Historical notes and information on key issues relating to the need for conserving the open spaces and non-urban uses in this corridor.

 

This is an initial draft of the Defender's issues page; the completed version will be available soon

Overview

The South East Green Wedge is under severe threat from urban subdivision!

Although it has been State Government policy since the 1960's to retain and protect the Green Wedge, this has not deterred local councils from approving some very large developments.

The Green Wedge comprises approx 45,000 hectares of land and stretches from Warrigal/Heatherton Road in the north to Westernport Bay in the south. The eastern and western boundaries are formed by the edges of Dandenong/Cranbourne and Bayside urban corridors. The Green Wedge covers land in the municipalities of Kingston, Greater Dandenong, Frankston and Casey.

In 1997 the South East Non-Urban Study (SENUS) was completed. This study was commissioned by the above four municipalities and the State Government Dept of Infrastructure. Its principal finding was that 'the concept of the green wedge is supported and needs to be maintained. This is consistent with the context of the existing State Government policy for the area'.

The Study came up with a secondary finding that some parts of the area have potential for urban conversion, although this is limited. In addition, the Study also concluded that limited low density environmentally based residential development would be appropriate.

The SENUS recommendations were accepted by the four municipalities who then entered into an agreement to uphold its principles. Unfortunately, since the report, there has been a surge in development all of which supposedly is in line with principles of limited urban conversion and environmentally based residential development. Some examples of this are:

  • A recent proposal by the City of Greater Dandenong to allow development north of Hutton Road. This development will accommodate approximately 10,000 additional residents over the next 10 to 20 years. According to the Council's draft strategy, it is not considered major because it is minor compared to that which the total population South East Growth area will accommodate in that period.
  • The Royal Botanic Ridge development in the City of Casey will contain approx 3,600 house lots accommodating around 11,000 people. This estate abuts the Royal Botanic Gardens in Cranbourne and was strongly opposed by the Garden's management. Drainage from the estate poses a real threat to the health of Westernport Bay.
  • The Waterways Estate in Governor Road Braeside is being constructed on a floodplain and will contain 700 houses. It was approved on the basis that it is an environmental residential development because a significant portion of the land will used for wetlands and a lake.
  • The Sandhurst development in the City of Frankston will have 1,850 house lots accommodating approx 5,500 residents and is placed close to the narrow part of the Green Wedge. This sets a dangerous precedent for additional subdivisions on nearby land.
  • The Burdett proposal at Potts Road, Langwarrin which provides for 385 houses on land that includes vegetation of state significance. If approved, this subdivision will accomodate approx 1,040 residents.

The Green Wedge Concept

The SENUS report defined the Green Wedge concept as:

  • Very low density development
  • High quality landscape
  • A defined edge, eg roads, ridges, watercourses, created features
  • Improved environmental quality
  • Development of habitat and environmental links
  • A continuous open space link connected to nodes of active or passive recreation.

Within the Green Wedge the following uses were considered appropriate:

  • Public open space and public purposes, eg wetlands parks, sports fields, retarding basins
  • Low density institutional use, eg schools, clubs, churches
  • Limited low density environmentally based residential development
  • Major infrastructure , eg Eastern Treatment Plant, cemetery
  • Agriculture, horticulture, quarrying and landfill

Uses not considered appropriate are urban uses such as residential, rural residential, industrial or commercial.

Why We Need The Green Wedge

Melbourne is lucky to have a number of Green Wedges. These were, in the main, the result of Melbourne growing along the railway corridors radiating from the city. The Wedges provide welcome breathing space and are essential to stop Melbourne developing into a 'wall to wall' residential and industrial' city like Los Angeles.

In addition to their value for recreation, conservation and farming purposes, the Wedges also house valuable infrastructure that requires large areas with buffer zones, such as airports, sewerage works and offensive industry.

Threats To The Green Wedge

The main threat to the Green Wedge is the continuing urban subdivision plus the industrial development that will flow from the construction of the Scoresby Freeway.

The spate of approvals for residential development over the past few years has raised expectations that more land will be set aside for housing. This in turn has attracted developers looking for opportunities and there now seems to be a mood that much of the Green Wedge is ripe for development.

Growth Corridors

There is no justification for urban subdivision in the Green Wedge because, according to SENUS, there is 20 years supply of future residential land contained in designated growth areas around Melbourne.

The Metropolitan Strategy

The State Government has set up a team to develop the Metropolitan Strategy which guide the way Melbourne will develop over the next 20 to 30 years. Part of this strategy will cover Melbourne's Green Wedges which are also known as No-Urban Areas.

What Needs To Be Done

If the South East Green Wedge is to be retained there clearly needs to be an immediate halt to residential subdivision, at least until the Metropolitan Strategy is finalised and accepted by the State Government. Some steps you can take are:

  • Tell the municipal councils concerned that you oppose any more eating away of the Green Wedge.
  • Tell your local state member of parliament of your concerns about the Green Wedge.
  • Write to Mr John Thwaites, Minister for Planning, urging him to ensure that no more residential development is allowed in the Green Wedge.
  • Have a say in the preparation of the new Metropolitan Strategy - see the Dept of Infrastructure's website: www.doi.vic.gov.au/doi/internet/strategy.nsf

Previous Planning Decisions Related To The Green Wedge

1. As long ago as 1967 the notion of growth corridors separated by green wedges was outlined in two reports:
  • The Future Growth of Melbourne (MMB W)
  • Organisation for Strategic Planning (Town and Country Planning Board, 1967).

