Municipal Association of Victoria
Green Wedges Forum Report
December 2009
© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2009.
The Municipal Association of Victoria is the owner of the copyright in the publication Green
Wedges Forum Report.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means
without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria.
All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be
addressed to Luke Murphy on (03) 9667 5583 or lmurphy@mav.asn.au.
The MAV can provide this publication in an alternative format upon request, including large print,
Braille and audio.
Disclaimer
The views represented in this report are those of the participants who participated in the forum.
They do not necessarily reflect the views of the MAV.
2
6
Table of Contents
1
Introduction
4
2
Green Wedges Forum Themes
4
2.1
Agricultural Viability
5
2.2
Biodiversity and Pests
5
2.3
Resources for Melbourne
5
2.4
Public Land Management
5
2.5
Safe, Healthy and Resilient Communities
5
2.6
Rural Residential Living
6
2.7
Tourism and Recreation
6
2.8
Managing the Urban-rural Interface
6
3
Output from the Forum
6
3.1
Panel Discussion
7
3.1.1 Key messages
7
3.1.2 Key discussion points
14
Forum workshop
18
3.2
4
Acknowledgements
30
Appendix 1 Green Wedge Councils Issues Matrix
31
Appendix 2 Planning for Melbourne’s Green Wedges. An Economist’s Perspective
34
3
6
1
Introduction
The Green Wedges Forum was convened on 21 August 2009 by the MAV in partnership with
the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD). It was opened by the
Minister for Planning, the Hon. Justin Madden MLC and hosted by Nillumbik Shire Council.
The forum was developed by the Green Wedges Working Group, comprising membership from
Nillumbik Shire Council, Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, Yarra Ranges Shire Council,
Wyndham City Council, the MAV and DPCD.
The event was designed to reinvigorate discussions and engage Green Wedge councils in
progressing the development and implementation of Green Wedge Management Plans. The
focus of the forum included:
 Green Wedge Management Plans to protect values and manage change
 The exchange of ideas between councils, and councils and state agencies and
authorities with an interest in Green Wedge management
 Building relationships to progress Green Wedge management.
Seventy seven participants attended the forum representing the following organisations:
Local Government
Brimbank City Council
Cardinia Shire Council
Casey City Council
Frankston City Council
Greater Dandenong City Council
Hume City Council
Kingston City Council
Manningham City Council
Maroondah City Council
Melton Shire Council
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council
Municipal Association of Victoria
Nillumbik Shire Council
Stonnington City Council
Whittlesea City Council
Wyndham City Council
Yarra Ranges Shire Council
Government Agencies and Authorities
Department of Planning & Community
Development
Department of Primary Industries
Department of Sustainability and Environment
Melbourne Water
Parks Victoria
Port Phillip & Westernport CMA
Other
Capire Consulting Group
Environment Victoria
SGS Economics & Planning
2
Green Wedge Forum Themes
The management of Green Wedges presents significant challenges in balancing competing
environmental, economic and social demands. The following themes were developed to
represent the key issues, challenges and opportunities facing councils in the management of
Melbourne’s 12 Green Wedges.
4
6
2.1
Agricultural Viability
Issues affecting the viability of agricultural land where it exists in the Green Wedges are
complex and difficult to manage. Increased property values compared to financial returns from
rural enterprises, increases burden on existing farmers prevents the establishment of new
businesses. The challenges of farming in the Green Wedges can be greater than other rural
areas due to factors ranging from: increased regulation and restrictions; pressure on other
Green Wedge benefits; right to farm issues; land speculation and absentee land owners; dog
attacks on farm animals; and limited land management expertise of new landholders. The
agricultural importance of the Green Wedges and future potential will also be influenced by
‘peak oil’, increasing community awareness of and interest in food miles, farmers markets etc.
and access to treated wastewater.
2.2
Biodiversity and Pests
The Green Wedges contain important threatened biodiversity values in the region. They will play
a critical role in achieving a net gain in extent and quality of native vegetation for two reasons.
First, important remnant vegetation exists within Green Wedges and the threats to native
vegetation associated with development pressure. Second, the Green Wedges are likely to
attract offset contributions as vegetation is removed from within the UGB. In addition, Green
Wedges will be increasingly important for biodiversity and to offset carbon emissions associated
with urban growth. A balanced approach is required so as to not negatively impact on
productive agricultural land. Green Wedge land management issues should aim to establish a
land stewardship ethic in landholders.
