From: Subject: Victorian Parliamentary Hansard - Parliament of Victoria Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:18:13 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=VicHansard.dumpall&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&house=COUNCIL&speech=4993&activity=NULL&title=FRANKSTON+PLANNING+SCHEME:+AMENDMENT&date1=12&date2=August&date3=2009&query=true%0a%09and+%28+data+contains+'amendment'%0a%09and+data+contains+'c50'+%29%0a%09and+%28+members+contains+'PENNICUIK'+%29%0a%09and+%28+hdate.hdate_3+=+2009+%29%0a%09and+%28+house+contains+'COUNCIL'+%29%0a Victorian Parliamentary Hansard - Parliament of = Victoria

VICHANSARD
Whole Speech

[First=20 Match] [New=20 Search]=20

Selecting a highlighted page number will display that whole page=20 only.
Selecting a highlighted speaker's name will display only that = speaker's=20 contributions to the whole speech. This option is only available if a = speaker is=20 not already selected.=20

Title	FRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT
House	COUNCIL
Activity
Members	PENNICUIK
Date	12 August 2009=20
Page	3981

12 August 2009 COUNCIL

Page 3981

FRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT

Ms=20 PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) -- I move:=20

That amendment C50 to the Frankston = planning=20 scheme be revoked.

There are two broad reasons I am moving this motion = today.=20 Firstly, I believe that the minister has bypassed correct planning = processes by=20 using the priority development process to push through the Frankston = City=20 Council's preferred development model for a massive marina at Olivers = Hill by=20 claiming that the proposal had been through a full environment effects = process,=20 when in fact the proposal allowed by amendment C50 is so substantially = different=20 from the original proposal as to be a new proposal and so should have = triggered=20 a new environment effects process, particularly due to the significant=20 environmental risks that are inherent in the proposal that would be = allowed by=20 amendment C50.=20

The priority development planning process is not a = substitute=20 for the statutory planning process that should have applied in this = case.=20 Secondly, I believe that the proposal allowed for in amendment C50 poses significant = safety risks=20 which have not been fully understood or assessed.=20

I am moving this motion today as the Greens = spokesperson for=20 the Southern Metropolitan Region and the areas around Port Phillip Bay,=20 particularly those on the east side. As members would be aware, I have a = longstanding interest in issues concerning Port Phillip Bay, including = the=20 channel-deepening project, the foreshore at Sandringham that is being = eroded by=20 an inappropriate breakwater, and this proposal, which I and many in the=20 community believe poses significant risks to the Olivers Hill area and = Frankston=20 and Mount Eliza beaches.=20

Depending on what you read, there has been talk of a = safe boat=20 harbour or some upgrading of the existing boat ramp at Olivers Hill for = around=20 25 years.=20

It is mentioned in the Victorian coastal strategy and = it is=20 mentioned in the Central Coastal Board's Boating Coastal Action Plan, a = copy of=20 which I have in front of me. I am a little disappointed with the = statement made=20 on page 80 of the action plan by the Central Coast Board in the chapter = entitled=20 'East Port Phillip boating area', which reads:=20

A proposal for a marina at Olivers Hill at Frankston has been = subject to=20 an environment effects statement and approved in principle.

This is not the case, because the proposal that we = have before=20 us now has not been subject to an environment effects statement (EES). = For that=20 to be asserted in the latest iteration of the Boating Coastal Action = Plan is a=20 bit disappointing to see.=20

As I mentioned, the Victorian coastal strategy = identifies=20 Frankston as a place for a regional boating facility. Neither the = Central=20 Coastal Board's Boating Coastal Action Plan nor the Victorian coastal = strategy=20 envisage or mention anything of the scale that is anticipated by the C50 amendment displayed by = Frankston City=20 Council on its website. In its list of regional boating facilities, the=20 Victorian coastal strategy mentions Frankston and states:=20

A regional boating facility accommodates a significant amount of=20 recreational boating in appropriate conditions.

Page 3982

I think 'appropriate conditions' is = definitely a phrase we should hold in our heads during this debate, = because=20 whether Olivers Hill and the marina proposed for there constitutes = appropriate=20 conditions is something to be debated.=20

It is interesting to read through the Victorian = coastal=20 strategy, the last iteration of which was released in 2008. In the = foreword to=20 the strategy, Minister Jennings and Libby Mears, the chair of the = Victorian=20 Coastal Council, say:=20

This strategy responds to three key issues identified facing our = coast:=20

Climate change which will result in impacts on the coast, = including rising=20 sea levels;

Rapid population growth in coastal areas; and,

The health of our unique and valued marine environment.

They are the three key issues facing our coast at the = moment.=20 When we as a community are considering any developments on the coast, we = need to=20 be thinking about those key issues.=20

The strategy is divided into four sub-strategies. The = first of=20 those is intended to provide for the protection of significant = environmental and=20 cultural values, including marine biodiversity and ecosystems, wetlands = and=20 estuaries, onshore biodiversity and ecosystems, cultural heritage and = planning=20 for climate change, which is part of sub-strategy 2. I quote:=20

This strategy gives direction for planning and managing the = impacts of=20 activities on and in the:

marine environment -- includes the nearshore marine environment, = the=20 seabed and waters out to the state limit or 5.5 kilometres

foreshore -- or coastal Crown land 200 metres from the high water = mark=20

This is the siting we are talking about at Olivers = Hill; it=20 fits into this category of coastal Crown land. The proposed siting of = the=20 Olivers Hill marina is on coastal Crown land and looks at reclaiming = part of the=20 seabed, which is also unreserved coastal Crown land.=20

The coastal strategy goes on to list the potential = impacts of=20 sea level rise as including coastal erosion; loss of beaches; loss of = Crown=20 land; migration of sand dunes; infrastructure threat or damage, = including damage=20 from frequent storms; more intense storm events; decreased rainfall; = flooding=20 and inundation; and damage to reefs.=20

All these situations or factors will apply at the = Olivers Hill=20 site.=20

According to the coastal strategy, the most recent=20 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report = concludes=20 that:=20

global average sea level has risen ... at an average rate of 1.8=20 millimetres per year and since 1993 at 3.1 millimetres per year ... =

The strategy continues:=20

Locally, recording stations at Lorne and Stony Point have recorded = sea=20 level rises of 2.8 millimetres per year and 2.4 millimetres per year=20 respectively since 1991.

...

Adoption of a precautionary strategy suggests that a policy of = planning=20 for sea level rise of not less than 0.8 metres by 2100 should be = adopted.=20

I understand that this has actually been increased to = around=20 1.4 metres.=20

According to the strategy, storm surges will lead to = damage to=20 and loss of boats; damage to and loss of structures on the foreshore; = entry of=20 water behind sea walls, which is what amendment C50 is anticipating will = be built out=20 into Port Phillip Bay; inundation of low-lying areas; and damage to = coastal=20 vegetation and habitat.=20

The strategy goes on to say:=20

There are three adaptation options:

1 protect (protection of beaches, dunes and = infrastructure;=20 land use and development)=20

2 accommodate (planning and building policies and = provisions,=20 redesign and rebuild)=20

3 retreat (relocation of infrastructure, land use and = development).=20

All these things need to be borne in mind when we are = looking=20 at putting any future developments on coastal Crown land. These factors = have not=20 been taken into account in the amendment we have before us now.=20

The Victorian coastal strategy also mentions the = Future Coasts=20 program, which is:=20

... seeking to provide a comprehensive vulnerability assessment of = the=20 risk of climate change to the Victorian coastline by the end of 2010. =

This is being led by the Department of Sustainability = and=20 Environment. I had a look on DSE's website to track the progress of = Future=20 Coasts in terms of its comprehensive assessment of the vulnerable areas = of the=20 coast of Victoria. It says that an options paper or discussion paper is = due, but=20 it has not materialised yet. I thought we should not be pressing ahead = and=20 pushing=20

Page 3983

through major developments on the = foreshore=20 anywhere in Victoria, particularly in Port Phillip Bay, when we do not = have that=20 document before us. It is still at least another 18 months away, by the = looks of=20 things. We do not even have a discussion paper to look at. That sets the = scene=20 in terms of what is facing us with our coastline and the context in = which we=20 should be looking at amendment C50, which allows for = what I have=20 called a monster marina in the city of Frankston.=20

The state government and Frankston City Council are = supporting=20 the proposal and are the leaders of the cheer squad. They claim that = many=20 businesses are supporting it but do not supply much evidence of that = fact. I can=20 see there are probably many people in the community who would support a = modest=20 upgrade of the existing boat ramp facility at the end of Frankston South = beach=20 at the foot of Olivers Hill, but they are appalled by the C50 proposal and the = process by=20 which it has come about.=20

It was put to me that surveys in the community have = shown some=20 support for this C50 amendment. I presume = that if you=20 went to people around the city of Frankston and asked them, 'Would you = support a=20 marina that would not have any environmental effects and where you could = safely=20 put your boats?', people would say, 'Yes'. However, if you told them = that the=20 marina would reclaim 22 hectares of the seabed, disrupt the sand = movement=20 between Frankston and Mount Eliza beaches and have a long-lasting impact = -- it=20 will basically be forever -- on those beaches, and that it would also = involve=20 commercial developments over the sea, run-off from the washing down of = boats and=20 infestations of marine pests, and asked them if they would support such = a=20 project, they would probably say no.=20

I do not know if they were asked the latter question; = I am sure=20 they were asked the former question. Certainly the residents around the = Olivers=20 Hill area who will, if this development comes to be, have this foisted = upon=20 their sightlines forever are not in favour of the marina.=20

Various local groups have opposed the Frankston = marina=20 department for a long time. They include the Beaumaris Conservation = Society,=20 Black Rock and Sandringham Conservation Association, Defenders of the = South East=20 Green Wedge, Frankston Beach Association, Frankston North Community = Group,=20 Friends of Baden Powell Bushland Reserve, Friends of Frankston, the = Gould Street=20 residents group, Kananook Creek Association, the Mount Eliza Association = for=20 Environmental Care, Mordialloc Beaumaris Conservation League, Peninsula = Field=20 Naturalists Club, Port Phillip Conservation Council and the Sweetwater = Creek=20 association.=20

That is a substantial list of committed community = groups from=20 around the area that see no value -- environmental or any other -- in = the=20 proposal that would be allowed by the C50 amendment.=20

As I said before, there has been talk about a = so-called safe=20 boat harbour -- I think it started out as a safe boat ramp and it has = now turned=20 into a safe boat harbour -- for about 20 or 25 years. The most recent = history=20 probably goes back to 1998 when an EES process was conducted. It looked = at three=20 options for a boat harbour at Olivers Hill. Option 1 was an upgrade of = existing=20 facilities with a car park, landscaping and stabilisation of Olivers = Hill, which=20 is significantly eroded and has ongoing problems. Option 2 was the = construction=20 of a harbour with a breakwater, land reclamation, the provision of a = regional=20 status boat ramp and a limited range of commercial facilities. Option 3 = combined=20 features of option 2 with 300 wet-berth moorings, a 200-compartment dry = storage=20 building, a marine maintenance facility and a commercial restaurant. The = planning assessment found that while options 1 and 2 provided sufficient = community benefit to justify their implementation, option 3 did not.=20

Following the 1998 EES there was an assessment by the = then=20 Minister for Planning, Minister Thwaites, in 2000, a supplementary panel = hearing, a report and another assessment by then Minister Delahunty in = 2003.=20 Following all that the Frankston planning scheme was amended to permit = the=20 construction and operation of a marina and safe boat harbour on Crown = land at=20 the foot of Olivers Hill.=20

