Our record population growth is putting real pressure on our infrastructure which is one of the side affects of our immigration policies.
Victoria's economic dependence on building and construction to fuel economic growth relies on bringing in more and more migrants. This is in reality nothing more than a massive Ponzi scheme with Melbourne the fastest growing city bursting at the seams and with overloaded infrastructure.
Both the federal and state governments are having trouble balancing their budgets and cannot raise enough money to build new roads, new railways or upgrade our overall infrastructure to meet our current needs let alone what will be required when our population is doubled within the next 30 to 40 years.
Kevin Rudd was an advocate of a "BIG AUSTRALIA" and it was one of the issues that went against him continuing in office. One of the first announcements by Julia Gillard was to appoint a Minister for Population saying "Australia should not hurtle down the track towards a big population" but nothing has changed.
For the full story see the attachment above.
08 May, 2013
BRAG's Activity Centres Submission to Boroondara Council
A copy of BRAG's submission to Boroondara Council on it's Activity Centres Strategy is attached- see above.
Residents who live some distance from the identified Activity Centres may consider the Strategy proposals may not affect them but those who live nearby to one of the Centres should take note of the points raised in the submission about the 400 metre convention.
They could face the prospect of a multi-storey apartment block being built next door.
Residents who live some distance from the identified Activity Centres may consider the Strategy proposals may not affect them but those who live nearby to one of the Centres should take note of the points raised in the submission about the 400 metre convention.
They could face the prospect of a multi-storey apartment block being built next door.
09 April, 2013
Boroondara Council's Activity Centres Strategy
The attachment above is BRAG's original submission to Council and we have not changed our view on this issue.
Note: Council did accede to our recommendation to remove the Local Centres from their Strategy but nothing else has been changed. There are still 31 of our local shopping centres targeted as Activity Centres.
We urge you to make up your own mind and send in a submission on Council's current plan.
Remember, the current Coalition Government has scrapped Melbourne 2030. Unfortunately while it is dead we are yet to bury it. So help us to do so.
Note: Council did accede to our recommendation to remove the Local Centres from their Strategy but nothing else has been changed. There are still 31 of our local shopping centres targeted as Activity Centres.
We urge you to make up your own mind and send in a submission on Council's current plan.
Remember, the current Coalition Government has scrapped Melbourne 2030. Unfortunately while it is dead we are yet to bury it. So help us to do so.
04 February, 2013
SELLING OFF THE FARM
The degree of foreign ownership of our rural land has doubled over the last 25 years from 5.9% up to 11.3% according to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural & Resource Economics & Sciences. Forty five million hectares of our agricultural land has some level of foreign ownership and this number continues to increase.
Should we be worried?
On the eve of Australia Day 2013, our largest farming property, Cubbie Station, passed into majority ownership by a Chinese textile maker, Shandong RuYi along with massive water rights from the Culgoa River and the Murray Darling Basin.
More than half of our milk processing is in foreign hands. Half our wheat export industry is controlled by foreign companies. Three foreign milling groups account for nearly 60% of our raw sugar production - including a subsidiary of the Chinese state owned COFCO Corporation - and 40% of our beef & lamb is processed by foreign firms. Nearly 10% of our irrigation water licenses are owned by foreigners.
This is just a sample of what is going on, we could keep listing examples but suffice to say the trends are very worrying. It is incongruous that we substantially increased scrutiny of overseas investment in residential real estate in 2010, with all foreign purchases of residential real estate being subject to FIRB scrutiny, yet when it comes to rural land the level of scrutiny is not so stringent with only purchases in excess of $244 million looked at (which relates to a single purchase while multiple purchases that collectively exceed that amount are ignored).
Why is it essential to scrutinise the purchase of a Gold Coast apartment but not the purchase of a large area of rural farmland?
What is worse, our farmers are being squeezed on two fronts, foreign land buyouts and the price war between the major food retailers which in turn are being pressured by the foreign competitors Aldi and Costco, leading to cost cutting resulting in the farmers being pressured to take less for their produce.