2.3
Resources for Melbourne
Land uses such as water catchments, sewerage treatment, quarries, landfills, airports, state and
national parks, and recreational facilities such as golf courses are required to support the wider
metropolitan area. With continuing urban consolidation, it is expected that pressures will
increase for the relocation of facilities from urban locations to the Green Wedges. These land
uses can create a range of problems including amenity conflicts, inflated rural land values, and
pressures for complimentary land uses.
2.4
Public Land Management
Public land managers need to improve efforts in maintaining quality of the environments they
are managing, minimizing fire risk, and dealing with pest plant and animals, to reduce impacts
on Green Wedge values. The need for further State Government resources for public land
managers is a key issue. There are also issues where public land abuts private land in terms of
cooperative, consistent and efficient land management activities.
2.5
Safe, Healthy and Resilient Communities
A range of social challenges influence the health and resilience of communities living in the
Green Wedges. New residents locate to hobby farms or rural residential properties with
expectations of community service facilities which cannot be met by councils. Cheap housing
establishes pockets of disadvantage which can be isolated with limited access to employment,
transport or community services. Support for ‘ageing in place’ in rural areas is difficult with
service provision and a diversity of housing to meet life cycle needs. Issues such as fire risk and
increased intensity of wildfire, pose significant challenges for planning and community safety.
5
6
2.6
Rural Residential Living
The greater the amenity and landscape value of the Green Wedges, the greater the pressure
placed upon them. Historical subdivisions have left a legacy of a large number of lots below the
current minimum subdivision standards. Increased non-farming residents into rural areas have
generated difficult land management and amenity conflicts. In addition, hobby farmers and ruralresidential properties have increased expectation for urban services in agricultural areas.
However, they are now a significant part of the economic base of most Green Wedges and
need to be managed accordingly. Further research is required to understand the relationship
between rural living and sustaining the key values of the Green Wedges, to develop an
appropriate policy response.
2.7
Tourism and Recreation
Tourism and recreation are an increasingly important component of the economy of the Green
Wedges, driven by rising land prices and resulting in increased pressure on other values. Care
is required to ensure that the cumulative impact of tourism and recreation does not undermine
the Green Wedges. Tourism is increasingly used to justify uses through the planning provisions
that would otherwise be inappropriate in the Green Wedges. Large scale tourism ventures are
not necessarily compatible with Green Wedge values and their treatment varies between Green
Wedges. A social, environmental and economic account of these issues is challenging for
interface councils.
2.8
Managing the Urban-rural Interface
Land uses on either side of the UGB are, arguably, not compatible with strategic planning or
management of this interface, and create pressure for change. The increasing value of land
inside the UGB is preventing transitional land uses between urban and rural land uses including
low density residential, schools, parks, wetlands and golf courses. The lack of appropriate
transition is also undermining agricultural activity on the rural side of the UGB and placing
pressure for further subdivision / development in proximity to the UGB.
3
Output of the Forum
There were two components to the forum. Eight presenters provided insight into the
management of Melbourne’s Green Wedges from the perspective of their particular interest.
The panel discussion was designed to inject some new thinking into the Green Wedge
management debate. The panel included:
 Dr. Ian McPhail – Former Victorian Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability
 Dr. Marcus Spiller (SGS Economics and Planning) – Economic perspective
 Dr. Iain Butterworth (Capire Consulting Group) – Social sustainability perspective
 Ms Kelly O’Shanassy (Environment Victoria) – Environment perspective
 Cr. Anne Shaw (Mornington Peninsula Shire Council) – Business operator and local
government perspective
 Mr. Hamish Allan (Manningham City council) – Local government experience in
developing a Green Wedge Management Plan
6
6
 Mr. John Ginivan (DPCD) – Government policy perspective
 Mr. Ian Morgans (Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority) –
Natural resource management planning perspective.
3.1
Panel Discussion
3.1.1
Key messages
State of the Environment context – Dr Ian McPhail (Former Commissioner for Environmental
Sustainability)
 The major influences in Victoria affecting policies such as the Green Wedges are climate
change, population and settlements, and economic growth and consumption.