However, approval for that project, as it was then = identified,=20 was subject to the proposed development being financially viable, = meeting=20 clearly prescribed physical and commercial limits and safeguards and = complying=20 with environmental and engineering standards set out in schedule 3 to = the=20 special use zone in Frankston planning scheme. That proposal sat around = for a=20 while without a lot of takers.=20

In July 2005 Frankston City Council, supported by = Tourism=20 Victoria, conducted a market-sounding exercise to obtain information = from the=20 private sector regarding the construction and management of such a = marina. In=20 addition to this exercise, consultants Ernst and Young had earlier = conducted a=20 financial analysis of the proposed marina, which I was able to obtain = from=20 Frankston City Council's website. That document was fairly weak in terms = of=20 saying whether the project had any viability. Basically those two = documents said=20 the=20

Page 3984

proposal was not financially = viable. The=20 Ernst and Young document does not have a date on it and is not signed by = anyone,=20 so I am not sure what status it has.=20

In the ministerial assessment of 2003 the minister = put the=20 stipulation that something would have to be done within three or five = years, or=20 everything would lapse: it was like a sunset clause. The years were = ticking by,=20 but nothing had happened. In the hope that something could happen -- = that=20 something considerably larger might be financially viable -- Frankston = City=20 Council developed a proposal to increase the physical size of the marina = and the=20 scale of on-site activities. This became the council's preferred = development=20 model, which I understand the council agreed to in a closed meeting. = That was in=20 May 2007, when the council decided to refer this matter to the minister. =

In November 2007 the minister requested that a = priority=20 development panel provide advice regarding the strategic justification = for and=20 appropriate alignment of the PDM (preferred development model) for the = Frankston=20 safe boat harbour, the appropriateness of the proposed changes to the = existing=20 planning controls, draft siting and design guidelines, and the = appropriate=20 process to give it effect.=20

This is where I make the point that I think the = process has=20 gone astray, because the preferred development model put forward by the = council=20 was for a much larger proposal than the proposal that had been through = the=20 environment effects statement and panel processes and had been assessed = by=20 previous ministers. In answers to questions I have put on notice the = minister=20 has admitted what the council has done.=20

I asked him why this had occurred, and he said it was = because=20 the Frankston planning scheme prohibited such a development as the = Frankston=20 City Council itself was proposing, which was way over the scale of = anything that=20 had gone through any process to that stage.=20

The point I am making is this is where the process = has gone=20 wrong. Perhaps the Frankston City Council should have reassessed its = position=20 when it had option 3 before it, which just scraped through and had no = financial=20 viability. The council should have reassessed where the proposal was at = that=20 point instead of doubling or tripling the size of the development. The = council=20 should not have asked the minister to put the proposal through the = priority=20 development panel (PDP) process, which reported back to the minister on = 23 April=20 2008.=20

The advice the minister received was to support the = preferred=20 development model, and that he should exercise his powers under section = 24 of=20 the Planning and Environment Act and approve the PDM and amend the = Frankston=20 planning scheme without submitting the changes and amendments to a = proper=20 planning process and not allow third-party rights on the basis that = adequate=20 consultation had occurred.=20

The PDP report shows the whole process took place = between=20 January and April in 2008. The panel held a couple of meetings and = looked=20 through the 70 submissions. In terms of claiming there had been adequate = consultation, I am told the PDP gave six of the community groups I = mentioned=20 earlier a total of 1 hour's consultation in a closed room during which = time they=20 were asked to present their submissions to the panel. The panel later = stated it=20 had consulted widely with interested parties, groups and key = stakeholders.=20

The last groups in the list I read out had very = little time to=20 make their presentations or be heard. People were not looking at the = same=20 proposal they had seen earlier; they were looking at a completely new = proposal.=20 I am also told that some people felt the PDP was not particularly = interested in=20 what they had to say. If you read the PDP report, Acting President, you = will see=20 that there are words to the effect that local community groups took the = PDP=20 processes as an opportunity to restate and rehash their opposition to = the marina=20 at Olivers Hill. There is no acknowledgement that the panel was dealing = with a=20 completely different proposal, notwithstanding any objections people may = have=20 already made and were completely within their rights to have.=20

I maintain that this inappropriate avoidance of a = full EES=20 process for the new proposal is another example of how the EES processes = are not=20 working for the benefit of the community or the environment in Victoria. =

That is why this house has agreed to send a reference = to the=20 Environment and Natural Resources Committee to inquire into the = weaknesses of=20 the EES process and its lack of independence when government is the = proponent.=20

It is worth explaining what the C50 amendment provides for = in saying=20 that it provides for a significantly larger marina, with new and large=20 commercial activities and facilities to be developed at the base of = Olivers=20 Hill, to that previously recommended by the 2003 planning advisory panel = and=20 which was approved by the minister at the time. Significant changes to = the=20 previously approved marina development that will be allowed by the C50 amendment without = undergoing any=20 statutory environment planning processes include allowing an increase in = the=20 size of the marina from 15.8 to 22 hectares and completely removing the = upper=20 limit of land that may be reclaimed from the sea. Previously there was a = limit=20 of 5.4 hectares, which in my opinion was an issue in itself with the = previous=20 approval, but=20

Page 3985

that has been completely removed so = there is=20 no upper limit. In effect, the whole 22 hectares could be filled in with = infill=20 development.=20

The new proposal includes the construction and = operation of a=20 400-boat high-rise stack dry storage building, which was specifically = and=20 expressly prohibited by the previous approval, and the provision of a = 60-unit=20 hotel on the reclaimed area -- that is, on the new Fantasy Island, as my = colleague Mr Barber has dubbed it. I might add that under the Victorian = coastal=20 strategy that is not a marine activity, so it is inappropriate for that=20 particular area. The new proposal also includes a proposal to increase = the=20 commercial area from 500 square metres to 2000 square metres, which is = described=20 by Frankston City Council as 'only 2000 square metres'. All of this will = be on=20 the reclaimed Crown land projecting into Port Phillip Bay.=20

To avoid undergoing a statutory planning process the = council=20 has referred the proposal to the Minister for Planning through the PDP = process,=20 and he has exercised his powers under section 24 of the Planning and = Environment=20 Act, which he justifies on the advice he received from the PDP.=20

I have a photograph from a document put out by = Frankston City=20 Council entitled 'Frankston Safe Boat Harbour Vision March 2008', which = is an=20 amazing document in itself.=20

Mr Barber -- Visionary.=20

Ms PENNICUIK -- Visionary is an interesting = adjective, Mr=20 Barber. I am not sure what the vision is here. I ask that copies of this = photograph be circulated to members in the chamber so they can have an = idea of=20 what I am talking about and that it be incorporated into Hansard.=20

This is an artist's impression of what we might have = before us.=20

Leave granted; see photograph Pages=20 4017. [opens in new window]=20

Ms PENNICUIK -- I have had this photograph circulated = to give=20 an idea of the extent of the project. When one describes what this = amendment=20 would allow, it is very difficult to visualise the project. On this = particular=20 photograph I draw members' attention to the way the project will impinge = upon=20 the foreshore and disrupt the movement of sand between Frankston South = beach,=20 the start of which is in the bottom left-hand corner, and the coast = going up at=20 the top of the photograph towards Mount Eliza.=20

This issue was raised during the environment EES = process as a=20 substantial problem. I remind members that during the EES process the = proposed=20 development was much smaller, so members should consider the photo they = have in=20 front of them as reduced by one-quarter in terms of the size of = reclaimed land=20 and scale. During that process the Environment Protection Authority = wrote to the=20 EES panel and said many things, one of which was about sand movement and = predictions. It stated:=20

After examining the EES document, EPA has reservations about the = clarity=20 and method used to estimate the rate of sand deposition in this = locality.=20

The EPA's suggestion was to calculate the infill area = between=20 Beaumaris and Olivers Hill during the last 8000 years. Erosion rates = would also=20 need to be taken into account, as well as the rate of sand movement in = the area.=20 None of this has been done. The EPA went on to say that its:=20

... experience with the history of similar structures in Port = Phillip Bay=20 and the failure to predict the effects of breakwaters, highlights the = need to=20 ensure sand movement is understood and addressed in particular to the = north of=20 the proposal.

The north of the proposal is what is in the bottom = left-hand=20 corner of the photograph and is actually the Frankston South and = Frankston main=20 beaches.=20

Mr Barber interjected.=20

Ms PENNICUIK -- 'Goodbye', says Mr Barber correctly.=20

Certainly after I heard about this I said the same = thing --=20 that we need to learn from history before we start building huge = structures on=20 the coast of Port Phillip Bay and disrupting the sand movement.=20

What happens when you build these sorts of harbours = is you have=20 sand silting up on one side and drifting away from the other; the other = in this=20 case is Frankston South beach. As I mentioned before, if you asked the = good=20 citizens of Frankston sitting on Frankston South beach whether they = wanted a=20 marina built to the south that would result in the loss of that beach, I = do not=20 think they would support it. But I do not think anyone has asked them.=20

The other problem with the planning process is that = the action=20 taken by the minister to refer this to a PDP directly conflicts with the = recommendations contained in the 2003 planning advisory panel report and = the=20 2003 planning minister's assessment. That advisory report stated:=20

...

importantly, a signal is sent that the achievement of this = objective=20 cannot proceed heedless of relevant environmental conditions and = information,=20 or riding roughshod over significant and valid concerns of third = parties who=20 retain the potential to be adversely affected.

Page 3986

The final paragraph of the 2003 = planning=20 advisory panel report -- the paragraph preceding its recommendations -- = states:=20

In closing, the panel wishes to provide its strong view that this = is a=20 borderline case --

and 'this' refers to option 3 in the original EES; it = does not=20 refer to this C50 amendment. The panel = went on to say=20 that in its view its:=20

... findings and recommendations represent the maximum credible = and=20 supportable response to the Olivers Hill proposal on the basis of = current=20 knowledge.

If there should be an unwillingness or capacity to carry out the=20 additional environmental investigations recommended in many instances = now by=20 the EES panel, the Minister for Planning and this panel, or if there = should be=20 a further desire to detract from third-party rights advocated in its=20 recommendations, then this panel would consider on balance that the = amendment=20 should be abandoned.

