We note the period set aside for objection
included only two weekends, one of which was a long weekend when many
residents were away. This has constrained our opportunity to organize
a collective response.
Residents and park users, over and above anything else, want a natural
park. Many express the desire that it be left "as-is". The
proposed path along the western boundary, at 2.5 metres wide, is the
equivalent of half a road and is out of character with the Park.
We are not however, totally opposed to improvement works. We have
advocated drainage improvements for many years. It is our view that
improvements to street and railway drainage above certain areas of
the Park are required for any path option. We acknowledge that some
members of the local community have expressed the desire for a narrow
winding path.
We believe the current Master Plan does not reflect the views of the
community and that it should be revised following a comprehensive review
of relevant issues. We believe this process could take a further 12
months.
An obvious win-win solution is available only metres away between
the railway track and the trees along Ellesmere Parade. This potential
solution should be investigated further.
Finally, we believe that the intent of the environment, heritage and
vegetation overlays should be implemented, not just the letter of the
planning scheme.
Also, the Notice of Application for a Planning Permit referred to
the "Rosanna Parklands Masterplan". We assume the correct
reference is "Rosanna Parklands and Macleod Park Masterplan".
Yours sincerely
Doug Franklin
(Hon. Pres. Rosanna Parklands Protection Association)
11 Crampton Crescent, Rosanna
1. INTRODUCTION
If you go to Bundoora Park on Sundays at lunchtime, there are quite
often many families having picnics or BBQs. At other times it can be
empty. Rosanna Parklands is in many ways the reverse. From before dawn
till after dusk there are joggers, walkers and cyclists, but rarely
a crowd and rarely a BBQ.
In our view there are between 50,000 and 100,000 visits per year to
Rosanna Parklands. If our estimate is correct, Rosanna Parklands would
be one of Banyule's most heavily used facilities. Users of the Parklands
come from surrounding suburbs including Reservoir, Watsonia, Viewbank,
Ivanhoe and Heidelberg. Most come for a walk, many to let their dogs
off-lead. They like the Park like it is. They are voting with their
feet. Council should not change a successful formula.
Brief facts about Rosanna Parklands include:
• Created in 1968/69 when a former golf course was split about into parkland
and residential subdivision.
• Located on the flood plain of Salt Creek (note Melbourne Water drainage
easement).
• Bordered by the Melbourne to Hurstbridge railway line, Lower Plenty Road,
Chapman St and residential subdivision.
• The land (about 20 Ha) is owned by Banyule City Council and subject to
Planning Scheme overlays (environment, heritage and vegetation)
• Consists of open grassy areas (previously fairways) and areas of trees/bush
(largely native) with informal (earthen) trails created by users of the Park
(not by Council).
• Used mainly by pedestrians, joggers, cyclists and people walking dogs.
• Contains 2 playgrounds, 1 barbeque and 3 bridges across the creek.
• Informal areas include a BMX track, a billabong, a pine 'forest', areas
of native grass and woodland.
• Areas of remnant vegetation communities (Plains Grassy Woodland and Creekline
Grassy Woodland).
The recently developed Master Plan includes about 3.5km of gravel
paths 2.5 and 1.8 metres wide. The main justification for these paths
appears to be cycling. The western path is intended to form the bicycle
link between Macleod and Rosanna. This link is currently achieved by
Ellesmere Parade. A strip of unused railway land (between the trees
and the tracks) is a potential location for the bicycle link.
2. COMPARISON WITH OTHER MASTER PLANS
We believe Planning Scheme Application No.284/04 should not be approved
because appropriate preparation for the Master Plan was not undertaken,
details are not provided (such as the precise location of paths) and
consequently no guarantee can be given that implementation of the works
identified in the Master Plan is possible without damage to trees or
contravention of various requirements for the protection of flora and
fauna. This lack of appropriate preparation is demonstrated by a comparison
with the approach adopted by other Municipalities to parkland master
plans.
2.1. Other Master Plans
Our brief search of the internet for Master Plans related to municipal parks
revealed numerous examples. Many, if not most of these were in the form of
a report (ie. not a single sheet map). Many were coupled with a Management
Plan. The purpose of these Master Plans was often to:
• document a vision
• protect or enhance the environment, heritage and landscape character
of a park
• guide long-term development
• ensure the needs of users are met.
Often, these Master Plans are preceded by, or integral with, the review
of issues including:
• objectives
• background or history
• demographic characteristics
• community consultation
• trends
• heritage and conservation
• uses and activities
• access, circulation and parking
• facilities
• landscape, character, design & planting
• environmental sustainability
• connections and links
Commonly, various activity 'zones' were delineated in parks, a strategic
'framework' was identified, reference and strategy documents were listed,
planning constraints and relevant Commonwealth or State Acts or policy
documents were acknowledged and their effect reviewed.
Master Plans ensure that Councillors and the community have all the
relevant information necessary to make informed choices.
2.2. Rosanna Parklands Master Plan
By comparison, the Rosanna Parklands and Macleod Park Master Plan does not
define a vision or purpose. It does not provide a planting plan. Nor does it
appraise the issues that quite clearly affect Rosanna Parklands. Presumably,
the Council has relied on general strategy documents, although the relevant
documents are not listed on the Master Plan and there are other issues not
dealt with in Council's general strategy documents.