Consider this : If someone asked you whether Mildura Fruit Co was an Australian company you might say yes. It packs and sells fruit grown in the Mildura region It has three directors who are Australian and one born in New Zealand(as of 16 July 2012). It is owned by Sunbeam Foods Group Ltd based in Mildura which has the same directors and secretary as the Mildura Fruit Co so it looks very Australian. However, Food Holdings P/L trading as Manasson Foods Group Ltd, owns 100% of Sunbeam Foods which owns 100% of Mildura Fruit Co. Last November Manasson Foods Group was acquired by Bright Foods Holdings P/L. The shareholders of Bright Foods Holdings are Bright Food ( Australia) Co. Ltd. and Geoffrey Erby.
Now Bright Food (Australia) Co. Ltd. sounds Australian enough but it is in fact a Chinese company based in Hong Kong. Its ultimate owner is Bright Food ( Group) Co. Ltd. which is 50% owned by the Shanghai Municipal Government and the remaining 50% by other Shanghai Government owned companies.
What a tangled web they weave.
In a rather week response to all these shenanigans The Australian Federal Government released a "National Food Plan Green Paper" which outlines options for our food policy. It is seeking feedback with submissions to be lodged by 30th September - go to the link http://www.daff.gov.au/nationalfoodplan/national-food plan or just "Google" National Food Plan.
(The above is largely a condensation from a speech made to Independent Retirees on July 2012 by Kelvin Thomson MP, Member for Wills).
Should we be worried?
On the eve of Australia Day 2013, our largest farming property, Cubbie Station, passed into majority ownership by a Chinese textile maker, Shandong RuYi along with massive water rights from the Culgoa River and the Murray Darling Basin.
More than half of our milk processing is in foreign hands. Half our wheat export industry is controlled by foreign companies. Three foreign milling groups account for nearly 60% of our raw sugar production - including a subsidiary of the Chinese state owned COFCO Corporation - and 40% of our beef & lamb is processed by foreign firms. Nearly 10% of our irrigation water licenses are owned by foreigners.
This is just a sample of what is going on, we could keep listing examples but suffice to say the trends are very worrying. It is incongruous that we substantially increased scrutiny of overseas investment in residential real estate in 2010, with all foreign purchases of residential real estate being subject to FIRB scrutiny, yet when it comes to rural land the level of scrutiny is not so stringent with only purchases in excess of $244 million looked at (which relates to a single purchase while multiple purchases that collectively exceed that amount are ignored).
Why is it essential to scrutinise the purchase of a Gold Coast apartment but not the purchase of a large area of rural farmland?
What is worse, our farmers are being squeezed on two fronts, foreign land buyouts and the price war between the major food retailers which in turn are being pressured by the foreign competitors Aldi and Costco, leading to cost cutting resulting in the farmers being pressured to take less for their produce.
Consider this : If someone asked you whether Mildura Fruit Co was an Australian company you might say yes. It packs and sells fruit grown in the Mildura region It has three directors who are Australian and one born in New Zealand(as of 16 July 2012). It is owned by Sunbeam Foods Group Ltd based in Mildura which has the same directors and secretary as the Mildura Fruit Co so it looks very Australian. However, Food Holdings P/L trading as Manasson Foods Group Ltd, owns 100% of Sunbeam Foods which owns 100% of Mildura Fruit Co. Last November Manasson Foods Group was acquired by Bright Foods Holdings P/L. The shareholders of Bright Foods Holdings are Bright Food ( Australia) Co. Ltd. and Geoffrey Erby.
Now Bright Food (Australia) Co. Ltd. sounds Australian enough but it is in fact a Chinese company based in Hong Kong. Its ultimate owner is Bright Food ( Group) Co. Ltd. which is 50% owned by the Shanghai Municipal Government and the remaining 50% by other Shanghai Government owned companies.