With that in mind, Frankston City Council has come up = with a=20 much larger proposal. The minister referred that proposal to the PDP, = and it has=20 popped out the other end with the PDP agreeing with what Frankston City = Council=20 has basically requested the minister to do.=20

I do not get any joy out of criticising the actions = of a local=20 council, but I feel that doing so is in the interests of the wider = community and=20 the longevity and health of Port Phillip Bay, which is already subject = to enough=20 assaults.=20

It has already had the channel deepening project. The = government says that is going along swimmingly, but we know we have a = toxic dump=20 in the bay that probably has radionuclides in it. No-one wants to test = that;=20 certainly the government does not want to hear about that. It does not = want to=20 hear that half the nuclear waste stored at Maralinga comes from the = CSIRO site=20 on the Yarra River and that waste from that is going into the toxic dump = in Port=20 Phillip Bay.=20

Thus, as I said, we have already had enough assaults = on Port=20 Phillip Bay. We have heard that since the deepening of the heads there = have been=20 cases of previously unseen coastal erosion on both the Mornington and = Bellarine=20 peninsulas. Members opposite may think that is funny, but I do not.=20

As I say, the planning process has been misused in = this case. I=20 would like to refer to some information that members can find for = themselves if=20 they have a look at the priority development panel's website.=20

Mr Barber interjected.=20

Ms PENNICUIK -- I am sure she has. The DSE advisory = note about=20 PDPs says that a PDP is not a responsible authority or planning = authority under=20 the Planning and Environment Act 1987, so in my view it should not have = been=20 looking at this proposal. It is also not a substitute for Planning = Panels=20 Victoria in its role under part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act. = That is=20 clear; so what we find is that the Olivers Hill preferred development = model from=20 the Frankston City Council should have gone through a statutory planning = process=20 under either of those two bodies, and it has not.=20

The PDP website lists criteria, and the minister said = in an=20 answer to a question on notice asked by me that he referred this = proposal to the=20 PDP because it fulfilled the criteria. I struggle to see how it does = fulfil the=20 criteria listed on the PDP website.=20

If members look at past projects, they will see that = we have=20 things such as the Henley Honda precinct in Camberwell; the Preston = central=20 activities centre and market; Frankston transit city; Monash University=20 Caulfield campus -- it has some controversy attached to it because it = involves=20 Crown land; the Joseph Road precinct in Footscray; Blenheim Street, = Glenroy; the=20 Mornington activities centre; the Burwood Heights activities centre; the = Laverton air base; and the Banco site in Collingwood. None of those = involve=20 sensitive Crown land on the foreshore or reclamation of part of Port = Phillip=20 Bay. Current projects include the Pentridge prison redevelopment; a = development=20 on Ascot Vale Road; the Werribee Plaza extension; an activity centre in = Fountain=20 Gate; Watergardens stage 3; and the Footscray transit city, which I know = my=20 colleague Ms Hartland has an interest in.=20

Mr Barber interjected.=20

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mrs Peulich) -- Order! Mr = Barber is out=20 of his place=20

Ms PENNICUIK -- None of these projects that the PDP = has looked=20 at before or is looking at now is comparable in any way to what is = proposed at=20 Olivers Hill. I say this is poor planning process.=20

Ms Huppert interjected.=20

Ms PENNICUIK -- Ms Huppert has interjected, but I say = that some=20 of those projects are controversial. The point I make is that they are = not=20 involving Crown land on the foreshore. They are not involving reclaiming = part of=20 the seabed and potentially causing coastal erosion along the Victorian = coast. It=20 is completely inappropriate for this development to be lumped in with = those=20 sorts of developments. It is poor planning process, and it is = potentially=20 disastrous given the scale of the project before us.=20

This is not just Kmart adding an extra floor of = retail space at=20 Werribee Plaza or someone adding more apartments to a particular=20

Page 3987

development, however controversial = they may=20 be. What we are talking about here is a massive development on public = land in a=20 sensitive area of Port Phillip Bay.=20

The Olivers Hill headland has stability problems. = People who=20 are familiar with the area know it is adjacent to natural beaches. Mr = Pakula=20 could take a bike ride down there as it is not far from Black Rock. The = headland=20 has stability problems and is adjacent to natural beaches which will be = changed=20 forever by the proposal. The proposal will claim part of the seabed and = turn it=20 into 20 hectares of new land jutting into Port Phillip Bay with a huge=20 commercial development on it.=20

This proposal is not the same proposal that was = subject to an=20 EES 11 years ago, and any reasonable person would agree that such a = proposal=20 should be the subject of a new EES but that has not happened with amendment C50.=20

The proposal approved by ministers Thwaites and = Delahunty has=20 been thrown out, and a significantly larger development with few = environmental,=20 social and financial safeguards has been endorsed by the current = planning=20 minister without a proper EES process being undertaken. The full = environmental=20 effects of this proposal are not known, because it has not been subject = to an=20 EES process. There should not be any agreement to a planning scheme = amendment=20 that allows such a development on public land -- Crown land -- owned by = the=20 people of Victoria without such a process. I maintain the PDP process is = completely inappropriate and that the minister has misused the planning = process=20 in this regard. At real risk is the Frankston South beach that is = presently=20 enjoyed by more than 100 000 residents and visitors each year and that = may be=20 lost or severely depleted. We are looking at the possible silting of = Davey's=20 Bay, which is south of the proposed marina on the way to Mount Eliza, = and the=20 accumulation of areas of stagnant, dirty mud and ooze and refuse = alongside the=20 proposed marina breakwater.=20

Olivers Hill is an iconic coastal feature of Port = Phillip which=20 is enjoyed and recognised by visitors from far and wide. Anyone who goes = to=20 Frankston enjoys Olivers Hill. It is a particularly spectacular sight = from the=20 sea, and the visual impact of the marina at this location has not been = given due=20 consideration. Would they be doing this at the foot of the white cliffs = of=20 Dover?=20

Honourable members interjecting.=20

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mrs Peulich) -- Order! The = cross-chamber=20 conversation makes it very difficult for me to hear the member on her = feet. I=20 ask members to desist.=20

Ms PENNICUIK -- Thank you for your assistance, Acting = President. I mentioned some safety issues at the beginning of my = contribution.=20

I am concerned that this project will be anything but = a safe=20 boat harbour. It will not be located in a natural safe harbour area but = on an=20 exposed part of the coast. Many experts have raised concerns about the = possible=20 disastrous effects of such a huge development on Frankston's beaches. I = have in=20 my possession, but will not read out, assessments from geomorphologists = and=20 other coastal experts raising concerns about this proposal.=20

Many more people use the beaches than use boats, and = the=20 preservation of the beaches should be the no. 1 priority. I acknowledge = that is=20 what the Frankston City Council has said, that the beaches are not = negotiable.=20 Unfortunately I cannot see how it can make that statement that the = beaches are=20 not negotiable while at the same time supporting this development and = the=20 ruination of the headland that amendment C50 would allow. Recent = storm surges=20 at Frankston, McCrae, Mount Eliza and Portarlington, described by local=20 residents as on a scale unseen before, should give the minister and the = council=20 cause for caution.=20

The proposed marina would be built on the most unsafe = part of=20 Port Phillip Bay for boating activity.=20

The coast at Frankston has no natural shelter and is = regularly=20 exposed to strong and gale-force onshore winds. The marina will be on a = lee=20 shore most of the time. It will be on that part of the coast towards = which the=20 strong prevailing winds, the north-westerlies, blow. A safe boat harbour = would=20 not normally be constructed on an open stretch of coastline confronting = 25 miles=20 of open water.=20

In adverse weather, with onshore winds, a boat = skipper should=20 not be encouraged to seek shelter in the Frankston marina. The exposed = location=20 of the proposed Frankston marina violates all prudent criteria used to = plan and=20 locate a safe harbour. The location at Olivers Hill is exposed to the = dominant=20 and prevailing onshore winds which blow from the north in an = anticlockwise=20 direction to the south-west.=20

There is no other shelter nearby, as people familiar = with the=20 area would know. If yachts are unable to enter the marina in strong = onshore=20 winds, there is nowhere else for them to go other than onto the rocks. = If the=20 entrance to the marina is designed to minimise the flow of sand into the = harbour, which we presume it would be because we do not want it silting = up,=20 boats desiring to enter the harbour would have to turn into the = prevailing=20 westerly winds to pass through the entrance. In strong onshore winds = that will=20 be an extremely hazardous manoeuvre.=20

Page 3988

This information comes to me from = Captain=20 Frank Hart, a master mariner and retired harbourmaster of the ports of = Western=20 Port and Hastings from 1996 to 1998. He is very familiar with the area = and with=20 the waters of Port Phillip Bay. He, and others, have raised these = concerns, and=20 I am very thankful for his advice on this. He says Frankston in general = and=20 Olivers Hill in particular are not suitable locations to site and build = a=20 marina.=20

It is not just Captain Hart, though. The government's = own safe=20 boating guide shows Olivers Hill to be the most dangerous part of Port = Phillip=20 Bay in winds blowing from the north around to the south-west, which are = the most=20 prevalent winds on Port Phillip Bay. For most of the year winds blow = from these=20 directions. With the passage of a frontal weather system, small boats on = Port=20 Phillip Bay may suddenly find themselves engulfed by strong winds = blowing them=20 towards Frankston.=20

Knowing a marina was located at Frankston, someone in = a small=20 boat would be likely to head in that direction to seek shelter from the = strong=20 wind and rough seas.=20

A boat harbour that is located on an exposed and = rocky part of=20 the coast will attract boats into an extremely dangerous situation. The = boat and=20 crew are most vulnerable once the decision has been made to seek shelter = in the=20 marina and as the boat gets closer to it. Particularly if there is gear = breakage=20 or an engine failure or if under the stress of the heavy weather the = boat is=20 unable to manoeuvre efficiently or sail into the wind, it is likely to = have=20 great difficulty in entering the marina and there will be grave danger = and risks=20 of being blown ashore. This situation will be made worse in the dark. = There is a=20 potential risk of loss of life and loss of boats. These dangers will be=20 increased if the entrance to the marina is designed to minimise = suspended sand.=20

I refer to page 32 of the most current version of the = Victorian=20 Recreational Boating Safety Handbook, which boaters in Port Phillip rely = on. On=20 that page there is an explanation of waves and wave heights in Port = Phillip Bay=20 and a colour-coded map representing them. People can find the Victorian=20 Recreational Boating Safety Handbook on the Marine Safety Victoria = website.=20 Various shades of blue represent wave heights on Port Phillip Bay when = the wind=20 direction is north-west and the wind speed is 20 knots -- as is very = common in=20 Port Phillip Bay, as members will know if they listen to the weather = reports.=20

The colour coding goes from light blue to medium blue = to very=20 dark blue. Dark blue means that the waves will be bigger than 1.2 = metres, given=20 the wind speed and direction. There are only two places on the bay that = are=20 shaded that particular dark blue on the map: the area directly off = Olivers Hill=20 and a little bit further down the coast off Mount Martha -- where, = amazingly,=20 two so-called 'safe boat harbours' have been put.=20

This planning scheme amendment is proposing to put a = so-called=20 safe boat harbour in the most dangerous part of Port Phillip Bay. It is = worth=20 noting that the east side of Port Phillip Bay is the less safe side. The = west=20 side is more sheltered, because of the prevailing weather conditions on = Port=20 Phillip Bay. Pretty well most places on the east coast of Port Phillip = Bay are=20 not suitable for safe boat harbours, and there have been a lot of = problems. The=20 other thing to say about that is that, with few exceptions, marinas are=20 generally located in ports, harbours, rivers and estuaries, where there = is some=20 natural primary shelter from prevailing onshore winds. The location of = the=20 proposed Frankston marina is totally unsuitable in this regard.=20

This issue, which does not seem to have had any = attention, is=20 one I think the government and the Frankston City Council should pay = more=20 attention to, because we do not want to be spending millions of dollars = on such=20 a facility, or on any facility, really, that is unsafe.=20

The independent panel looking at the Bastian Point = boat ramp=20 very strongly recommended that that project not go ahead; however, = despite an=20 independent expert panel saying that for safety reasons it should not go = ahead,=20 the minister decided that he knew better, did not agree and would not = listen to=20 that advice and would approve the boat ramp at Bastian Point.=20

The two projects are not unrelated because, as = Captain Hart=20 says and as the independent panel at Bastian Point says, the very = existence of=20 an upgraded boat ramp, where Tourism Victoria and the Department of=20 Sustainability and Environment are encouraging people to go, puts lives = in=20 danger, because people -- many of them inexperienced -- would be going = into=20 dangerous waters, the weather can change very quickly and people can = find=20 themselves in strife. It is incumbent on the government to make sure it = takes=20 these issues into account; that has not been done in this case.=20

I have only a few more remarks about the financial = side of the=20 proposal. The last information I saw on the Frankston City Council's = website was=20 a bit like the channel deepening issue -- the cost of what they are = proposing=20 started at around $25 million and is now about $70 million. I again = refer=20 members to the photo I circulated. If anyone thinks that is going to be = built=20 for $70 million, I think they are dreaming. If we were stupid enough to = allow=20 that circular arrangement to be built from rock, there would be more = rock than=20 people=20

Page 3989

think, because it is going to have = to=20 withstand waves of at least 1.2 metres and much higher when the wind is = stronger=20 than 20 knots. I have been given an estimation that the cost of = supplying that=20 rock alone will be $35 million, and that is before we go past go.=20

It is interesting to read the press about the = financial=20 viability of marinas. On 12 May an article in the Australian Financial = Review=20 said:=20

Sales of marina berths are collapsing as fast as luxury = boatbuilders,=20 forcing developers to cut prices and accept offers from savvy = commercial=20 buyers.