The Master Plan does not identify problems with Rosanna Parklands
sufficient to warrant the associated works. It merely describes existing
trails as being in "poor condition". This is a subjective
judgement. If the vision for Rosanna Parklands included the retention
of 'goat trails', the existing trails would be judged differently.
The Master Plan does not list the objectives of the Master Plan. What
is the justification for the proposed expenditure?
The Master Plan fails to review the following particular issues that
are relevant to the future of Rosanna Parklands and, in our view, require
resolution prior to the implementation of the Master Plan:
Arborist reports The preparation of the Master Plan was undertaken prior to
any assessment of trees. An arborist subsequently assessed some of the trees
along a 1.4km length of path out of the total proposed length of 3.5km. Trees
along the other 2.1km of path and many other trees in the Park have not been
assessed. Given the bush-like character of the Parklands and the adjacent estate,
an assessment of the trees should be undertaken before planning approval is
given.
Effect on Pedestrians It is acknowledged that many elderly people fear walking
on paths designed to be shared with bicycles (see issues paper Carlton Gardens).
The Western path will disenfranchise the elderly.
Elderly/Disabled Access The Master Plan identifies possible future consideration
of improved access to the Park (ie. across Lower Plenty Road and Chapman Street).
However until the location of this access is determined, the appropriate location
of paths in the Park cannot be determined. The Master Plan should not be given
planning approval until the location of points of access are determined.
Ellis Stones The Master Plan requires implementation of Ellis Stones' vision
does not specify any details. As Council has or had about 20 Ellis Stones sketches
in its records, a more detailed specification of this requirement should be
developed prior to approving the planning application.
Facilities No analysis of facilities or justification of proposed changes to
existing facilities was undertaken. Is it acceptable in the long term, to have
a BBQ without a toilet block nearby? Many residents would prefer a natural
park devoid of man-made objects. The Master Plan should not be given planning
approval before these and other issues are resolved.
Fauna No fauna assessment was undertaken prior to the development of the Master
Plan. A subsequent fauna report extended over a limited number of trees along
a portion of the length of the proposed path. Fauna in the Park may include
species requiring or deserving of protection. The Master Plan should not be
given planning approval until a reasonably comprehensive assessment the fauna
in the Park is undertaken.
Heritage The heritage overlay is due to the significance of the area as an
example of landscaper Ellis Stone’s work. For this reason the locations
style and nature of proposed plantings, the materials and style of furniture,
signs and playgrounds should be detailed to ensure compliance with Ellis Stone’s
style and visions for the park. The Master Plan should not be given planning
approval until the heritage implications are clearly stated.
Hollow-Bearing Trees The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988) lists hollow-bearing
trees as threatened. Banyule City Council has a legal responsibility to preserve
this threatened resource. Planning approval should not be given until an assessment
is undertaken to ensure that the Master Plan is not placing hollow-bearing
trees at risk.
Liability Councils have a duty of care to take reasonable steps to minimise
the risk of injury to future users of the proposed paths. The construction
of paths underneath trees would be a breach of this duty, especially if a minor
relocation of the path was practicable and would significantly reduce or remove
the risk. Planning approval should not be given until Council has clear advice
that the location of the proposed paths does not breach this duty of care.
Playgrounds It is not apparent from the existing Master Plan document that
reasonable steps have been taken to separate infant play equipment from dogs
off-lead (for health reasons) or from adjacent but potentially dangerous adventure-type
equipment. Planning approval should not be given until appropriate specialist
advice has been incorporated into the design.
Remnant vegetation The vegetation communities of Rosanna Parklands include
Creekline Grassy Woodland and Plains Grassy Woodland. Planning approval should
not be given until remnant vegetation (if any) in Rosanna parklands is identified
and delineated on the Master Plan and the requirements for the protection of
any remnant vegetation are specified.
Rosanna shopping centre Details in the Rosanna Parklands Master Plan conflict
with details shown on the Rosanna shopping centre Master Plan. Planning approval
should not be given until the necessary changes are made to one or the other
master plans.
Sustainability The proposed mix of pedestrians, cyclists and dogs off-lead
on an undeclared shared path is not sustainable. A viable alternative bicycle
route exists along unused railway land adjacent to Ellesmere Parade. While
commuter cyclists may choose to use Ellesmere Parade itself, recreational cyclists
intent on transit from Macleod to Rosanna could travel safely and unimpeded
by pedestrians. Planning approval should not be given until every option for
a sustainable solution is exhausted.
Understorey The lack of understorey in Rosanna Parklands was acknowledged in
the book entitled Birds of Heidelberg & the Yarra Valley, 1981, WCS. The
Master Plan fails to specifically address this issue.
Wetlands Planning approval should not be given until Melbourne Water have completed
the design of works associated with Salt Creek.
Wildlife Corridor Rosanna Parklands form part of a recognized wildlife corridor.
Planning approval should not be given until the effect on the wildlife corridor
is quantified.
Width of path Paths wider than 2 m wide are disorienting for vision impaired
(Sport and Recreation – Access for All Guide. Department of State Development).Paths
specifically designed for the ease of movement of bicycles through the park
will encourage speed and discourage pedestrians. 1.8 m wide paths are not required
as it would not be reasonable to predict more than the exceptional instance
of two wheelchairs meeting.