 It is difficult to move away from the current development trajectory or inertia in the
system, that is driving single individual allotments and the continued spread of the
metropolitan boundary. Inertia is a powerful force driving urban development by
providing for the motor car, a transport form which is a key cause of the spread of
Melbourne’s footprint. These forces are not likely to stop soon. It will take considerable
time to transition to public transport orientated higher density urban areas. As a result,
Melbourne’s population growth presents a significant challenge where options to
accommodate people seems to be focused on either expanding the UGB if they are not
to be accommodated in the Green Wedges, which will ironically increase pressure on
Melbourne’s boundary.
 We are a consumptive society based on growth, which influences the types of housing
and communities that are developed.
 The Green Wedges themselves are good policy. However, there are competing interests
that will continue to put pressure on the Green Wedges and the relevant councils. Are
the Green Wedges to continue as the ‘lungs’ of the city, or will the generate fear with the
onset of the annual fire season as a result of the 2009 bushfires? Are they areas where
people are able to maximise the development potential of their land? There exists a
dichotomy for farmers to protect important agricultural land, versus realising
superannuation needs through subdivision and development.
 Councils are challenged with managing growth to protect values and meet the
environmental challenges, and needing the growth to maintain financial viability through
rates as operational costs increase.
 The State of the Environment (2008) report strongly recommends that the community
should not expect farmers to provide and pay for ecosystem services that are of general
benefit. We should be devising the means at every scale to fund private managers of
biodiversity. This is necessary to provide a price incentive for farmers to ‘farm’
biodiversity at a market rate, rather than seeking to increase productivity at the expense
of biodiversity.
7
6
Environment perspective – Ms Kelly O’Shanassy (Environment Victoria)
 Leadership is an issue of scale. We need to think about protecting the environment in
the same way that we think about creating a transport plan for the state, which includes
investment of $38 billion over a decade. Although it would require significant investment,
there would be significant multiple benefits such as jobs. The environment does not have
to suffer to grow the economy.
 We need to get smart and think big with matching investment to solve the big
challenges. The little things that are working well need to become the standard operating
procedure.
 Leadership is also about decisions. Difficult decisions are required so that the UGB is
not expanded as a result of population growth and development pressure.
 The condition of the environment in part, due to the incremental impact of decisions over
time and everyday choices that we make. The Green Wedges must be protected from
incremental loss and degradation.
 The Government is developing a Green Jobs Statement and a Green Economy Plan
which will be about transitioning our economy so as not to harm the environment. The
notion of ecosystem services must be built into the plan. There is an opportunity for the
Green Wedge Councils to lobby the State Government to build on market-based
programs such as Bush Tender and Bush Broker to direct investment appropriately in
the Green Economy Plan.
Local government experience – Hamish Allan (Manningham City Council)
 Biodiversity is one of the six key themes addressed by the Manningham Green Wedge
Strategy over the last five years. It supports the notion that well-being is dependent on a
healthy environment. Arguably biodiversity is the most significant component of the
strategy given that it made up 79 of the 213 recommendations. It is not necessarily the
most important issue as sustainable agriculture and the loss of productive landscapes is
also critical, as is the response to fire risk and the impact on Green Wedge landscapes
which will become an increasing threat.
 At the municipal scale, biodiversity assets and values are recognised as primarily a
function of the remaining habitat – the extent and condition of the remnant native
vegetation. The Manningham Sites of Biological Significance Review was commissioned
to identify the condition of local remnant vegetation that underpinned the Green Wedge
Strategy. It included all land tenures and identified 35 biosites that were significant at the
national, state or regional scales. One third of Manningham retains some native
vegetation cover of which almost all is outside the UGB in the Green Wedge Zone, with
two thirds on private land. Key threatening processes driving the decline of biodiversity
include vegetation clearance for housing, subdivision and other development; over
grazing by stock particularly horses; pest plants and animals; soil erosion; altered
burning regimes; changes in hydrology; and climate change. As a result, Manningham
was losing over 20 habitat hectares annually and active intervention and management at
the landscape level is required to slow, halt or reverse the declining trend. A key
8
6
question is how to go about it if we want the Green Wedges to function more than just
pretty landscapes.
 So what can be done to address the loss of biodiversity given that it is cheaper to protect
it rather than to try and restore it? Manningham invested $1.25 million over five years to
implement the Green Wedge Strategy with some notable successes such as developing
new planning policies, overlays and development guidelines, based on the biosites
review. Three new permanent full time positions have been created - an environmental
education officer, a land management officer and an environmental investigation or
statutory planning enforcement officer. A land capability study for the Green Wedge,
habitat corridors study and a locally threatened species study was also completed.