...

Phil Sullivan, former chief executive of City Pacific, one of = Australia's=20 largest developers of marinas with 250 berths under way at Martha's = Cove on=20 Victoria's Mornington Peninsula ... expects the failure of = boatbuilders will=20 severely impact developers of berths elsewhere in Australia. =

In yesterday's Age Carolyn Cummins reported that:=20

Macquarie Leisure Trust has reported an 11.7 per cent decline in = value=20 across its global property portfolio due to the collapse in asset = values.=20

...

the hardest hit asset was the d'Albora Marina portfolio, which = fell 16 per=20 cent, from $97 million to $81.5 million, reflecting the decline in = boat=20 ownership, particularly in the previously much sought-after Sydney = Harbour=20 marinas.

The story of Hastings marina is worth mentioning. The = original=20 builder/owner of the Hastings marina went bankrupt in the late 1980s. It = was=20 then bought by a group headed up by a hotelier which went bankrupt in = the=20 mid-1990s. It was sold by the ANZ Bank in 1998 to the present owner for = about $4=20 million, of which $1 million was spent by the bank on sealing the public = car=20 park in compliance with the lease. The lessons to be learnt from the = Hastings=20 marina development are that even with a high occupancy rate, supported = with dry=20 boat storage, boat service facilities, restaurants and retail outlets, = net=20 income is unlikely to service high capital investment, and boy, will the = C50 amendment need high = capital=20 investment!=20

No feasibility studies have been completed for the = enlarged and=20 expanded Frankston marina that is now proposed, and that is a problem. = As many=20 people have said to me, it will probably never get anyone to back it, = but the=20 problem I have is that we have had a poor planning process, given that = it has=20 been allowed to get this far, and we have such a ridiculous amendment = going=20 through the PDP process inappropriately. To have this amendment to the = Frankston=20 planning scheme on the books is a concern to me and many in the = community.=20

In summing up I reiterate for the record the proposal = that the=20 Frankston council has put forward. The safe boat harbour will include a = regional=20 boat ramp with five ramps and dual landings; wash-down, rigging and = de-rigging=20 areas; a boat refuelling area; a minimum of 30 public overnight berths; = up to=20 300 permanent wet berths; up to 400 dry storage berths, which were = totally=20 rejected by the first panel; and up to 60 short-stay accommodation = units.=20

Why are we building short-stay accommodation on = reclaimed Crown=20 land over the seabed at Port Phillip? It also includes associated = parking and=20 turning areas for vehicles and trailers; outdoor recreation facilities; = a=20 restaurant/cafe; marine-related retail and commercial businesses such as = pleasure boating, chandlery, and bait and tackle; a potential tourist = and=20 commuter ferry platform; other marine-related services; workshop and = boat=20 repairs; sale of boats and equipment; and accommodation for local clubs = and=20 emergency services. None of this has been through any proper planning = process.=20 This information bulletin which I recovered from the Frankston City = Council=20 fails to mention the helipad that members can see on the photograph I=20 circulated.=20

Hon. M. P. Pakula interjected.=20

Ms PENNICUIK -- I could go through the whole safety = argument=20 again, if Mr Pakula would like, but if he looks at the photo and thinks = that is=20 a safe place to put a helipad, I will eat my hat. Because of the = environmental=20 risks, because of the misuse of the planning process and because of = serious=20 safety problems I urge all members to support the motion I have brought = before=20 the house today.=20

M= r=20 GUY (Northern Metropolitan) -- I rise to speak on the motion moved = by Ms=20 Pennicuik that amendment C50 to the Frankston = planning scheme=20 be revoked, and I thank Ms Pennicuik for a very thorough analysis of the = situation we are debating. From the outset I put on record that the=20 Liberal-Nationals coalition views disallowance motions with the utmost=20 seriousness, and in fact -- --=20

Ms Pennicuik -- In fact we just supported one.=20

Mr GUY -- We have in fact supported one in this = chamber, and we=20 have opposed others as well. As I said, disallowance motions are treated = with=20 the utmost seriousness by those on this side of the chamber in the = knowledge=20 that they set a precedent for future plans and bring the Victorian = Parliament in=20 as part of the planning system, if you like, through its possibly making = a final=20 decision on a development. We all know how the government has treated = some=20 disallowance motions in this chamber in the past few months. The last=20

Page 3990

disallowance motion that this = chamber debated=20 was in relation to the Barwon Heads bridge and was successful. If you = head down=20 to Barwon Heads today, you will find bulldozers on the beach and a = proposal for=20 a two-bridge option -- I will not say solution -- being put in place. = This=20 chamber chose to reject that option but the government used section 16 = of the=20 Planning and Environment Act to usurp the Parliament and allow the = proposal to=20 move forward.=20

Mr Koch -- What a disgrace.=20

Mr GUY -- It is a disgrace. I say from the outset = that the=20 reason the coalition supported that disallowance motion is very clear. = There was=20 a second option in that proposal -- and a third option as well. There = was an=20 option to ensure that the community had the facility that was being = proposed but=20 one that was a better option than that which was put forward by the = government=20 at that point in time.=20

The option we have today is a simple yes or no, = because the=20 planning scheme amendment is needed for the development proposal for the = Frankston marina to proceed. If the Parliament votes it down, we are = saying no=20 whatsoever to the proposal. If the Parliament says otherwise, it will = proceed.=20 As I said at the outset, the Liberal-Nationals coalition views = disallowance=20 motions with the utmost seriousness, and we view with some concern the = way the=20 government treats some disallowance motions and specifically that in = relation to=20 the Barwon Heads bridge. I have some concern about the Parliament = intervening in=20 local planning scheme amendments on a regular basis. While I understand = the=20 Greens have a number of concerns with developments in general across the = city,=20 they are very happy to engage local community groups and promise = disallowance=20 motions on a range of issues. I say there needs to be a degree of = caution about=20 saying that a disallowance motion is the be-all-and-end-all answer to = people's=20 concerns about developments.=20

I am sympathetic to a number of points Ms Pennicuik = raised in=20 relation to process. I understand that the minister has overlooked = significant=20 environmental concerns raised by the 2003 panel report specifically = relating to=20 Olivers Hill, and I also understand that the EES (environment effects = statement)=20 and the supplementary EES that were conducted related to a different = proposal.=20 It is fair to say that we share the concerns Ms Pennicuik raised about = process,=20 or the minister's behaviour, if you like, in the treatment of those=20 environmental reports.=20

It is also fair to say, though, that a lot of = concerns have=20 been raised by people about issues relating to Olivers Hill. I have been = alerted=20 to a press release put out by the federal member of Parliament for the = local=20 area, Mr Bruce Billson, in November 2007. For a period of time he = lobbied for=20 money for the construction of environmentally compatible seawalls to = support=20 safer boating facilities in Frankston.=20

Mr Billson, who is a strident advocate for the people = of=20 Frankston and an excellent member of the national Parliament, obtained = funding=20 of $2 million from the previous federal government for the = implementation of=20 those environmental works, which I note was not matched by the state = government.=20 In fact around $25 000 went to Frankston City Council to jointly fund = jetty=20 repair works at the Olivers Hill boat ramp, and again this was not = matched by=20 the state government. So the local federal member of Parliament has = identified=20 that there are issues related to Olivers Hill as well as environmental = concerns=20 that need to be addressed. I have noticed that in the specifications for = this=20 material on Frankston City Council's website there are a number of = points raised=20 about the successful tenderer needing to look at some of the = environmental works=20 in relation to Olivers Hill. There are clearly some environmental issues = there=20 that must be addressed before anything happens in relation to a boating=20 facility.=20

The location of the proposal has also been raised = with me as=20 being a concern to some people. The Frankston Beach Association pointed = out to=20 me that its preferred option is to have a facility closer to the = Frankston=20 central business district (CBD), and I understand the basic premise for = that=20 option. Obviously if the marina is within walking distance of the = Frankston CBD,=20 it would be a little easier for people to access; I understand that. I = have made=20 the point about the EESs, both of which were conducted on much smaller=20 proposals, and I have also been alerted by the same group to some = geological=20 issues related to the stability of Olivers Hill and the Selwyn fault = line=20 running under the Olivers Hill fault line.=20

Mr Barber interjected.=20

Mr GUY -- Mr Barber has developed a penchant for = interjections=20 in the last 24 hours.=20

I do not know where it has come from; maybe the = coffee has been=20 stronger in the Greens' party room. We have all noticed it. I welcome Mr = Barber=20 to partisan politics. It is very interesting to see him come on board.=20

I have also been alerted to a number of points made = by other=20 people relating to the desire to have a boating facility on the eastern = side of=20 Port Phillip Bay. Whilst acknowledging that erosion and environmental = issues=20 with Olivers Hill must be addressed, that there has been an upscaling of = the=20 project and further that members on=20

Page 3991

this side of the house would = clearly have=20 preferred a much more transparent and contemporary process in relation = to the=20 environmental effects process, we do not believe it is in the best = interests of=20 the Frankston community to simply pull the plug on the entire proposal.=20 Therefore, we will not be supporting the disallowance motion by the = Greens=20 today.=20

The economic benefits of a marina in Frankston have = been=20 outlined by Frankston City Council, and I understand them. There are = also the=20 obvious tourism concerns.=20

Mr Barber interjected.=20

Mr GUY -- It is pretty clear.=20

If you want to take in the facts and if you want to = remove=20 environmental concerns and process concerns and look at the basic = premise of=20 building a facility that is a safe boat harbour in Frankston, then say = yes or no=20 -- --=20

Mr Barber interjected.=20

Mr GUY -- It may not, but the reality is that if you = build a=20 facility there, of course it is going to have an economic impact. We = have raised=20 concerns about the environmental and process issues that exist, and I = accept=20 them. Mr Barber's colleague Ms Pennicuik has raised them. But to run = around=20 saying that there will be no economic benefit from a facility being = constructed=20 at that site is not true.=20

I note also that some boating groups are saying they = are=20 looking forward to a safe boat harbour being built in this location -- = that is,=20 the general Frankston area -- and I understand that. Why wouldn't they?=20

In conclusion I simply say that the Liberal and = National=20 parties will be opposing the motion moved by Ms Pennicuik. Whilst we = have=20 significant concerns with process and with some of the unresolved = environmental=20 issues -- and I trust that the successful tenderers for this bid may be = able to=20 address those issues further at some later stage -- we will not be = voting for=20 this disallowance motion.=20

Ms=20 MIKAKOS (Northern Metropolitan) -- The government will be opposing = Ms=20 Pennicuik's revocation motion.=20