In our view, the Master Plan is inappropriately affected by:
• An approach focused on cycling. The proposed path is not predominantly
a bicycle path and should not automatically be designed in accordance with bicycle
path guidelines. The primary purpose of the paths is to access and utilise the
natural open space in the Parklands. The primary purpose of the paths is not
transit through the Parklands and the interests of cyclists should not over-ride
other Park users. The construction of paths for bicycles would change the existing
open space into a combination of sporting facility and transportation infrastructure.
• An approach to path design that is not supported by demand. In respect
of future cycling use, the proposed path is similar in width to the Main Yarra
Trail and would have the capacity for hundreds of cyclists per hour. The proposed
path is not part of the Principal Bicycle Network and will not be subject to
heavy cycling usage.
• An approach to bicycle paths that does not accord with the bush-like
neighbourhood character of the Parklands. Any path constructed should match the
character of the Parklands and in our view should be narrow, undulating and winding
through the trees (to the extent that safety issues allow).
• An approach to the liability arising from trees that is not consistent
with the wishes of the community. Most of us would prefer paths to be relocated
to avoid any liability issues associated with trees rather than have the trees
lopped or removed.
• The categorization of Sugar Gums as environmental weeds. By comparison,
Melbourne City Council's Royal Park Master Plan features an informal belt of
Sugar Gums to surround some areas to "give the effect of an enclosing woodland
canopy". To address the weed issue, Melbourne City Council simply specify
no further planting of Sugar Gums.
3. REVIEW OF RECENT VCAT ORDERS
Recent VCAT orders have specified that before development starts,
plans (drawings) for the Works must be submitted to and approved by
the Responsible Authority in respect of:
• Detailed landscaping plans prepared by a person suitably qualified or
experienced in landscape design and:
- The removal of all environmental weeds;
- Retention of existing shrubs that are in good condition;
- The identification of existing vegetation (which is not intended to be removed),
and nomination of vegetation for removal throughout the site;
- A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which includes
the location and size at maturity of all plants, the botanical names of such
plants and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other
surface material as specified;
- Location and details of paving, fencing and other landscape works.
- Minimal paving under the canopy of trees to be retained.
• The landscape area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) have been planted
to the requirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
• A Vegetation Preservation Zone must be established around the vegetation
identified for retention on the endorsed plan. This must incorporate vegetation
protection fences with a minimum height of 1.5 metres and of chain mesh or like
fence topped with a line of high visible plastic hazard tape erected below the
outer reaches of the canopy of the vegetation. The supporting posts must be strong
enough to sustain knocks from on site excavation equipment. The fences must be
erected prior to the commencement of any buildings or works, must not be removed
until completion of the development unless consent is provided to do so by the
Responsible Authority, and must deter the entry of heavy equipment, vehicles
and workers in the Vegetation Preservation Zone.
• No storage of material, equipment or temporary building may take place
within the Vegetation Preservation Zone, no fuel, oil dumps or chemical are allowed
to be used or stored within this area, and the servicing and re-fuelling of equipment
and vehicles must be carried out away from the area.
• In the event that entry into the Tree Preservation Zone is required by
person, vehicles or machinery, the consent of a consulting arborist must first
be sought.
• If any excavation work is to occur within the Vegetation Preservation
Zone:
- A consultant arborist to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must
be on-site to supervise excavation works. This is paramount if substantial
roots (greater than 100mm diameter) are encountered and may require pruning;
- All root excavation must be carried out by hand digging or with the use of
'Air-Excavation' techniques, and roots must be severed by saw cutting or with
a sharp axe and not with a backhoe or any machinery or blunt instrument.
- Full details of proposed works on the site, including any cut and fill, retaining
walls, batters and the like.
- Confirmation that no fill is to be placed within the area beneath the canopy
of trees to be retained.
- Any underground service installations must be bored and utility authorities
must utilise a common trench where possible;
- Nothing whatsoever is to be attached to any tree or vegetation, including
temporary services wires, nails ,screws or any other fixing device.
• Vehicular access or egress to the subject land from any roadway or service
land must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council's
Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles
that will use the crossing(s). The location, design and construction of the vehicle
crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. Any existing unused
crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and nature
strip to the satisfaction of the Council prior to occupation of the building.
All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council Supervision under
a Road Opening Permit which must be obtained prior to commencement works.
• Parking area(s) have been constructed to the requirements and satisfaction
of the Responsible Authority.
q Engineering plans showing a properly prepared design with computation for
the drainage and method of disposal of stormwater from all sealed areas including
the use of an on-site detention system.
• Drainage works have been undertaken and completed to the requirements
and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
• No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly
or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or watercourses.
• Any earthworks must be done such that the volume of cutting within the
flood plain is equivalent or greater than the volume of filling.
• This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
- The development is not commenced within two (2) years of the date of this
permit.
- The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this
permit.
- The Responsible Authority may extend these times if a request is made is
writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.
We believe that requirements to protect the environment, such as those
listed above, should apply to the works associated with the Master
Plan and that planning approval should not be granted until similar
protection has been ensured.