2. In 1971 in a framework plan for the growth of Melbourne, corridors of urban development were to be separated by permanent green wedges. (Planning Policies for the Melbourne Metropolitan Region- MMBW, 1971).

3. After several reviews and reassessments of planning for the growth of Melbourne the MMBW in its 1981 report Metropolitan Strategy Implementation confirmed the maintenance of the commitment to green wedges.

4. In 1987 the Ministry for Planning and the Environment having taken over the responsibility for the planning of metropolitan Melbourne from the MMBW reaffirmed support for the retention of green wedges in the document Shaping Melbourne's Future.

5. The implementation of new metropolitan planning schemes in 1989 based on the directives of the 1987 policy statement amended the regional Section of all metropolitan planning schemes to include a range of policies one of which was. "Melbourne's growth corridors are separated by valuable wedges of open countryside that are to be preserved.

6. In the April 1992 publication A Place to Live (production of the Department of Planning and Housing") two statements are under Land Use " The growth corridor -green wedge policy will be maintained as the basis for future planning and development " (p 9) and the green wedge between Dandenong and Frankston [is one of the] region's most important assets..... preservation is essential to the livability of the south east" (p 4 7).

7. In August 1992 the Department of Planning and Housing in conjunction with the City of Springvale and the City of Dandenong sponsored the Keysborough Non Urban Area Review. This extensive review of previous planning policy was undertaken to clarify the non urban and associated land use practices in the Keysborough region of the wedge. No final report was published but chapter 2.2 "Urban Containment and the role of non urban areas" and chapter 2.3 "Government policy and initiatives influencing planning of non urban areas" canvass and generally support the values arguing for the maintenance of the green wedge.

8. In the Victorian Government publication Living Suburbs, A Policy for Metropolitan Melbourne into the 21" Century (December 1995) the current government outlines a range of objectives and strategic directions having a direct bearing on Melboume's green wedges. The policy adopts five basic spatial objectives. Two quoted in other documents are "Optimum use should be made of existing urban land and land already set aside for growth" and 'Melburnians should continue to have ready access to green spaces and non urban land offering recreational and related opportunities. " The policy talks about the twenty years of land supply in Melbourne, integrating land development with transport systems and the need to encourage the efficient use of land and infrastructure. These policies have been carried through with force by encouraging higher density development in existing built up areas and encouraging better design solutions in new and developing areas. The broad thrust of these policies is consolidation rather than expansion of the metropolitan area into areas that have not been earmarked for urban development.

9. In 1996 the Review of issues on the Urban Fringe included discussion of many of the issues of the south east and quoted several of the documents listed above. Paragraph 2.1 Urban Growth Corridor Policy is particularly relevant to this whole discussion. To take just a couple of quotes from this section on page 1 1 "The green wedge l development corridor concept has existed since the 1960's and has been endorsed and relied upon since that time, despite its critical review on numerous occasions. " "The Advisory Committee notes the long standing commitment to the urban corridor policy and strongly endorses the growth corridorlgreen wedge concept.

10. As a direct result of a wide range of pressures to urbanise different parts of the wedge from Heatherton to Cranboume a major policy study The South Eastern Non Urban Study (SENUS)was finalised in 1997 for the Department of Infrastructure and the Cities of Frankston, Greater Dandenong, Kingston and Casey The study conclusions support the green wedge concept and do not support major urban conversion recommending that any major conversion be the subject of a metropolitan wide review.

11. Kingston Council and the Council of Greater Dandenong have followed up with the 'Strategic Review Report of the Keysborough 1Wetlands Area." The report states the importance of non urban policies and places a number of tests on urban conversion and non urban land uses.

12. Local government also has a record of supporting the concept of the green wedge. As noted above both Kingston and Greater Dandenong (and previously Springvale) Councils have joined with State government departments in reviews of the green wedge. Gillian Hibbins in her "History of Springvale " (1984) describes how (p242) the Council in 1972 supported the establishment of wetlands in the green wedge at Edithvale and later at Chelsea Heights.

13. Greater Dandenong Council sponsored the review (RL166) of the Keysborough area and although they gave scant support for the full maintenance of the green wedge did recognise the need for the review of the area. In the case, not unlike the present one, where Greater Dandenong was considering rezoning of land in the green wedge (Keysborough Local Structure Plan -Amendments RL 166 and L43 and L44) the panel considered the amendment to be inappropriate and lacking in any persuasive justification of the need for the land to be developed for urban purposes. The report is informative and commended to this panel for consideration. "It is upon this basis the Panel has unanimously decided strongly in favour of recommending the retention of the Keysborough Green Wedge in its present non -urban zoning and of abandoning the three amendments. This recommendation is not qualified, it does not embrace the notion that the Amendments are premature and hence their approval should be deferred pending further changes or modifications or the outcome of other inquiries into green wedge and urban fringe issues. The proposed Amendments are inappropriate and should be abandoned.

14. Kingston in its 1995-1998 Three Year Kingston Corporate Plan (p53) stated that Kingston Council will............ Protect the non urban area from urban development".

15. Kingston's Municipal Strategic Statement (p6) recognises and values the green wedge and other green areas in the following terms. "Kingston's vast array of natural open space areas stand out as its most highly valued resource " and "The non urban land will principally be protected from the intrusion of urban uses Limited conversion of non urban land for urban purpose may only be considered where development is able to utilise existing urban infrastructure and will not restrict the continued operation or further development of existing environmental social or economic assets.
...