Before commenting on the position of the Greens party = I want to=20 make a few brief comments on the opposition's position and, firstly, to = put on=20 record that the government appreciates the fact that the Liberal Party = has=20 indicated it will not be supporting Ms Pennicuik's motion. But I was=20 disappointed in the contribution made by Mr Guy, because I was waiting = for the=20 unequivocal support for this project that previous members of his party = have=20 shown in the past. In particular I refer to adjournment items raised by = Andrea=20 McCall, a former member for Frankston in the other place; Cameron = Boardman, a=20 former member for Chelsea Province; and Mark Birrell, a former member = for East=20 Yarra Province and doyen of the Liberal Party.=20

In particular I want to refer to an adjournment = matter raised=20 by Mr Birrell on 4 June 2002, in which he referred to 'the overwhelming = need for=20 Port Phillip Bay to have a new marina or safe harbour'.=20

Whilst Mr Birrell and I certainly disagreed on many = things=20 debated in this place over the years, I would concede that he was a very = valuable member of the Parliament and of the Liberal Party. I encourage = members=20 opposite who are still hesitant about this issue, and perhaps other = development=20 issues, to have a discussion with Mr Birrell, because I am sure he would = be=20 encouraging Mr Guy and others in his party to support things like DACs=20 (development assessment committees) and other proposals that are about=20 supporting jobs in this state.=20

We appreciate the fact that the opposition is not = going to be=20 party today to the wrecking exercise of the Greens political party. It = is=20 interesting that yet again the Greens party comes to this place with a = motion to=20 revoke a planning scheme amendment. That party is clearly on record now = as being=20 anti-progress. In fact they are true conservatives, because they like to = badge=20 themselves as a progressive party but they are not.=20

When it comes to planning issues, which are about = providing=20 more affordable housing to the people who the Greens party purport to = represent,=20 the disadvantaged in this state, the Greens time and again oppose any=20 development that will open up housing affordability.=20

In relation to this planning scheme amendment, Ms = Pennicuik was=20 very telling in her remarks about the Greens party attitude to planning, = when=20 she referred to any proposal that might be controversial. I do not know = whether=20 the true test on whether some planning matter should be supported is if = it is=20 controversial. The true test should be whether there will be a net = community=20 benefit.=20

From the prism of a net community benefit you would = have to say=20 unequivocally that this proposal should be supported, because it is a = project=20 that will support jobs and economic growth for Victoria; but it will = also=20 enhance the Frankston locality; provide growth for all businesses in = that area,=20 and should be supported for that reason.=20

In her contribution Ms Pennicuik referred to a range = of=20 projects that have been referred to the PDP (priority development panel) = in the=20 past. I wonder whether the=20

Page 3992

Greens party is supporting any of = those=20 projects, because we have seen time and again that they have come here = and=20 opposed good projects that are about enhancing amenities, services and = housing=20 affordability for our fellow Victorians.=20

I want to come to the detail of planning scheme = amendment C50,=20 which was adopted by the City of Frankston on 26 May and gazetted on 4 = June. The=20 amendment will provide for up to 300 permanent wet berths, 400 dry = berths,=20 public boat launching ramps, retail space, short-stay accommodation and=20 extensive areas dedicated to public space. The Frankston safe boat = harbour=20 project will provide significant employment opportunities during its=20 construction and ongoing operation, both on site and off site. I note = that in a=20 document entitled 'Frequently asked questions' put up by the council on = its=20 website, the council refers to the project creating:=20

... up to 2000 jobs during the construction, which will create an=20 immediate flow-on effect to their local community.

The document goes on to discuss:=20

... the creation of a further 300-plus permanent jobs and = increased=20 tourism will see the project as a prominent part of the development of = Frankston ...

Mr Barber interjected.=20

Ms MIKAKOS -- It is interesting that Mr Barber is = making=20 interjections with cheap shots about the City of Frankston document. I = thought=20 the Greens party purported to be the party that stood up for local = government.=20 We have here a proposal supported by that local council, yet the Greens = party=20 wishes to disregard the views of that council.=20

The council has invited registrations of interest for = the=20 design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Frankston safe = boat=20 harbour project. This registration of interest process, which commenced = on 6=20 August, will lead to a subsequent select tender process that is expected = to take=20 12 months. I hope Ms Pennicuik's exercise here today is not intended to = shake=20 confidence in any of those developers or proponents who might be seeking = in=20 coming days to express an interest through the registration of interest = process.=20

Ms Pennicuik referred to the cost of the project. It = is=20 important to emphasise here that this is a privately funded project. If = the=20 private sector does not believe it stacks up, as Ms Pennicuik was trying = to=20 suggest in her contribution, then obviously it will not tender and it = will not=20 go ahead. Public funds are not being invested in the construction of the = marina=20 itself; that will be privately funded, and it is really an exercise in = whether=20 the private market will come to the party and consider that this is a = project=20 worthy of support.=20

In relation to the other issues Ms Pennicuik raised = in her=20 contribution -- in particular, the issue of the EES -- I want to address = that=20 point and also her points about the process overall.=20

The Frankston safe boat harbour and marina project = received its=20 initial planning approval back in 2003 following an environment effects=20 statement and planning scheme amendment process and a planning panel = review, and=20 in May 2007 the City of Frankston adopted a preferred development model = (PDM)=20 for the project. The PDM formed the basis for the proposed land use = changes to=20 the approved planning scheme introduced in 2003 and also in relation to = the=20 current C50 amendment that we are discussing today.=20

But the proposal itself -- the whole idea of a safe = marina for=20 Frankston -- is one that, I understand, certainly from the documentation = provided by the council, has been discussed in the local community for a = good 20=20 years, and I understand it has had considerable public support over a = long time,=20 leading to very strong support more recently by Frankston City Council. = The=20 concept of a safe boat harbour is also supported by Tourism Victoria, = the=20 Department of Sustainability and Environment, the boating industry and = many=20 local residents.=20

Ms Pennicuik interjected.=20

Ms MIKAKOS -- I would encourage Ms Pennicuik to = engage that=20 local community in a more robust way to determine the true feelings of = the=20 community over this issue.=20

Olivers Hill, Frankston has been identified as an = appropriate=20 location for a safe boat harbour and has received strategic support = through a=20 considered planning process which included an environment effects = statement and=20 a panel review.=20

Ms Pennicuik sought to refer at some length in her = contribution=20 to the EES which was undertaken in 1998 and is a transparent public=20 environmental assessment process. It assessed the impacts of rezoning=20 approximately 35 hectares, which is actually greater than the current 22 = hectares considered in the current proposal, and the EES gave = in-principle=20 support providing that certain requirements were met. So Frankston City=20 Council's revised model encompasses 22 hectares and is still within the=20 parameters initially tested by the EES. The incorporated document will = ensure=20 that all details, including the area of land that will be reclaimed = through the=20 development, will be assessed prior to the approval of the final design = of the=20 development.=20

Page 3993

In relation to the EES, the = amendment itself=20 also requires a whole list of approvals to be granted before the project = will be=20 able to proceed. The document that lists frequently asked questions, as = provided=20 by the City of Frankston on its website, refers on page 4 of that = document to a=20 whole lot of different approvals that will be required, but it = specifically=20 says:=20

The project will be carefully managed to ensure environmental = controls are=20 met. Council has always emphasised the safe boat harbour development = must:=20

safeguard Frankston beach

allow for at least 0.8 metres predicted sea level rise

showcase excellence in design

provide high-quality public areas with strong linkages to the city = centre.=20

The document goes on to say:=20

A condition of the Frankston planning scheme requires the = developer to=20 undertake physical and numerical modelling to ensure the design does = not have=20 any adverse impacts on the surrounding beaches to the satisfaction of = council=20 and state government prior to commencing any works. This modelling = will also=20 be subject to an independent peer review. If council is not satisfied = adequate=20 environmental safeguards have been put in place it will not proceed = with the=20 project.

There are a range of additional protections and = conditions that=20 will need to be satisfied as a condition of this project proceeding.=20

The EES also found that the proposed boat harbour = will have=20 relatively little impact on the coastal processes of Frankston beach.=20

The design guidelines that are indicated in the = incorporated=20 document will require the preparation of a construction environmental = management=20 plan and an operations environmental management plan through the tender = process,=20 which will ensure that appropriate environmental assessments are = undertaken=20 prior to the commencement of the works, and the design guidelines of the = amended=20 development model require an assessment of the potential impacts of=20 environmental issues as identified in the Victorian coastal strategy = 2008.=20

In her contribution Ms Pennicuik made a range of = comments about=20 process, and I want to comment on those briefly. As I said before, this = project=20 has been discussed at some length in the local Frankston community for a = good=20 two decades.=20

Many documents have been prepared in the past and = different=20 processes have been undertaken, including public consultation processes. = I want=20 to briefly refer to some of those.=20

Obviously there was the EES itself in 1998. In 1999 = there was=20 an advisory committee empanelled to consider the EES. In 2000 there was = the=20 minister's assessment of the advisory committee and panel report. In = 2003 the=20 planning panel's process considered amendment C15 to the Frankston = planning=20 scheme and its panel report. In 2003 there was a minister's = supplementary=20 assessment, and in 2004 amendment C30 to the Frankston planning scheme = was=20 adopted, providing reference to the minister's supplementary assessment = report.=20

The incorporated document requires the following = assessments to=20 be completed prior to the commencement of the works: a concept plan, a = master=20 plan to include the parking access and circulation plan, construction,=20 environmental management plan; operations, environmental management = plan;=20 project impact assessment and a detailed development.=20

In addition to that, coastal consent would be = required under=20 the Coastal Management Act 1994 prior to the commencement of any works. = So there=20 is a very detailed process that has already been embarked upon and will = be=20 embarked upon before this project is completed. But there has been an=20 opportunity for the community to be engaged through these various = processes over=20 the year, in particular during the priority development panel (PDP) more = recently, in November 2007, which provided advice to the minister, and = the PDP=20 engaged with representatives of Frankston City Council, DSE, other = government=20 agencies and stakeholders from both local business and residential = communities.=20

The Minister for Planning has endorsed all the = recommendations=20 of the PDP and released the PDP report to the public in September 2008, = further=20 enabling the community to satisfy itself about the range of issues that = have=20 already been examined by the PDP and other government agencies over = time.=20

The PDP working party has subsequently worked with = council to=20 prepare the planning scheme documentation, including a revision to the=20 incorporated document 'Frankston safe boat harbour, June 2008'. An = information=20 session was hosted by Frankston council and included an officer from DSE = and the=20 chair of the PDP. The revised planning scheme documents were provided to = interested parties for review and comment, and this included the = opportunity for=20 written submissions. So there has been quite a lengthy process to date = in=20 relation to this project.=20

In conclusion, I reiterate that the government will = be opposing=20 this motion to revoke planning scheme amendment C50.=20

It believes that there has been an adequate process = to date in=20 relation to this project. It=20

Page 3994

also believes that if this project = is=20 supported by the private sector through the subsequent registration of = interest=20 in the tender process and goes ahead, it will provide a net community = benefit to=20 the Frankston community. The project will provide for jobs both during = the=20 construction phase and also once the project is complete, and for those = reasons=20 the project should be supported.=20

Ms=20 HUPPERT (Southern Metropolitan) -- I wish to make a few brief = comments in=20 opposition to Ms Pennicuik's motion to revoke amendment C50 to the = Frankston=20 planning scheme. The reason I wish to make these comments is that I am = rather=20 bemused that Ms Pennicuik, as a member of the Greens -- the party that = claims to=20 be the defender of local democracy -- is taking this opportunity to seek = to=20 revoke a planning scheme amendment which Frankston City Council not only = supported but proposed.=20