Community education and capacity building activities have been important to bring the
community along.
 Eighty five recommendations of the Green Wedge Strategy have been successfully
implemented with almost half embedded as ongoing actions for the council.
 The significant investment by Manningham City Council has almost been entirely without
any State Government assistance, although some funding was provided to develop the
plan with some additional funding through the CMA. State Government seems to rely on
willing councils and the VPP to protect, manage and maintain the Green Wedges.
Councils do not have the funding or other resources required to implement the plans,
and the VPP are simply blunt, broad and too discretionary.
 Manningham would like to see greater recognition, support and funding for the role of
councils, and formalised partnership arrangements with all land management agencies,
other key stakeholders including other councils. This is necessary to address the
incremental loss of the values that exist outside the fringes of Melbourne.
 Manningham trialled a ‘Farming Biodiversity’ program to pay landowners for the
ecosystem services they produce for the management of native vegetation greater than
one hectare. The council agreed on an annual rate of return called a ‘harvest rate’ where
payments were made according to agreed conservation works. Council struggled to get
any State Government funding to support the program. The name of the program was
changed to Bush Gain because ‘Farming Biodiversity’ was problematic for some of the
community. Although it became a successful program, working one on one with key land
owners, it was beyond the scope of one council to give rate relief or payments. This
demonstrates the need for partnership arrangements with DSE and DPCD to develop a
common incentive scheme, rather than having a range of individual schemes that may
not be sustainable. Partnerships should be based on an agreement to share the costs.
Economic perspective – Dr. Marcus Spiller (SGS Economics and Planning)
 Green Wedges must be conceptualised and managed as vibrant areas that compliment
the built areas of the city. They are not simply the leftovers.
 The key message is that economics and pricing must be a central feature about how we
develop effective plans to achieve the desired vision for the Green Wedges. For
9
6
example, during the 1960’s the land around the outskirts of Melbourne contained good
agricultural and environmental values which became degraded due to land speculation.
The best thing to happen was the introduction of a pricing system that required
developers to pay for roads, sewage, water etc. which discriminated against the
speculators who could no longer make any money by investing in the required
infrastructure.
 There are two economic forces working against the Green Wedges:
1. Land value pollution – An expectation to undertake an activity that provides greater
profit on your land which raises the underlying unexpected land value. This
compromises other activities such as agriculture which should be sustainable in the
Green Wedges. Therefore the Green Wedges become zones of uncertainty.
2. A lack of resources to invest in the Green Wedges for environmental rehabilitation
and to sustain productive activities. The principle of the Government’s Growth Area
Infrastructure Charge is on the right track as it attempts to harvest some benefit
when land use changes from non-urban to urban use in order for resources to be
reinvested in the provision of infrastructure. There needs to be consideration for
smarter ways of capturing the improvement of land development. In any other market
where governments regulate development or business rights, a license fee is usually
incurred. When we issue rights for subdivision or development, we give away the
development rights. Perhaps a development licensing system which requires
developers to pay on a per lot basis at the time of approval where resources can by
hypothecated to pay for the investment required for the Green Wedges.
 The shift from corridors to the UGB has been a mixed blessing. On the one hand there is
some level of commitment to containing Melbourne’s footprint. On the other hand, the
UGB has morphed from a boundary to a control line. If there is to be a UGB, there needs
to be dramatic changes to the way we manage development within the existing urban
footprint, which may mean councils conceding a lot of power across certain parts of
Melbourne.
Social sustainability perspective – Dr. Iain Butterworth (Capire Consulting Group)
 Health and well-being is about building social, economic and environmental capital
together. Currently greater emphasis is placed on building economic capital at the
expense of the social and environmental components.
 There is an opportunity for environmental planners to explore alliances with the health
sector, including health planners within councils. The Environments for Health
Framework that the Victorian Government has developed is pushing for integrated
planning in local government where health and well-being is included in the Municipal
Strategic Statement, Municipal Public Health Plan and Council Plan. Integration is now a
requirement under the new Health and Well-Being Act 2008. We need to push for all of
these plans to demonstrate congruency with the Planning and Environment Act 1987
e.g. changing wording from ‘may’ to ‘must’ for for social consequences of decisions.