Another VCAT decision was based on the following excerpts:
• The site is part of the Elliston Estate named for the famed landscape
architect Ellis Stones. His philosophy was to leave existing trees wherever possible
with new planting of native Australian trees.
• The Bush Garden character area type is characterised by stands of substantive
native trees which provide a backdrop for mainly post war detached dwellings
in their mature garden settings.
• The most important characteristics of the area type are the canopy of
indigenous and other native vegetation.
• Trees and other vegetation dominate the street scene and many longer
distance views. Dwellings site beneath the tree canopy, within established gardens.
•The Estate presents a fairly uniform character of relatively low scale
houses set in well vegetated sites with substantial native trees. It exhibits
a very strong "neighbourhood character" which is in contrast to many
other areas where the turn is glibly applied.
It is apparent that neighbourhood character and native vegetation
form the basis of planning decisions. We believe that the proposed
paths will need to be narrowed wherever the path would otherwise enter
a vegetation protection zone and between adjacent trees to maintain
the health of trees and to preserve neighbourhood character. This was
specified in the Working Party 'Points of Agreement' document (refer
Point 12 - "The general minimum width of paths to be 1800 mm except
that it may be reduced to 1200 mm for short distances where it is necessary
to avoid obstacles or to protect significant vegetation. Notations
on the masterplan should clearly articulate these principles").
This requirement is currently not included on the Master Plan.
The Master Plan currently does not identify the location of any narrowed
sections of path. We believe they must be delineated prior to planning
approval to ensure appropriate decisions are made in respect of the
protection of vegetation.
4. REVIEW OF THE MASTER PLAN
4.1. General
The Master Plan, in our view, does not seem to take into account:
(a) The safety of pedestrians on paths to be shared with cyclists.
(b) The age and gender of existing users (elderly/female) who can feel threatened
by (the mainly young/male) cyclists.
(c) Hundreds of people at public meetings who voted almost unanimously against
the Master Plan
(d) Hundreds of respondents to a questionnaire who opposed the Master Plan
(e) The alternative route (in Ellesmere Pde between the trees and the tracks)
The main proponent of the Master Plan is the Ward Councillor (Cr.
Melican) who is a self-proclaimed bicycle path enthusiast, current(?)
member of the Banyule Bicycle Users Group and possibly Bicycle Victoria.
Cr Melican has over recent years advocated 3 shared path projects (Creek
Bend Reserve, River Gum Walk and Warringal Parklands). The recently
constructed Creek Bend Reserve path is a 3 metre wide concrete path
with an 8 tonne load limit. Many residents objected to these paths
on aesthetic and environmental grounds (they look out of place in a
natural landscape and damage during construction could affect nearby
River Red Gums). Banyule Council and VicRoads have proceeded with these
paths for basically traffic related reasons. Rosanna Parklands is different.
The main justification for the paths in Rosanna Parklands is the bicycle
link, although other issues such as disabled access and liability (for
tripping over tree roots) have been raised.
Key Objections
Our key objections are:
• Elderly and disabled pedestrians will be endangered.
• An unknown number of trees will be removed or lopped.
• Understorey of Plains Grassy Woodland and Creekline Grassy Woodland will
be reduced.
• Wildlife will suffer.
•The paths are out of scale and character.
• The precise location of paths has not been identified.
• Existing pedestrian users of the Park will feel threatened and disadvantaged.
Other objections are:
• Council has not surveyed Park users in terms of number or activity.
• Council has not carried out flora, fauna or arboricultural surveys. (except
in some isolated areas recently).
• The Council questionnaire of November 2003 had no alternative to constructed
paths (3 choices of path).
• Council did not follow the outcomes (the majority selected the Ellesmere
Pde location) 46 selected a 2.5 m wide path; 354 were against a wide path, yet
the wide path was adopted.
• Council insist on 'facilities' and building paths to service them. The
community has not had any opportunity to decline these facilities and enhance
the natural open space.
• A Working Party set up to negotiate was limited by a Terms of Reference
to the discussion of paths.
• Critical information on flora, fauna arboricultural issues (trees overhanging
proposed paths) was not available to members of the working party.
• The minutes of the Working Party did not reflect both sides of the debate.
• The proposed path will almost inevitably cause conflict between pedestrians,
dogs off-lead and cyclists.
• The community has been mislead by Council statements on the Federal Disability
Discrimination Act (DDA) and insurance liability. The Victorian requirements,
which we understand are predicated on 'reasonableness', have not been presented.
We believe Planning Scheme Application No.284/04 should not be approved
because details in the Master Plan should be amended as indicated in
the following paragraphs.
4.2. Community Consultation
The current version of the Rosanna Parklands and Macleod Park Masterplan does
not include all the agreed details from the community consultation process.
Specifically, Point 12 of the Points of Agreement document "The general
minimum width of paths to be 1800 mm except that it may be reduced to 1200
mm for short distances where it is necessary to avoid obstacles or to protect
significant vegetation. Notations on the masterplan should clearly articulate
these principles". There is no mention of the 1200mm with on the current
Masterplan.