The purpose of amendment C50, as Ms Mikakos outlined = in great=20 detail but very succinctly, is to allow the construction of a safe boat = harbour=20 off Olivers Hill. The planning scheme amendment follows 20 years of = planning by=20 the Frankston City Council and local groups in order to facilitate what = will be=20 a private sector development funded by the private sector.=20

Ms Pennicuik -- On public land.=20

Ms HUPPERT -- As Ms Pennicuik has pointed out, it = will be on=20 Crown land, but it will be Crown land of which Frankston City Council = will be=20 appointed the committee of management and the leaseholder. If there is a = successful tenderer who puts forward a development that meets the strict = environmental criteria set out in the planning scheme amendment, then = that=20 developer will be required to negotiate a financial return to Frankston = City=20 Council under a lease to be entered into.=20

This is a development which will deliver jobs and = economic=20 development to an area which is sorely in need of it -- and at no cost = to=20 Frankston City Council or the state government.=20

As I said before, this proposal has been on the table = for 20=20 years, during which time there has been debate and discussion with the = community=20 and consultation with stakeholders during the process which led to the = planning=20 scheme amendment. I think it is quite clear that this is something that = is=20 supported by the local community.=20

As Ms Mikakos has also pointed out, the planning = scheme=20 requires the developer of the boat harbour to undertake a quite = significant=20 number of studies and prove to the council and the state government that = the=20 development will not have any deleterious environmental effects.=20

These studies include physical and numerical = modelling that=20 must be subject to an independent review as well as marine and land = flora and=20 fauna surveys, geotechnical surveys and environmental assessment = surveys.=20

As Ms Mikakos pointed out, the council is of the view = that the=20 project will create up to 2000 jobs during construction with a flow-on = effect in=20 the local community. In addition it will create more than 300 permanent = jobs and=20 increase tourism, adding to the already significant tourism attractions = on the=20 Mornington Peninsula.=20

As I said earlier, this proposal has been supported = by the=20 local council as well as by the local boating industry and local = residents. If=20 the Greens were really concerned about ensuring that local democracy = takes=20 priority, then they would not be moving motions of this nature. I urge = all=20 members to vote against the motion.=20

Ms=20 PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) -- I would like to thank Mr Guy, = Ms=20 Mikakos and Ms Huppert for their remarks in response to the motion that = I have=20 moved today to disallow Frankston planning scheme amendment C50. I have to say that = most of the=20 remarks I heard from those three members should have led them to support = my amendment, so I think = their=20 arguments against my amendment -- --=20

Hon. M. P. Pakula -- Revocation.=20

Ms PENNICUIK -- Revocation -- thank you, Mr Pakula. = They put up=20 fairly weak arguments for not supporting the motion. Mr Guy, for = example, said=20 that if we were to disallow C50, there would no = longer be the=20 ability to go ahead with a marina at Olivers Hill. That is not the case, = because=20 with the revocation of C50, there would still = be amendments=20 C15 and C30, which allow for a marina or a boat harbour to be built at = Olivers=20 Hill that would be of a substantially smaller scale, scope and = environmental=20 impact.=20

At the time the panel said it was a borderline case = in terms of=20 its environmental impacts.=20

Mr Guy said he shared our concerns about the lack of=20 environmental processes and the planning process. He said the tender = would need=20 to look at the environmental issues, but my point would be that this = should be=20 looked at through a proper process before it even goes to tender.=20

He conceded that the location at Olivers Hill is of = concern; it=20 is one that has been raised with him and one that he shares, = particularly in=20 that it is not within walking distance from the Frankston central = business=20

Page 3995

district (CBD). The Minister for = Planning=20 said in an answer to a question on notice from me that this was in = keeping with=20 Melbourne 5 Million and Melbourne 2030, because it was near the = Frankston=20 central activities district. It is nowhere near the Frankston central = activities=20 district! I must say that the 22 hectares that is going to be projected = out into=20 Port Phillip Bay is about the same size as the central business district = of=20 Frankston, if people want to imagine that.=20

Mr Guy acknowledged the environmental concerns = relating to=20 erosion and said they must be addressed, and that the opposition would = have=20 preferred a more transparent process. He said we cannot just pull the = plug;=20 however, I say that we would not be pulling the plug because we would = leave=20 amendments C15 and C30 in place.=20

Mr Guy -- You should have lobbied people on your = position=20 before coming to Parliament. You might have had that.=20

Ms PENNICUIK -- Thank you, Mr Guy, for that advice.=20

Mr Guy -- You're welcome. You should have done the = work. You=20 did not do the work.=20

Ms PENNICUIK -- We can debate that at a later time.=20

Mr Guy -- It is true.=20

Ms PENNICUIK -- Mr Guy, whether or not I lobbied you = enough,=20 your position should be, 'What is the correct position?'.=20

The position that you outlined in your contribution = should lead=20 you, I would assume from the things you said, to support the revocation = that I=20 have requested of Parliament. It should not fall down to whether or not = I have=20 spoken to you enough times; it should fall down to the merits of the = motion.=20

Ms Mikakos made some remarks, many of which I was = quite puzzled=20 about, suggesting that the Greens are on a wrecking exercise. In fact = the reason=20 I am moving this disallowance motion is to prevent wreckage of the = foreshore at=20 Olivers Hill. I do not know how often Ms Mikakos goes to Frankston, but = from the=20 things that she was saying I can only infer that she is not particularly = familiar with the area. She somehow seemed to think I was saying that = whether=20 something is a controversy should be a test for planning scheme = amendments. I=20 was not making any such claim. I think she completely misunderstood what = I was=20 saying, so she may want to look at what I said to get the proper = meaning; she=20 would see that she completely misunderstood what I said.=20

Ms Mikakos then went on to talk about housing = affordability,=20 which has nothing to do with the motion. She mentioned that there was = net=20 community benefit from this particular C50 amendment, but no such = net community=20 benefit has been established. In fact, the market soundings and the = Ernst and=20 Young report that the council has put forward have said there would be a = negative benefit.=20

I take the point that Ms Mikakos and Ms Huppert made, = that=20 local democracy is important, and I agree. It is with reluctance that I = have=20 taken this action to move a disallowance motion. However, this is not = just a=20 matter of local democracy.=20

In this instance, with the planning process that has = been=20 followed, it is also a matter of the intervention of the minister -- the = minister actually made the amendment, not the = council -- and=20 the referral of this matter to the priority development panel (PDP). = There is=20 also the matter of the greater interest, as I mentioned in my = contribution --=20 that is, looking after the ecology of Port Phillip Bay, which is already = under=20 assault from the many developments around it. There is a lot of coastal = erosion,=20 particularly along the east side of Port Phillip Bay, and it has been = caused by=20 existing marinas, breakwaters and piers. The development that is = proposed by amendment C50 is huge; it is = massive, it is=20 bigger than any other development in Port Phillip Bay. Those issues come = into=20 play. I am not suggesting that I would get involved in the PDP for the = Frankston=20 transit city, but this proposal invokes wider interests -- the interests = of=20 future generations and future users of the Frankston beaches and the = area around=20 this proposed development.=20

Ms Mikakos basically repeated the history of the = process I=20 outlined and relied heavily on the 1998 environment effects statement = process in=20 her contribution. If Ms Mikakos had read the documentation for that = process, she=20 would well know that it did not look at the proposal that is anticipated = by amendment C50. I went to some = pains to outline=20 what that EES process looked at. Ms Mikakos mentioned that the process = resulted=20 in the amendment that allowed = for 35=20 hectares to be rezoned. That is right, but it was a disingenuous use of = that=20 figure by Ms Mikakos. She seemed to imply by the use of that figure that = the EES=20 process had approved the unlimited amount of reclamation of the seabed = that will=20 be allowed by the C50 amendment. It did no = such thing, so=20 that was completely disingenuous. Ms Mikakos went on to talk about = conditions=20 that any proponent would have to comply with and environmental studies = they=20 would have to undertake. That supports my point: these environmental = studies=20 should have been conducted through a proper environment effects = statement=20 process and should have been put before an independent panel.=20

Page 3996

This proposal is for a massive = development=20 which would have significant effects on local beaches, and putting the = results=20 of such studies only to the council does not cut it. That is the problem = with=20 the process.=20

Ms Huppert mentioned the issue of local democracy, = and I think=20 I have covered that. Disagreeing with a council decision is not = something I do=20 lightly, but there is a wider issue here as well as the issue of the = ministerial=20 intervention and the inappropriate use of the PDP process for something = that=20 should have gone through a full EES process.=20

Both Ms Mikakos and Ms Huppert talked at length about = how the=20 need for a boat harbour et cetera has been talked about for 20 years. = Why has it=20 been talked about for so long? The reasons for this and why so many = studies have=20 been conducted are that there are many complicated issues involved and = any=20 proposal would have a significant impact on beaches around the area.=20

The appropriateness of the site has been and still is = the=20 subject of much debate. That is why we are still talking about it 20 = years on.=20

It is a big thing to put forward a motion to disallow = a=20 planning scheme amendment. I think I have outlined the reasons I have = done so.=20 It is with the interests of Victorians, and particularly the interests = of people=20 in the Frankston area, at heart that I have moved this motion. The = revocation of=20 this planning scheme amendment would not result in nothing happening. = Existing=20 planning scheme amendments would still allow something with a less = significant=20 impact on the environment to go ahead. I do not want to allow what I = regard as a=20 misuse of the planning process to go through this chamber unremarked = upon, and=20 that is why I have moved this disallowance motion.=20

House divided on motion:=20

Ayes, 4
Barber, Mr Kavanagh, Mr (Teller)

Hartland, Ms Pennicuik, Ms (Teller)

Ayes, 4
Barber, Mr	Kavanagh, Mr (Teller)
Hartland, Ms	Pennicuik, Ms (Teller)

Noes, 33
Atkinson, Mr Leane, Mr

Broad, Ms Lenders, Mr

Coote, Mrs Lovell, Ms

Dalla-Riva, Mr Madden, Mr

Darveniza, Ms Mikakos, Ms

Davis, Mr D. O'Donohue, Mr

Davis, Mr P. Pakula, Mr

Drum, Mr Petrovich, Mrs

Eideh, Mr Peulich, Mrs

Elasmar, Mr Pulford, Ms

Finn, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr

Guy, Mr Scheffer, Mr

Hall, Mr (Teller) Smith, Mr

Huppert, Ms Somyurek, Mr

Jennings, Mr Tierney, Ms

Koch, Mr Viney, Mr (Teller)

Kronberg, Mrs

Noes, 33
Atkinson, Mr	Leane, Mr
Broad, Ms	Lenders, Mr
Coote, Mrs	Lovell, Ms
Dalla-Riva, Mr	Madden, Mr
Darveniza, Ms	Mikakos, Ms
Davis, Mr D.	O'Donohue, Mr
Davis, Mr P.	Pakula, Mr
Drum, Mr	Petrovich, Mrs
Eideh, Mr	Peulich, Mrs
Elasmar, Mr	Pulford, Ms
Finn, Mr	Rich-Phillips, Mr
Guy, Mr	Scheffer, Mr
Hall, Mr (Teller)	Smith, Mr
Huppert, Ms	Somyurek, Mr
Jennings, Mr	Tierney, Ms
Koch, Mr	Viney, Mr (Teller)
Kronberg, Mrs