What a tangled web they weave.
In a rather week response to all these shenanigans The Australian Federal Government released a "National Food Plan Green Paper" which outlines options for our food policy. It is seeking feedback with submissions to be lodged by 30th September - go to the link http://www.daff.gov.au/nationalfoodplan/national-food plan or just "Google" National Food Plan.
(The above is largely a condensation from a speech made to Independent Retirees on July 2012 by Kelvin Thomson MP, Member for Wills).
10 June, 2012
BOROONDARA NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER STUDY STUDY
The first draft of the Boroondara Neighbourhood Character Study (NCS)published by Council was very flawed with inaccurate generic precinct descriptors. BRAG took this issue up with the Council's CEO and, at a subsequent meeting, we were able to convince the council officers to review the descriptors to provide better protection for our residential areas.
The Mayor has now sent out a brochure to households providing information on how to find the reviewed Precinct Statements for your individual neighbourhood by going to the link:www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/our-future which asks for your feedback.
These descriptors for each of over 70 local areas* are designed to ensure that new built form is respectful of the neighbourhood character, so it is critical that residents check the wording for their own area and let council know of any concerns
Our view of the changes is that they have been simplified but retain a generic element that could allow developers to manipulate them to their advantage.
Note: A previous study covered *158 local areas and described the fine grained character in detail. This new study is much more general in nature which will not provide the same degree of protection. We urge you to check the new descriptors for your local area very carefully.
The Mayor has now sent out a brochure to households providing information on how to find the reviewed Precinct Statements for your individual neighbourhood by going to the link:www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/our-future which asks for your feedback.
These descriptors for each of over 70 local areas* are designed to ensure that new built form is respectful of the neighbourhood character, so it is critical that residents check the wording for their own area and let council know of any concerns
Our view of the changes is that they have been simplified but retain a generic element that could allow developers to manipulate them to their advantage.
Note: A previous study covered *158 local areas and described the fine grained character in detail. This new study is much more general in nature which will not provide the same degree of protection. We urge you to check the new descriptors for your local area very carefully.
13 May, 2012
New Planning Strategy for Melbourne
We are being given an opportunity to have a say on Planning for the future of Melbourne. A Ministerial Advisory Committee is currently considering it's recommendations for a new planning strategy to replace the failed Melbourne 2030 and its update, Melbourne @ 5 Million. A preliminary report gives a lead on how it might be which has some good points depending upon how the changes are likely to be implemented. In the meantime we can have some say by going to a new website www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au
Already the Planning Minister, Matthew Guy, has announced a new planning feature called "code assess"- for fast tracking low level planning applications that meet pre-determined regulations that are developed after community consultations. There will be much less red tape and this system will cover fencing, garages, additions and the like but just how inclusive will the consultation process be we wonder? In these cases there will be no notification or appeal rights for neighbours, This could be OK if the community consultation is done properly and residents are satisfied with the level of regulation control.
BRAG has always pushed the point that residents must have a say on how their area is developed. In the past this has not been the case with the restrictions imposed by Melbourne 2030 and the way VCAT handled appeals. However , this new approach may offer us a better deal. BUT, the devil will be in the detail so we will be doing our best to influence the final plan to suit residents, not the developers as in the past.
We urge you to say what you think on the website. If you don't they will think you don't care!
A few suggestions to think about :
No densification or high-rise in our residential suburbs.
New developments should be sympathetic to the existing streetscapes -i.e. maximum two storey or if a third is required it must be within the streetscape roof line ( attic).And the most important point is the elephant in the room, population growth. Its the rate of immigration that is driving the planning problems so there must be a sustainable population policy (which of course is a Federal issue).