4.3. Drainage Issues
The Master Plan indicates "Drainage issues associated with paths to be
resolved at the detailed design phase". Due to the cross-slopes along
the route of the proposed path and blocked or inadequate drainage along the
railway and in surrounding streets, significant drainage works are required
to ensure a safe and viable path. The Main Yarra Trail (a similarly sized bicycle
path) has, between Banksia St and Burke Rd for example, a network of open channel
drains leading to concrete pits and pipes. This type of drainage network could
intersect tree roots and damage protected trees. Until the detailed design
is undertaken, there is no way of knowing with certainty whether the works
associated with the Masterplan can be constructed fully in accordance with
all the requirements of the Planning Scheme.
4.4. Vegetation Overlay
The location of the proposed paths passes between substantial trees and underneath
many overhanging branches. Consequently, construction of the proposed paths
or minimization of Council liability in respect of their safe use, will require
some removal or lopping of some native trees. Until the extent and nature
of this tree 'management' is determined, there is no way of knowing with
certainty whether the works associated with the Masterplan will impact the
neighbourhood character or contravene the Planning Scheme in some way.
Council seem to be circumventing environmental laws, the intent of
which is to preserve vegetation including remnant habitat. By constructing
a path near the trees, Council is creating the conditions under which
it is compelled, for safety or other reasons, to lop or remove trees
it otherwise would not be permitted to modify without a permit.
4.5. Paths are Out of Character
The proposed 2.5 metre wide path is approximately half the width of a suburban
street. After allowing for the 1 metre clearance recommended for bicycle
paths, the 4.5 metre wide path corridor would be out of character with the
native landscape concept of the Parklands and the associated Elliston estate,
especially as the estate was constructed without footpaths.
4.6. Paths are Unnecessary
The proposed 2.5 metre wide path duplicates, on a reduced scale, the adjacent
Ellesmere Parade. Ellesmere Parade is a lightly trafficked road connecting
Rosanna and Macleod, it also has a concrete footpath. As a consequence, there
is no significant need for another link between Rosanna and Macleod. There
is no bicycle traffic survey data that justifies the expenditure. There is
no traffic survey to suggest that Ellesmere Parade is so heavily used that
extra cycling facilities are necessary.
4.7. Path Widths Exceed Commonly Accepted Practice.
There are many narrow winding paths in natural open space settings and elsewhere
that are less than 2.5 or 1.8 metres in width. The proposed paths are as
wide as paths on the Principal Bicycle Network and exceed a reasonable width
and commonly accepted standards for paths that:
- are not subject to crowds
- are located in a housing estate intentionally designed without footpaths
- are located in a low density housing estate with block sizes too small to
permit infill development thereby limiting opportunity for increased population
- are not likely to be subject to dense pedestrian or bicycle traffic
- are mainly used to experience the natural open space of the Parklands
- should be in character with the surroundings
- should be constructed to minimise the effect on adjacent trees
- would be winding and undulating if they remained in character with existing
trails
- facilitate simple side-stepping for any passing manouvres
- are intended for low speed, non-commuter bicycle traffic
- are not part of the Principal Bicycle Network
4.8. Misleading Cross Sections
Cross section no.1
Cross section no.1 refers to "High quality timber picnic tables".
In the context of Australian exposure conditions this effectively requires
the use of durable timbers such as jarrah or merbau (these timbers have been
specified by authorities such as Melbourne Water for picnic tables in parkland
locations). Tables constructed from durable timbers cost a significant sum
and, as Council has not demonstrated any budgeted amount for these items, the
Master Plan is misleading.
Cross section no.2
Cross section no.2 shows a path of approximately 1 metre in width (based on
the height of the figure). This is misleading as the proposed paths are mainly
1.8 and 2.5 metres wide. Cross section no.2 illustrates a scene with narrow
paths that the Council has no intention of constructing.
Cross section no.3
Cross section no.3 shows costly planting which the Council has not budgeted
for and therefore has no real intention of implementing.
4.9. Change of Detail
The current version of the Rosanna Parklands and Macleod Park Masterplan contains
some changes from the document previously displayed.
4.10. The Master Plan will Promote Conflict
The mix of pedestrians, dogs and cyclists promotes and facilitates conflict.
Free roaming dogs will conflict with cyclists, speeding cyclists will conflict
with pedestrians particularly the disabled. The Master Plan is not sustainable.
Council will be forced to declare a shared path. Dog walkers will create
another set of informal trails some distance from those proposed. With 33,000
dogs registered in Banyule, dog owners contribute $166,000 to Council coffers.
Council owes them facilities.
The solution is in Ellesmere Pde (Option 3).
4.11. The Proposed Paths are a Waste of Money
Ellesmere Pde remains a simple and safe solution to cyclists needs.
Recreational cyclists on BMX or mountain bikes will continue to use the undulating
dirt trails and bumps.
Joggers and dog-walkers prefer grass to pavements.
If drainage and maintenance issues were addressed, the existing paths
could be maintained at a satisfactory standard and a great deal of
money could be saved.
4.12. Interpretations are Setting a Precedent and are Misleading
Council appear to be setting a precedent. Every single bench seat, walking
trail, rubbish bin, information sign in every Council park will require a
1.8 metre wide path for access. Every shared path, no matter how minor, will
require a 2.5 metre wide path.
I am not a lawyer but I have received advice from 2 lawyers directly
and another indirectly. I have been advised that the Council interpretation
of the law in respect of liability and disabled access is incorrect
and that therefore the community have been mislead.