Motion negatived.=20

Sitting suspended 6.26 p.m. until 8.03 p.m.=20

[New=20 Search]=20

Copyr= ight=20 & Disclaimer | Privacy

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/nav/Parl_Home.gif R0lGODlhhAAVAMQAACMYIV5WXIqEicTBxP///zInMJiTl0A3P7ayteLg4aejpk9GTWxla3t0etPR 0yEXIPDw8KqmqiIXICEWH6unq4eCh7CssDQwMwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAAA AAAALAAAAACEABUAQAX/ICCOZGmeaKqubOu+MDoIooAAC2MkC3AoCAEBEBgWBAlRbtc7GIIJngFi GDEEhkHhmGAgIA3fICEIlAjmEVrktFW5jAHkmtCKrtkCK/KI+f+AgYItFhKDLAeHiouMKTNnZlk1 AyNFIpYAa5IAApQAj5lmnSWYmKMma2pmBWAiCmGmno+nLhGGjbi5uru8vb6LoApJLJgHA4m8Xiep Isy+FH0uoCRXA560pUN3ndeyNKEACAoBAQqU2ZPLac1mC9oAkrEij+Lk5nvRgAUBejD7/S8W8Fux ANmLfQZbCASogs+vhxAjSpxIsaLFiyU6BTGgICGKI9qMefzlZMA4H1lOy/66MOEFKEwrYP6iRcKZ s17QXApoYMCAnjRAakBYAEtbKVc3OCXQk+DGAQI94riqUqSHAAjpUCkQwFVIGgeryBCBCkAYUxpS y1ZZ4VDatxEcj3SrZFRb3FOnQK0xSW4gOk6eINU0U6TfKHmfaPAlxxBFWxZXHYQZ4cABlgQBDiDg AQAkA88AKl/OvHnBgqaJCAjY4gBBgAYLQBdhAKABAQM92Bgg4BolbzMN5vDsLISBZs4DEBwo0Pp1 7ob5MErvZWu6dV4VWl7fzisEADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/nav/Hansard.gif R0lGODlhTAAVAMQAACMYIf///15WXIqEicTBxEA3PzInME9GTXt0etPR05iTlyEXILaytaqmquLg 4fDw8Gxla6ejpiIXICEWH6unq7CssDQwM4eChwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAAA AAAALAAAAABMABUAQAX/ICCOZGmeaKqu7CkE5DtCQ6KIUDJEzw0gBAVBJEAwCAbAgTAgDA2DAeMx YDUWrax2u61IuODwqSB2wUYyQBNgCAhEbvgbIWKmdfUqO0A3UK1fZYKDhIWGg2lEZ4cqTCwUWCyJ AIkFUXEAmHEODgMHIgYIA515IgeLjitXhAefKwYCrgAFbyoFslaRjLu8vb6/wGUCEUFkw8XBSngr FhMtk5PBqSqQzwFRURGLbwUBrtdK3gAPc0QipAAECaHptcsqq5KLlGcFDm+atXFQDHwAeKlSJZqW Ip4KAf0UGEtYAEIABS8iAHA4IMk1AwkgIFhX4AEDIARuOWBARk0PICRVD+lKFqxBIJbBLjiDSVNE CAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/nav/council.gif R0lGODlhiQAVANUAACMYIYqEiV5WXP///8TBxDInMGxla09GTbaytdPR00A3P+Lg4ZiTl6ejpvDw 8Ht0eqqmqiEXICIXICEWHyEXHxoSGaunqx8VHRwTG05FTYeChyIYIDQwM6WhpQ0JDLCssCAWHgAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAACJABUAQAb/QIBw SCwaj8ikcnhZOp/QqNQYIFADCIawEGAsAgGAISEAHBLVA0AwEB4MXrWC8BWMBVxC+YBQH8AJakMP CUlgDAR+DWF3ZlleBAVCBgEdhY0AA2VJEBFTSAqaAAULBp9DGKeqq6saE6ysCrCztEYFkkkcr0tV QwEHBGFEBcGyQ6IPQlhrbZlliMpWQqJCCw2maw64VA6bWwABC0IKCxIABFoH1MFC7AkNRdTUSJ21 9ve1Ex74/P3+/6x6nUKArQgbJBQMIBhC8JSBSES08GvoTIkFT7ykDXEQQIAANBWXTSvTwAEDbAcn VZEmsCIABPAeyApARkCAZsrEHUEgrIAo/3YugbLrFm/TvCP1VHkcYtPjOyNLbeEZssGMMScKBFw1 ktWbG69mBDkRIFYKBHMA06pdy7at27dw46p9gADoFIrDbiKpUATvFAUMDsHs15AN2CIXnbSslfLI 4lMFHGwFMJnfUSNJlTwOXM0UAVMNNIriGZaZkE0NFoITXSaUIC3kJBEi8njIQ2UO2glbt5BUGDBC krm8XCSzIY23BnSMSgBBgT7HNj0oCS8lgwZ5okU/PYCLsppaiYQSXgTddqDrhLEbUHCke05okxRI 8AWMuAMcbUoK53GqAeXPPTDGAVywB0ACaHhRxgMDMPAGgDkR0UACBlRohAELoBHAIqO8IzxAAxmY EwBHNwVQwAELICBLcwrg1xEjAP5nIicYwaKOLxp9AoJca30QHywC8MTAYVJQwOORSCZZBF/8BAEA Ow== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/nav/assembly.gif R0lGODlhlgAVAMQAACMYIYqEiV5WXP///3t0esTBxE9GTUA3PzInMOLg4ZiTl2xla/Dw8Kejpray tdPR0yEXIKqmqiIXIKunqyEWH4eChzQwM7CssAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAAA AAAALAAAAACWABUAAAX/ICCOZGmeaKqubOu+cCzPdG3feK7vfO//wKBwuEIgiEjR4bSEWSgsQaOg aMICgZNgIGhhb18gQjEoGR5Z2ATS2tLCJi7qkBjBaYV60F0qpF9rbWU9clqDOQIHDAt7hyN+MRFs UY4iBlgPBiJYCQoBCAYOWQhUDgQicggLAQmnYwMBBKFZCwUECAcKpwBYDgooWQoOI6TCp2cBBZoI WLYAC2gNsLUJmgBbUgy7kMnHDl0okoIldEcED7y/BIfcBSK7cgbmDCJ8AJAACWm/AJ4iCYzInTow oEmydwBEATCg6UEXgkdgAVinqcGwawM0rTsCCcEiEfzCTVphb5NDAQHK/0ASQE8EpHUNbqECd0la PXZpWAE4sItBAAEC0JjwxCkNTJkNGChgZIALUDly+BzEOEIOvgYNnlk5IY4SiQMBTibilWDMrntp BChIoEcOtAN87OHzuKrqT6AmmI0g0PLaWj0EkjbABtRa1EFT7RVEa2kAgrPhJIyz9JPBERINFIBz mWUXy5mMFwyS+8fiH3wnAmzVNrEevV0BHHjcDFqqO6rXLqLWR5vrSBXSsCTr0uDBguMLBywAusRA AgdgfzoT/UmBz3UDBzhY4Bx6YysGfKK8/M7nXrYopZ8yBU2jNpTPYIFVTlYTy8FpuhvUo6IrDbhN 5AJUA/yNYIAA5JEw1k9X1rTRGwsHkocXMQI0WMQ1FgrEQgSS6cAAOCUlISINCySIwgUd5qCPCL6M 6KIM8vyhQgVQ6HBAZrq8qOMLATRg4o5ABinkkEQWaeSRQIQAADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/nav/index.gif R0lGODlhNwAVAMQAACMYIYqEiV5WXMTBxDInMP///0A3P09GTeLg4dPR0yEXIKqmqmxla7aytaej pnt0evDw8CIXICEWH6unqzQwM4eCh5iTl7CssAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAAA AAAALAAAAAA3ABUAQAXJICCOZGmeaKqiQwAYVhMkyCEaQTAUgnjkiQNh4BAFDKqFYsVsOkcVyZNJ IExRFKmqZRx0AYwCUsADCCBWUoCQYKyU17h8Tq+TuM2yfbLcugA6X4EiZTMCAgEFIgIIf0l9dQdI JQYCkyQ2SRF2nJ2en6B1Og0PTGQ9e5Asjit6dXB+RghWDQ0ABLO3ZQa5Dwm3CAIMqCmwKXiDgYMA hQmHliJDtm+bKQEQCQ8GDTWA3QONZGsADm0MDAQONgcQbsWqoXMX1fH19nEhADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/nav/Glossary.gif R0lGODlhTAAVAMQAACMYIYqEiV5WXDInMMTBxHt0ekA3P////09GTaejppiTl+Lg4Wxla9PR07ay taqmqvDw8Kunq7CssDQwM4eChwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAAA AAAALAAAAABMABUAQAX/ICCOZGmeaKqu7JkoKRGIghIQhag4LzAQu9yAEVgIiwyI4JZDOASpR2tK rQIQgxmLYk0ZuuDVhNpoDEY3kQwgOHwBCwMCITogcmwIYM040PwkCwFQKlJhh4iJiouMJQoJJAMw e1qNYBFTPCQBDg5na2kiDQEGBzJfBQcJBWdXAQmAbSQJkAxvKIZUAwICtyYGAq0AwLcIwSO9KwZ4 hZbOz9DR0tONDDacOFej1C2YLQILJoRr3Cu5K+QnawYLZwh27yI5oU1nBXpsBwVzAxAMOs1a3BMG IBSoBiPWBWjgho2CBeEYNAAWC5CIdwOY4dKVAIKNBNsQLHDwBeSSHAKeITwqOCibAggBUrEKcOAf mnDmyiliQBCFBJ2HXvUESnRFCAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/nav/search.gif R0lGODlhNwAVALMAAIqEicTBxDInMHt0eraytWxla09GTZiTl0A3P6ejpvDw8NPR0+Lg4V5WXP// /yMYISH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAA3ABUAAATF8MlJq7046827/2AojmRpZogJrASRngLglAMw2afUzGTQ TK/crtQSVAqAQ8BoKBwYhgciQZA9BLXA4bFrEBSDkGHhUARshYAksf09qBKAwhAORB/hXXSgICEK YAQJDQ0Jag9IAYcAhwY8E0NcjyMrAYOERgcJMYuHO0aQPJEfOGsIjBUOP0pxhwIOYaE6kx0EB4QH BVcLBA0DUQsLSQwNCARQEnwDBQUxDro7uiAIhBUGDaAC2BraQTnf4OHi4+Tl5ufoOREAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/nav/parlnavbg.gif R0lGODlhTwAVAIAAACMYIQAAACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAABPABUAQAIohI+py+0Po5y02ouz3rz7D4bi SJbmiabqyrbuC8fyTNf2jef6zvdKAQA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/hansard/seal1sml.gif R0lGODlhPABGAPcAAP////7+/v/9+f39/fz8/P37+fT+//r7/fz6+Pr6+vj4+Pr49Pb29vj28fT0 9PXy7Ov0+fLy8vHy8/Dw8PPw4/Lu5u7u7u3t7evr6+rr7u7p4Ojo6Ofn5+bo6evm2ubm5uXl5ePj 4+Hh4erfyeDf3+Tf1t7e3ufeztzc3Nfd4N/a0OTax9nZ2eLXw9fX19XV1dDX2trUydPT09LS0tDQ 