10
6
 The health budget is the largest budget in government and we need to consider the
research demonstrating the strong connection between health and well being and the
quality of the natural environment.
A council and a business operator perspective – Cr Anne Shaw (Mornington peninsula Shire
Council
Challenges for local government:
 The challenge facing local government is the balance between protecting the highly
valued Green Wedges with competing pressures that arise from changing community
needs and expectations.
 Green Wedges are dynamic with changes in land use. Further changes will be driven by
new techniques and production methods in land management. Land based aquaculture
and hydroponics may become more important for intensive food production, and they will
come at a cost to other values in the Green Wedge such as amenity.
 Planning and other policies must allow positive change whilst maintaining certainty,
equity and consistency for all stakeholders.
 The Green Wedge Zones encourage a mix of different activities which are important to
support their economic base.
 Green Wedges must be sustainable. They must encourage appropriate land
management practices, retain and maintain opportunities for investment in new tourism
and recreation uses that are compatible with agriculture, but also contribute to the broad
scale landscape protection and conservation of natural resources. They have an
important role in creating and maintaining employment and sustaining populations in
rural and semi-rural settlements. A sustainable Green Wedge must also guard against
threats (e.g. residential caravan parks, buns and hedges that interrupt the scenic values,
and conflicts between different land uses).
 Language and interpretation of planning policy is constantly testing councils when
determining planning applications (e.g. terms such as ‘in conjunction with’, ‘ancillary to’
and ‘are existing use rights’).
 Achieving the right decisions regarding Green Wedge management must involve key
stakeholders and land owners. Councils must understand the economic, social and
environmental impacts of changing the rules. The community has expectations and land
owners have rights which must be considered in planning and decision making.
 There a number of key questions that should be considered by Green Wedge councils:
1. Do we lock up our Green Wedges?
2. How do we manage change to ensure positive and sustainable outcomes?
3. Do we accept that rural living is an integral part of the Green Wedge Zone?
4. Can the community afford to limit the Green Wedge Zone, purely for agriculture?
5. What is agriculture going to look like in the Green Wedge of the future?
11
6
6. Is tourism and agriculture compatible in the Green Wedge Zone?
7. How important is maintaining and growing employment to a sustainable Green
Wedge Zone?
Challenges for business:
 Do tourism businesses detract from the Green Wedges or do they contribute to the
overall visitor experience and sustainability of the zones? Many existing tourism
businesses would not be permitted today.
 Many well performing businesses are constrained by the planning scheme and cannot
achieve their full potential. For instance on the Mornington Peninsula, many existing
wineries function with operating hours and seating numbers that may not be approved
under the current Green Wedge provisions.
 The acceptable mix, scale and ranges of uses that should be permitted in the Green
Wedges presents a major policy challenge for councils.
 Sustainable decision making for the Green Wedge Zone needs to consider and address
the social, economic and environmental implications for the community and must avoid
limiting future options by applying overly restrictive policy interpretations. A Green
Wedge Zone should have a wide range of land uses including market gardens,
viticulture, forestry, land based aquaculture, tourism and recreation. The challenge
remains how many is too many and how do we deliver acceptable community outcomes.
 Some key questions for business operating in Green Wedges are:
1. Should a business be able to have signage?
2. How valuable are our businesses in the Green Wedges and how do we evaluate
the overall community benefit they offer?
3. What is ancillary?
4. Should wineries be able to serve beer?
5. What type of restrictions should be put on shedding, greenhouses, agricultural
covers in the Green Wedge Zone and what percentage of land coverage should be
allowed?
6. Should I be able to retail my produce in the Green Wedge?
7. Is tourism being encouraged?
8. In a mixed zone as the Green Wedge Zone, should agricultural land uses be
required to provide buffers on their own land?
Government policy perspective – John Ginivan (DPCD)
 Leadership and understanding the significance of the Green Wedges is a key challenge.
There is a collective understanding of what the Green Wedges have to offer, but there is
a question as to whether there is any commonly held sense of priority for their values.
There are some complex issues such as agriculture in the Green Wedges and critical
issues such as food production and food miles and the relationship with the liveability of
12
6
Melbourne and the regions that support it. There are contradicting views between
sectors as to which of these values matter.