The implications in terms of money and community angst are considerable.
4.13. Strategies are Invalid and Inconsistent
Council's bicycle "Strategic Statement" affects Rosanna Parklands.
Adjacent residents and affected Park users should have been given reasonable
opportunity to express their opinions. As an interested, local resident I cannot
recall any past opportunities to comment on this statement. In my view, this
strategy is invalid.
Council's bicycle route map clearly shows the Macleod-Rosanna link
in Ellesmere Pde. Yet Council determined that Option 3 of the questionnaire
(bicycle path along Ellesmere Pde) was unacceptable.
4.14. Ellis Stones' Vision"
The Master Plan specifies "selected tree planting in keeping with Ellis
Stones' vision". Yet nowhere is this vision spelt out (despite the fact
that Council had a set of about 20 of Ellis Stones' sketches some years ago).
5. REVIEW OF THE PROCESS
A number of aspects of the preparation of the Master Plan have, from
our point-of-view, been less than satisfactory. These aspects include:
5.1. Survey of Park Users
The opinions of Park users and the residents of Rosanna and Macleod have not
been surveyed, in a way that could be considered reasonable. If fact, we are
not aware of any survey of the actual users of the Park. We believe that, given
the circumstances of the origins, use and proximity of this park to residential
areas, special emphasis on the survey of users and residents was warranted.
Many of us were involved in the beginnings of the Park, use it on
a daily basis, participate in maintenance, clean-up and planting and,
as a consequence, would like to be involved in planning any changes.
We acknowledge that some, in our view limited, questionnaires were
circulated. We are not aware of any published reports detailing the
findings.
5.2. Flora and Fauna
The location of proposed paths has not been defined in respect of the avoidance
of damage to trees. Until vegetation protection or preservation zones are
defined, the proposed Master Plan should not be approved. Flora and fauna
in the Park were not the subject of any study or report before the Master
Plan was prepared.
There is no map detailing remnant vegetation (if any), significant
areas, species or locations of fauna. The base data required to prepare
a Master Plan has not been collected. In respect of flora and fauna
it is clear that many of us, Council staff included, are (or were)
not aware of relevant regulations.
Over recent months we believe Council staff have removed branches
from a River Red Gum without a permit and removed dead trees and/or
branches to the detriment of habitat. Council staff also removed a
low branch that an owl had been observed using at night.
The Master Plan should accord with the intent of the applicable regulations,
not just the letter. The regulations are intended to preserve native
vegetation and habitat. The placement of the proposed paths should
not endanger habitat in any way. This cannot be said of the currently
proposed path location as evidenced by a recent arborists assessment
(undertaken in isolation from any fauna study), that recommended removing
97 trees basically due to the proximity of the path.
5.3. Underlying Assumptions
Much of the Master Plan process was based on the underlying assumption that
construction of a formal path and 'facilities' was necessary, desirable and
appropriate. Some of us have a different opinion. Some of us believe an unadorned
natural park will be increasingly valued by a community surrounded by paved
and walled environments.
The Master Plan process did not address the underlying fundamentals,
the need for paths, seats, shelters etc. was assumed to be a 'given'.
Consequently, Council questionnaires containing options for Path A,
Path B or Path C and did not consider that portion of Park users and
nearby residents with an alternative view. Of the 401 responses to
this questionnaire, 88% selected options avoiding formal paths in the
Park.
5.4. No Opportunity to Decline Facilities
There are other issues Park users and nearby residents have not been given
any reasonable opportunity to comment on. The Master Plan proposes seats,
tables, shelters, a BBQ and other 'facilities'. We suspect more signs, bins,
bollards and fences will follow. The 'Terms of Reference' of the Working
Party specifically limited discussion to paths only.
The community has not been given an opportunity to decline the proposed
facilities in favour of an unadorned, natural park. Many of us do not
want a park populated with man-made facilities. We simply enjoy the
trees, birds and natural surroundings.
5.5. Inputs Ignored, Biased Reports
We have attended Council meetings in an attempt to be heard on several occasions.
On one of these occasions over 100 residents expressed strong opposition
to the Master Plan. Council did not even acknowledged our concerns. Many
letters have been written to Council concerning the Master Plan but no detailed
summary has been compiled or presented to the community. We are not seeking
special privilege, we would like the opportunity to participate in an open
process that addresses each significant issue and reports in a balanced way
to Councillors and the community. In our opinion, it is quite clear that
Council reports have not presented both sides of this debate objectively.
5.6. Format of the Master Plan
The commonly accepted format for Master Plans or their associated issues papers
(as indicated by material available on the internet) is that of a report.
A report format facilitates detailed review of the various issues, the consideration
of alternative options and the inclusion of schematic plans and diagrams.
The format of the current Rosanna Parklands Master Plan is a single sheet
drawing and as such, does not facilitate the detailed review of numerous
issues. The format of the current Master Plan is inappropriate to a property
worth many millions of dollars and should be revised. Planning permission
should be denied due to the inadequate level of consideration of significant
issues associated with this Parkland.
