CANCELLEDVWomen and Climate Change: Why Climate Change is not gender-neutral

Due to illness this event has been cancelled - apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.

11am, 18th February 2012

Under the Gum, Birrarung Marr, 

Federation Square, Melbourne

Map of venue below

The presentation will discuss the relationship between women and the environment by focusing on the issue of climate change. You will come away with an understanding of how climate change is not a gender neutral issue – both in how a consideration of gender matters for assessing both the impacts of climate change and working out ways to address it. Specific examples will be provided to demonstrate this. Whilst there will be some reference to the global situation for women, the main focus will be on Australia and how climate change is a women’s issue in our highly industrialised country. There are significant insights to be gained by distinguishing between the behaviour and attitudes of women and men that points us in some different direction at the level of policy development and at the level of grassroots action. Taking a gendered approach to climate change is vital for the success of any policy or actions and is relevant to all levels and settings from the offices of government to the kitchen table.

Yellingbo, Woori Yallock or 'State Emblems' Park?

Yellingbo Park Investigation

Submissions close on 20 February 2012.

There will be further opportunities for submissions following publication of the Draft Proposal Paper.

You can join an online discussion forum.  Have your say here.

In August 2011 the State Government requested an investigation of the biodiversity and ecological values within the Yellingbo investigation area, identify threats to these values and to make recommendations relating to management to conserve and enhance these values (click here for full Terms of Reference).

What’s the Park Proposal?  
The Woori Yallock Park Alliance has the support of 18 local environment groups as well as many individuals and agencies. They propose a single Park in the Woori Yallock Creek Sub-catchment be created to link existing parks and reserves, via existing public land.  

Central to the Park is Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve – home to all three of the State’s land-based emblems – hence the proposed name of “Yellingbo State Emblems Park”.  Under the management of a single agency, we expect improved outcomes for this public land, including integrated pest plant and animal control, and superior fire management - leading to habitat conservation and enhancement.

The Park  will build on environmental works by Melbourne Water, the Catchment Management Authority (eg, Yarra4Life), local community groups and public and private landholders.  There is no plan to acquire any private land, and no plan to remove existing recreational uses of the land.

The YSEP Park Proposal is attached.

Written Submissions due 20th February

Written submissions are now invited from interested groups and individuals for consideration by VEAC in developing its Draft Proposals Paper. This paper will provide draft recommendations for management arrangements to conserve and enhance the biodiversity and ecological values within the investigation area.


The Woori Yallock Creek Park Alliance have produced some materials to assist you in making your submission, including a draft submission which you can modify and personalise with your own information.

Time to tell VCAT no Maccas for the hills!

Our friends over at No Maccas in the Hills  are alerting the community about the VCAT hearing for the proposed McDonalds in Tecoma.


If you made a written objection to the Yarra Ranges Council that included your contact details you should by now have received papers from McDonald representatives that will enable you to lodge an objection as part of the VCAT decision making process.


No Maccas in the Hills has put together some guidelines on to how to go about this, you can find them here http://nomaccasinthehills.info/


And most importantly the Deadline is Midnight the 30th of January.

Belgrave Survival Day 2012

Bird feeding Bylaw Proposed

The Shire of Yarra Ranges is proposing a by-law banning cockatoo feeding in residential backyards. It has been well documented that people who feed cockatoos are putting their neighbours properties at risk of being damaged. 

The Shire introduced an education campaign to inform the community of the problems associated with feeding these wild birds. Not only is it bad for the birds' health it also interferes with their natural behaviour to forage for food. The less foraging cockatoos do the more time they have to chew on trees and people’s houses. 

Tree Damage caused by overfed Cockatoos

Unfortunately the message has not been received and many residents continue to feed cockatoos in the Shire. Many residents are still having their properties damaged and lives disrupted when cockatoo feeding is occurring in close proximity to their properties. 

This proposed by-law will give residents who endure this nuisance (often on a daily basis) recourse and if the behaviour is not rectified fines will be incurred. 