 The social issues also present key challenges. There are numerous competing priorities
that society has identified and currently, there are not very sophisticated processes to
resolve the competing demands and aspirations. Some basic tools exist in terms of land
use planning zones and policy guidance, but no longer-term approach to make decisions
in the broader community’s interest has been developed.
Natural resource management planning perspective – Ian Morgans (Port Phillip and
Westernport CMA)
 The declining environmental condition in the Green Wedges is partly due to the land
management practices by individual land owners since they occupy approximately 80%
of the land.
 The CMA commissioned the report Square Pegs in Green Wedges: Landholders and
natural resource management in Melbourne’s rural hinterland by DPI, which examines
the social diversity of private rural land ownership in Melbourne’s peri-urban hinterland. It
explores strategies for improving natural resource management on rural properties (the
report can be accessed via
http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/pcr.nsf/3ff6f3b22edba47eca256cf4000070d4/27cda4e0a39
0bc83ca25757f001e2fe7?OpenDocument). Some of the key findings of the report are:
-
More than 80% of the farms are not profitable as individual enterprises. Amongst the
unprofitable farms, there is a whole range of ways in which people cope which
include struggling as farmers with risk of going broke, to hobby farming and those
that have off-farm income.
-
About 25% of landholders across the Green Wedges are absentee and do not
actually live on their properties. It was concluded that this category of landowner
does not need to invest in the natural resources on their land in order to make a
living. This raises problems because of the assumption in Green Wedge policy that
private landowners will provide public benefits for free such as open space,
biodiversity, visual amenity, clean water and healthy rivers. This seems to be highly
unlikely since many of them do not need to invest in their land to make a living.
There is no certainty or incentive.
 The CMA has been promoting recommended initiatives over the last three years to
improve certainty and incentives for sustainable land management to me more attractive
to land owners. The recommendations are:
1. A land stewardship program that provides three-to-five year contracts with authorities
such as the State Government or local government to increase public benefit
alongside private uses.
2. A landholder’s voluntary scheme which would provide a one-off attractive payment in
exchange for long-term or permanent conservation measures on their land title.
13
6
The certainty is a commitment to the Green Wedges by stating that the public is
prepared to invest public money over the long term to purchase public benefits on
private land in the Green Wedges. These recommendations are gaining support with
Green Wedge planners.
 The CMA supports a vision for one Green Wedge Management Plan developed and
delivered by partnerships. The CMA considers developing management plans and
incentives for 12 different Green Wedges and 17 different councils as not being feasible.
The plan and schemes need to establish a consistent set of rules that cover the entire
Green Wedge around Melbourne.
3.1.2
Key discussion points
The following points were identified through a facilitated discussion between the panel and
forum participants.
Issue:
How do we fund the Green Wedges and what are the appropriate funding models? For
instance, increase the potential of developer contributions by investing the contribution and
using the interest to fund programs in the Green Wedge (e.g. biodiversity programs).
 There needs to be a distinction between a user charge such as an open space
developer contribution and a tax. If people are to pay a user charge which will not deliver
a local benefit such as a park, rather it will be a general tax that will provide a benefit
somewhere else; confusion is created between what is a charge and what is a tax. If
there is going to be a large interest generated by investing the money, then the question
needs to be asked as to whether developers are being charged too much. If so, the
charge should be reduced so that the cost of providing open space is in line with the
charge that is required by the developer. Care is required to not confuse charges and
taxes. However, there is merit in the principle. There is in fact a tax on every property in
Melbourne collected by Melbourne Water which could be built upon as a way for the
wider metropolitan population to pay for environmental services being delivered by the
Green Wedges. The key message is that playing around with developer contributions
and taxes presents all sorts of risks.
 The funding issue for Green Wedge management is acknowledged by everyone.
However, substantial resources exist within society – it is a matter of where those
resources are allocated subject to the direction provided by society through the political
decision making process. This decides where the proportion of general budgets across
the board are directed. Currently there is a relatively small proportion allocated to issues
such as biodiversity because it may have a lower political priority which may reflect the
priority level in society. The question is then how to elevate the priority of particular
issues so that they gain greater attention? A whole of government project control group
has been established to try and look at the policy changes, new tools and other
initiatives that need to be put in place for the Green Wedges.
 The carbon market is possibly where new funding opportunities may arise. The Green
Wedges may have an important role if Melbourne’s carbon footprint is to be offset.