5.7. The Majority have been Ignored
Of the 401 submissions received by Council, 88% selected options avoiding a
shared path in the Park and the associated bicycle through-traffic. Only
6% selected Option 2. Yet the Master Plan under consideration by Council
is basically Option 2 (a 2.5 metre wide path clearly designed for bicycle
traffic). Option 2 clearly does not have the support of the majority.
Not one letter of support for a 2.5 metre wide bicycle path in the
Park is clearly identified in the report as having been received by
Council.
5.8. Consultation Process Flawed
Council:
• initiated the Master Plan
• selected the Options (all with paths)
• ignored the community response
• selected the members of the Working Party (no elderly, no youth, no environment,
no heritage, 2 bicycle)
• determined the (narrow) Terms of Reference
• wrote the Minutes (but did not present both sides)
• wrote the Points of Agreement
I'm afraid we don't agree with the outcome.
5.9. There has been No Effective Choice
Council advise that paths must be built to provide access to "facilities" and
that the facilities include BBQ's, bench seats, drinking fountains and rubbish
bins. As a community we might prefer to relinquish these facilities and retain
the Park in a more natural state. We were not offered that choice.
Council arranged a questionnaire with 3 options, all including paths.
The community was frustrated by the lack of effective choice. If broader
options were eliminated by an earlier phase (as indicated in the report),
where is the documentation explaining the decisions already taken and
how they were made?
5.10. The Nature of the Works Proposed
The proposed Master Plan will change the Rosanna Parklands from a passive recreation
area to a combination sporting facility and transport corridor.
The 2.5m width of proposed paths is based on design criteria for commuter
bicycle paths and is inappropriate.
Pedestrians, cyclists and dogs off-lead can currently meander across
the grassy fairway areas. The Master Plan and the proposed path-side
planting in particular is an attempt to confine Park users to paths
and is not in harmony with current usage.
5.11. The Details of the Works Proposed
There is little precise detail on the Master Plan. It is not appropriate to
produce a Master Plan that relies on future unspecified and uncontrolled
adjustment.
6. COUNCIL INFORMATION BULLETIN
The Council Information Bulletin that accompanied Planning Scheme Application
P284/04 was entitled "Your Questions Answered". We believe the Application
for a Planning Permit should be rejected as there is a clear gap between Council
and community views. This gap is indicated by our response to the Bulletin
as indicated in the following table.
Council's Information Bulletin Our Response
The Rosanna Parklands Masterplan was developed in consultation with the community.
Community consultation was unsatisfactory because:
• Our Ward Councillor has a strong personal belief in cycling
and is a major proponent of the Master Plan. Our line of communication
to Council is blocked.
• The questionnaire of 3 November 2003 contained three options,
none of which were developed in consultation with the community. No
options for maintenance of existing trails or narrow paths were provided.
No explanation was offered
•Council sent questionnaires to 300 households out of about
5000 within walking distance of the Parklands. Park users were not
consulted.q The wishes of the majority were ignored (of 401 submissions
received by Council, 88% rejected paths in the Park)
• 'Working Party' discussions were restricted to paths; other
topics were not allowed.
For the purpose of this Masterplan, any paths constructed will be 'general
purpose' paths and will not be declared 'shared' pathways. The combination
of pedestrians, cyclists and dogs off-lead on the same path is not sustainable.
Eventually, for public safety or liability reasons, paths will be declared
'shared'.
The Masterplan also includes the upgrading of facilities including
seating, tables, shelters, playground equipment, a BBQ and revegetation
works. There
is significant community interest in a natural park and:
:• There is little
community interest in 'facilities', some of us regard them as visual pollution.
• Council has no obvious mandate and has not demonstrated community
pressure for facilities.
•The community has not been given any opportunity to decline
suggested facilities in favour of a natural, unadorned park
.• Council doesn't mention the plethora of signs, bollards,
bins, dog-poo bag dispensers, fences, drains, bridges etc. that are
also likely.
• Can't we have a natural park?
The limbs that were removed recently from the River Red Gum near Von Nida Crescent
were dead and removed in accordance with Australian Standards to maintain
the health and appearance of the tree.
In principle, dead branches should be retained because:
• Owls perch on dead branches while hunting at night.
•Banyule Planning Scheme requires a permit to remove dead trees
or branches. The Council ignored its own regulations.
• Dead wood is a necessary part of a viable habitat. The fact
that a branch is dead does not effect the health of a tree.
• Does the appearance of trees need maintenance?
Council intends to have a wildlife expert available to manage fauna issues.
Wildlife will almost certainly suffer:
• Displaced possums, small bats and bird nestlings will be taken
to the vet and euthanised unless there is an available, vacant hollow
within 25 metres (this is a legislative requirement).
Council is currently undertaking some tree removal and pruning to address safety
and hazard issues within the Parklands. Have all alternatives been investigated?
• Council's consulting arborist has reported that 190 out of
261 trees along the western park boundary are hazardous. Yet Council
has decided this is a good place to construct a path.
• The trees are only a hazard if there are people underneath.
• Mulching, planting, landscaping, placement of dead branches
or fencing could be used to divert pedestrians.
Where possible pruning works will be undertaken to crown reduce trees and maintain
habitat hollows rather than tree removal. Crowns are also habitat:
• Gang-gang cockatoos typically nest 30 to 35 metres above the
ground, frequently in Sugar Gums. Gang-gang cockatoos are not currently
nesting in Rosanna Parklands and may never have the opportunity.