0NrQvs7OztnOu9vNscvLy9XLudfJsMrKysjIyMXJysfHx8jIx9XFpsbGxtLFrsvFusTExNHBoMHB wcvBrsq/qL6+vr6/v8y9osW8q7u7u8q6nLq6urm5ub25rMe3msK4pre3t7a4vLa3uci1krW1tcC1 ocK0mbKzs8GxlcWxiruwm7CwtLCwsLSvpcGsg72sjK2trbirk9egmr6qhcCpfKqqqrmnhbWoj6en p7SmirOkh6WlpayjlNGYkbqhc6GhorGefJ+fn6qbiZycnLSaaJqamqyZdZeXl7WUV5eVkZWVlaqT apeWhJKSkq2QV56Rc4+Pj46OhJGNiaOMYIyMjOd9GpKLeYmJiXmKtK2FOqWGSoKHloaGhoqHdsh0 bJWEZYKEj5mDWI+EboSDhIGAgX5+fod8apR6Rr9pZXt7fKV2KqZ3HHl5edNpFnl4cXZ2dn9yXHNz c4NySYxvSppsRdpdFnFxcnBwcLRlFqtmGMlcEm1tbXZtXIZrNdFWFbNeFJFlGVJrmLlTSstSFFpq emdnZ5tbH2RkZHFjRHthM2hjWMlMD7pQCapUFG1hR8FNEl1eXcBHC6VLEbxDEUxablZWVqdEDZ5E J09VXlVUS1RTUoJLFldSUWNQKpNCG1BQULM4EZ87A0xMTKI5D1BMR0NMXIVACbQxDU9JQC9KfkdH R54xJpA1Fp8yEKQtDZoxBE9DNUNDQ54sEFQ9GY0nHzw8PJkiCT44MD83NzY3OZ8bCWMsCHwjBzwz JTExMUktDzYuISkqKZQOBRQsUWgWBC8kEyIeIksTDQ0VLygMAg0KByH5BAEAABQALAAAAAA8AEYA AAj/ACkIHEiwoMGDCBMqXMiwocOHECNKnOgQRRY+mEiZMhUqEp4oFEMWZFFI2TVqvFiFypQpFKxi 1K7x0iNyYg5d6mb2QDEhAICfAAhcYHGkpDpSLGo2RAHLnacXFxKEiELnjyCrhfjAWbJBAQYerNyF UqoQjjpdKByECFNID5cXIDBEiIAhhI0wfwpFwcCAhjJ1UMgabJoFAAs6ibJcAMq4MYgyidSEAIBn HibBA2OSUMAlcQKgF0gA6OEkQYQiNiYAjQA5CgAb6mBhNldMwYdCdjA05mOORTF3GMKYS0QDwAYG P1Ho4cPgw7ViZGUmeBHpCFAhiVTzmWcKFjUSmOYV/4ogwhyeoAASlGGEAQPKmrqUOXCBiQfjP/My KShSTCasH8WQkgMAf+wjCB+u/eREJBOAYI4mITGijgMkRGLDTzzY10Yx87BCgyBKKPHCBnasUoYM sEQSCjUovDAgAEcwkoAN7sAxkRDz5DBBItb9FMY3GzhhThlchBCCDEo44cQPP6Awwwtl/CMIAEWo kwUBAOAVgFlJRfTNlHaokd5PBCSiTBFKkJADHn/A4cQSXFwBhyB0yMBDJHJh8g0mIARlRxgA8CIb RIlcw4ANiXzGAyOqfRBJES8IgocNWDpwyC9+ALDfH3iYQOA1HACAHAAWMBICC+5UAZE6XCgQiWgA cP9QjC5Q6BFBG4JcCBQQ9MCDTgZAHZFIGFCg0BgAQhQCQCTKPKRJbWGImQAcOSTgyTdh2GGHaozZ II8/3UjA2AaCcHGspnYUEYGVDmGbAKMAOKHMM4WwYAMcdigQQBFqhMECAGDUQ485HQBgghNXyPUH oMfa8EcCiUDHkB3UKBCGuRjwQg0supRRBB9eedJOPfKYs8o1+tCjj0rfsCNPNG1sUEgRQCmgQFB4 8BCBOzYwxEsiARTSJwAvPPPNCyEwCAAd+9AjjTT17GPPP1Tvo089T9PTTpPsxZuSp0fAQYAumSyU wzcu8ADHzQkwEAAeWfwxYAKZ/PMLBCLEEYvKTev/U8odJBjwyz6YZMnFDM/gAYcpBEzwBwlKmLOQ HcoAYId9NqySCClHvKAHlgAw8k87ckxySyfgxLNNPOl0csskZ7TzDx8AfABHIZigAEcxn8EhhAXm /KCQLowwwIcIAChhzzfK8PCHC0Apz8899yyzzjvCtDLOO9ZYQ70/7sjwExdtRKyMrj3QMUGKCl1T BA1tjMqDOYVggEcEQB1gyDbjYOMKNuJwhSuEsQ5hCOMc1pCGDwLAQBLYwQU22MALjhCACAgCA3SQ 2EFsYA4HRME1DGiDC4rQBjoUwSdASYEvyPEOAN7jGK64nvXesY04NGZSeFCGO5ThKT2EYAbfSIga /yrXBvvAwRy8SEAC+PCvxoxiG8s4xjEMOMUpLsMa6IBBY6KghizogReFMFcZhBCCawgBIZtTAB7+ tYqYFAEFeNhAYwoQC3SAYhrTAMUu8riLcLiiFvroEVBYgAcH7OcDH6BSGTigDDogBBaF2AAe+oSo Yqyii6P6yQK88AlLcIITizjFKTYhC05Q4pOc6MMJGKMAPsiRMSiggwXYd5BiqCGW+AMKAcLgBMYU wAiIcEMqdkFMaNCDHtCoxSdA8Yk9fAEQHmCMHpoIFAv8IQKaMAVCnnEEGbQBdEDxGGNWgIgmEIEZ xkjnLPIBD1EQ4xXvrIMYhjCGBgCFDi+qWSEYkP8IXiDkGjmggZgaowZdAeABaNgDGajADFw4VBXx gMcskFENbrwCEE2IASKGAJQwKAGFP0nAPvWgwYJQ4wU2KENjEtAGg9YAEDFIwiXC4VBiQBQer0DG OHARDFTEQQcxQMMDfpKFKzXmmnRo1kGoAUGVMmZaulrAE7qQhCaUIx+zIAYxZhFRRcxiHLMQBT0k UYIKPKEGP4mCUe8TgaT+cwYpXSkcinPQOnxhDYTYRzxUMQtc3FQVxuCrKPzxiwfogAxM+EkVuADO nyBVqQahBg8EeqyC/qQCdh3CJv6Rj2UsAxvYyAc9WkGLVkjRH+xoAhUoQQYfRQGk6dknH0pKEGX/ OOEFbfgMY9RAMwB4AAsaqMAi/tGPqPVjH/3wBzzgwc58/KMeRIgBG9bwEzj0oDEM2Gc/EVIMOJBA fY3hQi99i4YarOAS/8BHMZJhi1zggx/AmEU15OuPepRVB1P4iR6gx5gL8AGbpEAIKfCEh8kw5ghl +EwFMKoDQqR3GMloBCTcAd+J4qIa/nAGFb5Qhyek5w+JZMxhMKCLRCBEEKwggB1e0JgZ4EE3DVjD F6jwBHn0oxfesEUl3gsMeOJiHf8gKxsssQMAkEAP3ALKEsIAgmeoASFZoAYA1PCDxkRAD8YCwA4A YQYibKIfz9CGN0zBY63iIh/y+EIX3gAIDcRL/w03220OSPANGiDkBebAgJKOZYfr+jYPTUCCFrqB j2Y04xfv7ess1sGPQOiACJZAw0/sIIRj8QEEPwhiQqgRhRfAIZfBosPNEBCEPcTgBmZ4Bj7KoQwe I4Mc8FgEEr7QBGgCAAOPawwGLigIXSgEFpgwHvIYE4FEhAoAFciDG5LQhSmUIhv2SG5Ey7EILWgh DpYIgoLaEGegFOHTxfiDQujwDMvZh6BZYGAATjCHNVBhCw3Agix84YtTEEIKbzCDGPaQhgIAwAF8 yOc9ebABdbxAITb4xgx4wO3GXABPQGlBHgChAg4Mog8jWAEZyECEO7ABEI/g6GiYo+s/hEAN1//w WSFE+krGlKENjNHAGObQh08k9gCOyAMKpPAIUMyhAgC4wB/8zBgliK0YhWAIuRXQBiUcKwKMEB9Q ENACR4AiD0+4QR+M4AEv5GEH9szS51ZqhxyAQB0oYAgKzBGFCezzWC9ghAUaowEspAELNO/DHHaw AKDMAOKNocEfCIAJXzeEFLBQsSCBkgC2JPknJUACFrwwBSzo9icsiMTQnkqHI6xrCQ6hgTqEwIFI ZPInglhCFgRx7J+owA2OcAQadMAY6hyBBtT8CQ0SsSzINoRjAyjDQH+SA2psoPGJODcATvAIRwzC ETgIaRgY8YIPuIMXkSiNpgRBgxCwCyLucAL/1FksqgBFQhPTEYQebMBAHIxhDEEQQAScUAg69GkC J7vGeACQhfOwwp8R8QffwACLohpnpwt6QAM5YwFFwCZbsVhWYAeCAAczQAA2EAoBkAPqUAYTMAAs gAkRsATukAMT8QyhMGV4MAADEBcD8CMs8AIvMAEcQANRAAZgcAQsIBcvsEa8oAkMQAeVdgGYwAIb 8A0mNhEvMA+AIghloG5F8A1CAAfPUAxlEAEgsAEOECuhYgfFYA52YAHXAAc/UWwfBQu+JxFlMA82 IFJlgCVHkAVFaAOElAXPwQI/AAu8kAVhcA26cFIkQDMYUAiAUghoVxOMMA8soACCED8/YQPF/2AH xUFiwcZNPPAMF0ANmjCBP0ECw2I58yA8SqEJ4UMZggArWQALdkA0zzAgz9AGMnANE7AEdKBEMFId lDEPToAZmYCLMJIIZXAzFnAzLqAJfXIExQALdKCCN2MCevAH/7KLoIcZFIAfUxIC5ZMFWZgeSdYi 6oYCdlAISkAXymAOPCCNA3EEzGMDDAACbMEHVcACFzABcxEBF2ADbZAVPDABDIAH6sAK5mgQmtAh NBAVFiGBhYAVfNAGRTABDsABZXAN5hAG/3gQLsAK6lAMOUMCoBZSGPACUaAJ1/ANfDCRCoECJXEN z6ALppAJkaAiL3EN1wALEkmSDcECZSAImRSgEaTgCYxgB0dAk0AZlEI5lP8YEAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/parl_web.css BODY { BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f3f0e3; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; MARGIN-LEFT: 5%; FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN-RIGHT: 5% } P { FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } UL { TEXT-ALIGN: justify; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } OL { TEXT-ALIGN: justify; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } LI { TEXT-ALIGN: justify; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } DD { FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 92% } DL { FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 92% } H1 { FONT-FAMILY: "Book Antiqua", "Times New Roman", serif; FONT-SIZE: 185% } H2 { FONT-FAMILY: "Book Antiqua", "Times New Roman", serif; FONT-SIZE: 160% } H3 { FONT-FAMILY: "Book Antiqua", "Times New Roman", serif; FONT-SIZE: 140% } H4 { FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman", serif; FONT-SIZE: 100% } TR { FONT-SIZE: 90% } TH { FONT-SIZE: 90% } TD { FONT-SIZE: 90% } .justify { TEXT-ALIGN: justify } .footer { FONT-SIZE: 75% } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CA3C3F.8A5653C0--

VICHANSARDWhole Speech

FRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT

VICHANSARD
Whole Speech