Please consider writing a submission outlining your personal support for a by-law banning cockatoo feeding and if it has affected you personally remember to include details of the impact it has had on your life.

Submissions can be sent to:

The Chief Executive Officer
Yarra Ranges CouncilPO Box 105 Lilydale, 3140
or email mail@yarraranges.vic.gov.au  

Please note deadline 16th December 2011

Our Wedge is safe - for now

As reported in my earlier post here, Council had a proposal before it to reaffirm its policy position on the protection of the Green Wedge. 

To remind you the motion was as follows:

That Council:1. Supports the retention of the Urban Growth Boundary without amendment.

2. Authorises officers to write to the Minister for Planning and all submitters advising them of this position.

I am delighted to report that this motion received majority support last night.

The vote was as follows:

For the motion: Crs Cox, Cliff, McRae, Dunn & Heenan.

Against the Motion: Crs Templer, Avery, Higgins & Warren.

It is great to see that the majority of council recalls the recent commitments it made to protect Green Wedge. It is once again disappointing that some Councillors continue to act against something they unanimously supported not too long ago. I wonder if they should have declared this at the time they were singing the praises of (and formally endorsing) the Yarra Ranges Green Wedge Management Plan which was in adopted July 2010?

Council demands proper process before accepting 10/50 rule

Great news - Council heard your concerns about the adoption of the new 10/50 rule. Well done everyone who send a letter or contacted the Councillors!!

Their decision was:

"That Council endorse the Minister for Planning undertaking an amendment to the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme and changes to the Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy 

Plan, to implement the new bushfire planning provisions recently introduced through Amendment VC83 subject to the Minister for Planning:

* Undertaking full public consultation through the amendment process

* Providing the evidence and science behind the proposed changes to Council and the community."

Now lets see how the Minister/Department responds.
Will he allow the consultation process or ride roughshod over our rights? And will the Government actually do what it said it would and implement the recommendations of the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission?

10/30 had problems 10/50 makes them worse

Busy agenda at Council this week, another item that is to be decided tonight relates to the extension of the controversial 10/30 rule to a 10/50 rule. The Minister has asked  Council to support an amendment to the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme that among other things would see the 10/30 rule extended to a 10/50 rule. It is called Amendment VC83 and VC86 you can read the details here - be warned this is in planningalese!

In a nutshell, this would mean that in a Bushfire Management Overlay (replacing the wildfire management overlay) it would be permissible to remove all vegetation within 10m of a residence and all vegetation excluding trees within 50m.

Bulldozing the Regional Strategy Plan - a risky move

These changes would also require a amendment of an act of parliament (to amend the Regional Strategy Plan) surely something as significant as this deserves a full and proper public exhibition process? We also must be provided with a solid justification of these changes that includes the scientific basis the 10/50 rule.

It hard to believe that our Councillors would take such a huge political risk by supporting Spring Street to rip away the communities right to have a say on this amendment.

The Regional Strategy Plan was created to protect the Yarra Valley and the Dandenongs, there is a very good reason that it can only be amended by a vote in both houses of parliament - it is because our region has been long recognised as having special significance deserving of the highest level of protection. 

The proposed change must not just be undertaken by Ministerial amendment, items of lesser importance are subject to public scrutiny. Council should ask the Minister to submit this to a full planning scheme amendment process.

Implementing the Royal Commissions recommendations? I don't think so!

The State Government says that it is doing this in order to implement the recommendations of the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission (VBRC). However the Royal Commission referred to the 10/30 rule as an arbitrary measure and they were critical of its potential impact on both the community and the environment.

Specifically the RC had the following to say about the 10/30 rule:

"There is, however, concern that, in an effort to achieve simplicity, clause 52.43 [the 10/30 rule] might permit the destruction of vegetation to the overall detriment of the community and the environment because it overrides any environmental and landscape overlay that has been applied in a planning scheme. 

It is a one-size-fits-all solution, and there is concern about whether the rule could be used to permit widespread clearing to the detriment of important environmental or landscape values."