14
6
Issue:
The sustainability of government taxation to fund biodiversity services is a concern.
Opportunities may exist for large corporations motivated to offset their carbon emissions and
direct some of their corporate strategies into funding private biodiversity in the Green Wedges.
 The CMA has developed four large scale programs which have been successful in
securing corporate support, but this type of support may be less reliable than
Government support over the longer. It may be a matter of achieving the right mix of
both.
 Do we need to look at changing the UGB in some areas where biodiversity values do not
exist which may be more appropriate for higher density development? This may then be
a source of investment to protect and manage high value areas?
 We should be diverting betterment in new land added to the UGB amongst other things,
to enrich the Green Wedges.
 Looking at it from an institutional reform perspective – it seems a bit odd that councils
are required to look after a metropolitan asset, particularly for areas of state or
metropolitan significance. The Green Wedges are a metropolitan concept, yet we are
expecting/burdening councils which are geared towards delivering local governance, to
deliver a metropolitan benefit. One option for consideration would be establishing a
metropolitan institution to look after and fund the Green Wedges. Councils should retain
a subsidiary role in this type of approach.
 In terms of what people want with the Green Wedges, community consultation sessions
such as those conducted by Manningham City Council indicated that they want the
Green Wedges protected.
Issue:
The need to establish some level of consistency across the Green Wedges and whether the
establishment of a Green Wedge Authority should be considered.
 A Green Wedge Monitoring Authority to stand against the Growth Areas Authority could
be a useful initiative.
 The Project Control Board is designed to partly address this concern. There are common
issues that require a consistent approach to address them across the Green Wedges.
 In the past, single purpose authorities have be established at particular times and then
disbanded. There is no sense currently that the Government is looking to create
additional bureaucracy.
Issue:
There is a need to develop policy that considers climate change. Has the proposed shift in the
UGB considered the impact on carbon emissions?
 Modelling of the carbon impacts of the urban form and the projected growth in
Melbourne relevant to current practice has been undertaken. The logic of the proposed
UGB change is to start the thinking on reshaping Melbourne to get a better balance
15
6
between issues such as employment location and access to work, with the ultimate view
to start to change the total carbon emissions from the city over one or two generations.
The proposed UGB change decision commences the changes required for us to move
from the current trajectory so that the city will function in the longer term. However it will
take considerable time to achieve this. It was a decision based on what is the carbon
impact of business as usual versus an alternative.
 The change in the UGB does not mean that density within the existing footprint of the
city is not a priority for established areas. The projected population and household
growth now exceeds the growth initially envisaged by Melbourne 2030. However, the
change process for residents living in areas identified for increased density is difficult.
Issue:
What weight will Green Wedge Management Plans have, particularly at VCAT?
 As with any policy document considered by VCAT, the weight given to Green Wedge
Management Plans is likely to be determined by its quality and rigour.
 The current Chief Justice of VCAT has stated that we have moved towards a
performance based planning system which means that everything is up for grabs
everywhere and there is complex consideration to what is appropriate and under what
circumstances. The Chief Justice is talking about moving back to a more prescriptive
model for land use planning.
 When the Green Wedge Zones were created, the intent was to rely on the Green Wedge
Management Plan as the mechanism to articulate the respective objectives and to
establish the decision making criteria and guidance. The robustness will depend on how
well the Green Wedge Management Plan is articulated. Given the different reviews
currently underway including the Planning and Environment Act 1987, VCAT and the
State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), tension exists about increasing clarity on
priority objectives versus those that are considered to be of lower importance. For
example there are about 1,200 Government policy objectives in the SPPF that are
included as policy is developed. They are not included by a process that integrates them
as part of their practical application, or according to any priority hierarchy. Therefore,
they have the same weighting
Issue:
Is the Green Wedge a flawed concept as it is based on administrative boundaries related to
local government, rather than on a strategic boundary that considers the relationship of various
values for Melbourne?
 If Green Wedges were not delineated, it becomes difficult to apply intellectual and
financial capital on how to manage them and resolve the various conflicts.
 Possibly one of the issues with the Green Wedges is that there are 12 of them and it
may be difficult but smarter to have one regional Green Wedge plan with 12 appendices
to address the differences.
 Green Wedges are principally to provide non-intensive non-urban land uses.