For more, scroll down to the Item below "Victorian Planning System Review"
1st September 2011 for a list of our recommendations in our submission to the Committee.
www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au
Already the Planning Minister, Matthew Guy, has announced a new planning feature called "code assess"- for fast tracking low level planning applications that meet pre-determined regulations that are developed after community consultations. There will be much less red tape and this system will cover fencing, garages, additions and the like but just how inclusive will the consultation process be we wonder? In these cases there will be no notification or appeal rights for neighbours, This could be OK if the community consultation is done properly and residents are satisfied with the level of regulation control.
BRAG has always pushed the point that residents must have a say on how their area is developed. In the past this has not been the case with the restrictions imposed by Melbourne 2030 and the way VCAT handled appeals. However , this new approach may offer us a better deal. BUT, the devil will be in the detail so we will be doing our best to influence the final plan to suit residents, not the developers as in the past.
We urge you to say what you think on the website. If you don't they will think you don't care!
A few suggestions to think about :
No densification or high-rise in our residential suburbs.
New developments should be sympathetic to the existing streetscapes -i.e. maximum two storey or if a third is required it must be within the streetscape roof line ( attic).And the most important point is the elephant in the room, population growth. Its the rate of immigration that is driving the planning problems so there must be a sustainable population policy (which of course is a Federal issue).
For more, scroll down to the Item below "Victorian Planning System Review"
1st September 2011 for a list of our recommendations in our submission to the Committee.
www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au
Victorian Planning System Review
The Victorian government has appointed an Advisory Committee to consider all parts of the planning system and has asked for submissions about what works and what does not work, and how it should be shaped in the future.
Planning is in chaos with the previous Brumby government's very contentious changes that were constantly being made to try and bolster its failed Melbourne 2030 planning blueprint and the later Melbourne @5million policy which was also a failure. We had so many changes being contemplated that most of us, including our councils, did not know which way to turn.
We see this latest attempt to review planning policy as an opportunity for the Baillieu government to gain goodwill by putting up a more friendly and acceptable set of planning objectives which, in our opinion, must return local planning policy to councils and ensure that developers are not allowed to run riot in our suburbs.
BRAG has made a submission to the committee that sets out our concerns and lists a set of pointers to achieve equity and fairness. However we believe that as part of any planning policy, a sensible and sustainable population policy must be defined that is sensitive to the restraints of Australia's land fragility as well as our natural and renewable resources.
No longer can we allow population growth to drive development as an easy way to manage the economy. Such a policy is no more than a Ponzie scheme which requires more and more immigrants to keep the demand for housing going, requiring more and more immigrants to purchase the housing stock which in turn creates a need for more and more housing ............ but this cannot go on forever. The time to change our economic strategies is now and the committee is in a position to make some recommendations in this area.
A summary of BRAG's recommendations in its submission :
- A sustainable population policy( we commend Kelvin Thomson's 14 point plan )
- Controls on the changes to the Urban Growth Boundaries
- Regionalization policy (to include intention to plan now for a new major city in Victoria (we suggest Portland)
- Scrapping Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne @5 million
- De-politize and overhaul Department of Planning
- Scrap undemocratic Panels and planning committees
- Meaningful and real consultation process of planning issues
- Positive protection for heritage
- Return planning power to councils
- Empower councils to set their own height controls
- Limit areas for high rise development
- Provide positive plan for protecting public land and open space
- Ensure that developers are required to provide for adequate open space.
- Protect suburban residential areas from opportunistic infill development
- Regulate to protect neighbourhood character including set backs, height, bulk and site coverage and ensure that any new development is sympathetic to its surroundings
- Retention of third party rights (to be notified, object & appeal)
- Stop VCAT from acting as another planning authority and restrict it to being an appeal body (only). Better still create a genuine body independent of government or developers. The members of this body should not be planners, have neither interests nor involvement in any form of planning or the development industry and have only the authority to consider appeals against the planning process or councils' interpretation of their own regulations.
As a final comment, we hope this is not another "ticking the box exercise - pretending to consult the public but ignoring the submissions and doing what was proposed in the first place." This is exactly what the Brumby government consultation process amounted to. We expect more of Ted and his government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)