To ameliorate these detrimental impacts the VBRC proposed that "councils will be able to identify areas where this provision should not apply and a permit is required" and that "exceptions to the general provision should be included in a schedule to the Bushfire-prone Overlay". They proposed this approach such that it provided a "more evidence-based and robust approach" than the 10/30 rule allows.

"Although the Commission considers the 10/30 rule has been a useful interim measure, the rule should not continue to be used once clause 44.06 and the CFA’s assessment guidelines are revised and comprehensive bushfire-prone area mapping is completed."

The proposed amendments have no regard to the recommendations of the Bushfire Royal Commission to 'give due consideration to biodiversity conservation' which they specified in recommendation 39. Further no schedule is provided that would allow council the capacity to determine that a permit is required where the land has high biodiveristy values. A permit process would allow a rigorous process to establish the best way to achieve the protection of human life and avoid unnecessary destruction of vegetation. This would remove any uncertainty that a landowner might have about the best way to ensure their safety whilst maintaining some of the natural values of their property that drew them to this area in the first place. Indeed some vegetation removal may prove counter productive and expose buildings to greater levels of risk.

Remember Council's response to 10/30?

Then Mayor of Yarra Ranges, Cr Cox speaking on behalf of the council responded to the introduction of the 10/30 rule:

"While the council supports the idea of greater consistency in vegetation management, the fact is there are many areas of the shire and the state that, because of their unique environmental values and state significance, require a more sophisticated approach ..."

Cr Cox warned that the application of the 10/30 vegetation removal provision, in the absence of detailed scientific research, could result in a range of unintended consequences including significantly increasing landslip risks, the destruction of important biodiversity, lifestyle and scenic values and the possibility of increased bushfire intensity."

It would be entirely consistent with their previously stated position for councillors to continue to have concerns about 10/30 and thus its expanded application via 10/50.

Act now

Please write to all councillors ask them to refuse the ministers request and demand a full and proper public consultation process be conducted with respect to this amendment.

Write to mail@yarraranges.vic.gov.au  'Attention all councillors'

For more background on the 10/30 rule visit the Living with Bush website: http://livingwiththebush.org/dp/

Yarra Range's Green Wedge - still not safe from urban sprawl!

Will Council reaffirm commitment to Green Wedge?
In response to the Minister knocking back the Council's request for an extension of time to consider change to the boundary of the Yarra Range's Green Wedge, Councillor Cox has made the following proposal to council for next Tuesdays meeting -

That Council:
1. Supports the retention of the Urban Growth Boundary without amendment.
2. Authorises officers to write to the Minister for Planning and all submitters advising them of this position. 

This would reaffirm Councils published position that was put in to question by a few councillors last meeting and I commend Cr Cox for taking this action.


Given that Crs Cox, Dunn, McCrae and Cliff voted for the retention of the current urban growth boundary (UGB) we can only hope that they will support this motion. It is unlikely that the other councillors who were very open to reviewing the location of the UGB will change their minds. Now is the time to get in touch with the supportive Councillors and remind them that they need to follow up on their previous comments and recommit to keeping the UGB where it is.

Cr Noel Cliff 5968 9853 or n.cliff@yarraranges.vic.gov.au

Cr Samantha Dunn 9752 6869 or s.dunn@yarraranges.vic.gov.au 

Cr Jeanette McRae 5962 3847 or  j.mcrae@yarraranges.vic.gov.au

Cr Heenan, who was absent from the previous decision, will have the crucial vote in this matter (if all councillors are present). So I encourage you to drop him an email or give him a call. Let him know how important it is for him to support the protection of our Green Wedge.

Cr Tim Heenan  9737 1264 or t.heenan@yarraranges.vic.gov.au 


However, of some concern is Cr McCrae, who in this local paper report, seems to be wavering.



If you want some background material to assist you please have a look at my earlier post on this topic here.

Maccas - Next Steps

'No Macca's in the Hills' is spearheading an effort to encourage McDonalds not to appeal Council's decision to knock back their planning application for a store in Tecoma.