The Masterplan includes general indigenous planting throughout the Parklands.
Where/what will this planting take place?
• Council has not undertaken any
landscape design or prepared a landscape plan.
• How will species for planting
and areas for planting will be selected?
The ratio for tree replacement will be on a 2:1 basis. Is 2:1 tree replacement
sufficient?
• After Council removes one mature tree (about 10 tonnes or
more of habitat), they will plant about 1kg of replacement seedlings
(0.01% by weight).
• The value of mature trees is often thousands of dollars. Replacement
tubestock will be of negligible value.
Council will operate within the principles of the Disability Discrimination
Act 1992. This issue needs further explanation
:•The Sport and Recreation, Access for All guide recommends
a 2 metre limit for path width as wider paths may be disorienting for
visually impaired.
• Many elderly are concerned about shared paths
• There is no clear guidance for what is required in terms of
extent or physical dimensions.
• Ellis Stones and others chose to build a residential estate
and a park without footpaths. Must we build paths in the Park? If so,
must we build paths in the estate?
7. THE PLANNING SCHEME
7.1. Schedule 4
Schedule 4 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay for the Elliston Estate includes:
2.0 Vegetation protection objectives to be achieved
To ensure that prior to the removal of native trees all alternatives are considered
To ensure that where a native tree is to be removed, comprehensive landscape
plans are prepared
3.0 Permit Requirement
A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop any native tree
4.0 Decision Guidelines
Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority must consider
whether:
• all alternatives … have been considered
• there is a comprehensive landscape plan accompanying the application
which identifies the planting of substantial vegetation and replacement trees
of similar size.
Exceptions to point 3.0 above (not reproduced here) do not apply to
points 2 and 4. Consequently, the Application for a Planning Permit
No. P284/04 should not be approved until a comprehensive landscape
plan is prepared.
7.2. Neighbourhood and Site Description
Particular Provisions Clause 54.01 includes:
An application must be accompanied by:
• A neighbourhood and site description
• A design response
Application for a Planning Permit No. P284/04 should not be approved until
the above conditions are met.
7.3. Another Perspective
A Melbourne developer has discovered and is benefiting from a serious loophole
in the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) under Planning and Environment
Act 1987. The development is a proposed 3.5km long formal path through Rosanna
Parklands, a park that has the following overlays;
Vegetation protection overlay/ Environmental significance overlay/
heritage overlay/ land subject to inundation overlay.
Under planning scheme clauses 1509, 52.17 and 42.02, the responsible
authority must consider the state-planning framework, which states
that, in regards to native vegetation:
1. If damage, lopping, or clearing to vegetation can be avoided, it
must be.
2. If damage, lopping or clearing cannot be avoided then Council must minimize
it through appropriate consideration in planning processes and expert input
to project design or management.
3. All damage, lopping or clearing must be offset, this must be identified
(Offset work is not just planting some young plants, but finding other vegetation
of similar or greater value and increasing its habitat value by management
activities)
The developer in this matter has circumvented the planning rules by
using the existence of a “goat track” as an excuse to remove
and lop native (remnant) vegetation under the exception of ‘the
trees pose “immediate danger” to those on the goat track’.
(The term “goat track” is from the developer’s own
permit information bulletin which describes the earthen path formed
by pedestrian traffic).
If this precedent is allowed to go through, then any developer in
Victoria can simply scuff up a track under any old, remnant river red
gum for example – they could even get a few people to walk under
it regularly for 6 months or so. The developer could then apply for
a permit to build on the site without including, in their application,
the need to remove the tree. If questioned about the tree, the developer
can point out that the tree is not part of the current application
because the tree will be removed for other reasons i.e. that it poses
an immediate danger to those people on the goat track. – The
goat track becomes evidence of the presence of people under the tree.
After the permit for the building is approved – probably with
little opposition, as there is no tree removal listed, then the developer
could get an arborist report on the tree, which due to the nature of
old river reds for example, would likely say that the tree is hazardous
to those people on the goat track. The developer could then apply for
a permit to remove the tree for as it poses a hazard to those on this “goat
track”.
Clearly then the use of a goat track as an excuse for the omission
of tree removal in a development proposal will effectively nullify
the protection of native trees through the planning provisions.
The Developer is Banyule City Council
Avoidance of the removal and lopping of native trees is easily possible
by diverting public away from the area – there is a large, open,
mown exotic grass area only several meters away. There is a very infrequently
used railway maintenance track that could also be utilised.
The remnant trees in question also have remnant understorey plants
that will be affected by the proposal. The developer has ignored the
damage to the integrity of this remnant understorey.
We ask that this permit application be rejected.
Rosanna Parkland maps showing:
Eb E. blakelyi
Ebx E. blakelyi hybrid with E. camaldulensis
Es E. studleyensis (to be confirmed)
Vg Veronica gracilis
Rosanna Parklands Nth - vegetation map (.pdf file-1.8mb Click
Here)
Rosanna Parklands Sth - vegetation map (.pdf file-1.97mb Click
Here)
Note the underlying Master Plan has been superseded (it shows 3 longitudinal
paths).
|