They are asking you to write to the CEO of McDonalds and tell them to respect the wishes of the people of the Dandenong Ranges who have overwhelming said that they do not want McDonalds in our area.

Visit their website for lots of great tips on what to include in your letter.

http://nomaccasinthehills.info/

In the News - Time's up for wedge submission, says minister

Time's up for wedge submission, says minister
BY NATALIE KOTSIOS
29 Nov, 2011 04:00 AM
Yarra Ranges Weeekly

ENVIRONMENTALISTS enjoyed a 'default' win when the state government refused an extension on Yarra Ranges Council's urban growth boundary submission, leaving existing green wedge boundaries in place.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy last week wrote to the nine councils in charge of Melbourne's green wedge zones in July this year and asked for submissions on proposed boundary changes to accommodate residential growth.

Submissions were due yesterday but the council voted at last Tuesday's meeting to apply for an extension until February to consult with the community and receive reports back from an independent consultant.

The council received notification the next day - in response to a separate query sent independently by a council officer on November 14 - that no extension would be granted.

Upper Yarra and Dandenongs Environment Council member Jo Tenner said the group was pleased with the minister's decision as it stopped any speculation about overdevelopment in the shire.

She said the council's extension request went against 20 years of community consultation and planning aimed at containing the urban boundary.

The council was split 50-50 on the issue, with councillors Graham Warren, Richard Higgins, Terry Avery and Chris Templar voting in favour of the request.

Cr Warren said it was "time to go back to the community to see if the values of the '70s are still relevant today".

Councillors Samantha Dunn, Len Cox, Jeanette McRae and Noel Cliff voted against the motion, saying a clear green wedge policy was already in place in the Yarra Ranges.

Cr Tim Heenan was absent from the meeting, leaving the mayor, Cr Avery, to cast the deciding vote, which he registered in favour.

Cr Warren told the Weekly last Thursday that such a decision should not have been left in the hands of councils alone.

Reprieve for Glenfern Cattle Run Green Wedge

It was great news to hear that the dedicated community in the Glenfern Valley Green Wedge have succeeded in their battle to prevent inappropriate subdivision of their little piece of paradise (Picture: if you had this view from your living room - wouldn't you fight to keep it too?)

Here is an extract from the VCAT decision:(to read the full decision go here.)

"We are not persuaded that allowing subdivision of the land into seven lots at or just above the minimum lot size for the Green Wedge Zone 2 is an

acceptable planning outcome. Any environmental and land management

benefits arising from creating seven lots are not so great as to override our

concern that the strategic direction for this part of the green wedge will be

compromised by this proposal. In our view, the fact that the Green Wedge Zone 2 allows lots of at least 4 hectares in size must be read in the context that the policy framework places a strong emphasis on maintaining the low density character, the rural environment and rural landscape character. We are also of the view that a less intensive subdivision will provide more satisfactory outcomes for waste water disposal.

In rejecting this particular proposal we want to make it clear that we do not

agree with any suggestion that this land should remain unsubdivided or, in

the absence of any proposals for public ownership, that it should be given

over to some community purpose."

So what next?

As far as I can see there are three possibilities.

1. Knox council revises it minimum lot size for subdivisions in this part of their green wedge zone. This would make it consistent with  land of a similar nature just across the road in the Yarra Ranges Shire.

From the VCAT decision again: "We accept that a minimum subdivision lot size of 4 hectares for the review site suggests a different outcome to those Green Wedge Zones with higher lot minimums such as the GWZ1 on the western side of Lysterfield Road which has a 20 hectare minimum lot size. "

2. The land is purchased and added to the public estate (in such a way as to extend and consolidate the adjoining Glenfern Valley bushland reserve) to be enjoyed and protected in perpetuity.

3. The owner submits a new application for subdivision taking the 'advise' of the VCAT panel member and reducing the number of lots in the plan.

I know which options I prefer, if you are interested in making the first two a reality, consider lending your support to the Save the Glenfern Valley/Cattle Run Green Wedge group. You can contact them via their facebook page here.