16
6
Issue:
Population growth is driving a range of impacts including those on the Green Wedges. Should
we have a population summit?
 Environment groups have been pressured to take on the population debate, but there is
limited take-up because of the followigng:
-
The answers are divisive;
-
Given the immediacy of climate change, developing solutions for a more sustainable
way of living are required sooner than what can be achieved in the time it will take to
establish a sustainable population level.
 A good analysis is Victoria’s population source which is provided on the DPCD website
under Victoria’s Future Population Projections – drivers include:
-
An increase in overseas migration which is linked to the health of the economy. A
strong economy attracts immigration and we are currently at double the
Commonwealth projections;
-
Fertility rates have increased;
-
People are living longer.
 There is an ethical question using environmental limits as justification to prohibit
overseas immigration, when we are currently living beyond the means of our
environment.
Issue:
Does the Commonwealth have a role in the management of the Green Wedges?
 The Commonwealth owns land in the Green Wedges that is used for airports. State and
local government has little control over future uses of Commonwealth land e.g.
increased retail development on excess land.
 The role for the Commonwealth may not be direct investment in the Green Wedges,
rather applying leadership by inducing change by offering to share with the State the
productivity dividend that comes from having a compact city. If Melbourne 2030 was
delivered, Victoria’s GDP would be three to five percent larger. For every dollar of GDP,
one-third goes in taxes and two-thirds of those taxes go to the Commonwealth. The
Commonwealth could provide an incentive of billions of dollars annually to the State
Government to commit to addressing the difficult issues of the Green Wedges, such as
a commitment to urban consolidation, and a substantial incentive program for land
owners to deliver environmental services.
17
6
3.2
Forum Workshop
The second component of the forum comprised of two facilitated workshop sessions to
investigate the key themes of the forum. The discussion was prompted by the following
questions:
Session 1
1. What are the key challenges in the development of Green Wedge Management Plans
for this theme?
2. What are the barriers and the opportunities that will influence the response these
challenges for this theme?
3. What information, data or research do we need to be able to effectively cover this
component of our Green Wedge Management Plan?
Session 2
4. Are there any other key challenges, barriers, opportunities and/or data needs which the
first group missed?
5. What should Green Wedge Management Plans say with respect to this component?
6. What should be the respective roles of the following for this component of Green Wedge
Management Plans: individual councils? DPCD? DSE? MAV? Other?
Table 1 presents the output from the workshop sessions
18
6
Table 1. Green Wedges Forum – Workshop Summary Output
Agricultural Viability
key challenges
-Land value pollution (see Marcus Spiller paper) – land process
going up.
-Land valuation increasing prices.
-Quality of water and quantity (sources for use in Green Wedges).
-Competition between different agricultural areas.
-Land holdings are too small in the peri-urban areas.
-Conflicts between farmers and other land uses-Planning scheme
provisions are limiting.
What should be in a Green Wedge Management Plan
-Direction surrounding water – what sources of water are
available and in what circumstance can they be used.
-Recommendations for different agricultural techniques.
-Education component for agriculture.
-A market analysis - Industry solutions for seasonal jobs (e.g.
accommodation for workers).
-Try to reduce planning permits by codes of practice e.g. for farm
sheds (rather than needing a permit for building and work, rather
it’s to the satisfaction of the council).
-Consistency of planning provisions.
-Codes of practice for farming structures.
Barriers and opportunities
Roles and responsibilities
-Lack of State Government spine.
-Councils – prepare, advocate, implement and facilitate.
-Ability to use recycled water in the Green Wedges.
-DPCD/DPI – Make sure that the state policies are adhered to,
provide councils with funding, and establish over-arching
-A state funded rate rebate scheme.
-Education program targeting people moving into the Green Wedge consistency between Green Wedge Mgt Plans.
Environment.
-DSE – Produce environmental management plans and land
-The type of agriculture may change in many different ways going
management plans.
forward, and may not be reliant on access to soil as a primary
-MAV – Facilitate communication between the various
stakeholders, state agencies and local government.
need.
-State-wide farming policy to help the viability of agriculture
-VFF – Work as a stakeholder representing farmers in developing
the Green Wedge Mgt Plans.
-A stable urban UGB.
-The role of the State Government facilitating cost reductions with
Information, data and research
getting agriculture to markets – might be infrastructure investment
-Land capability studies would be a good outcome.
(e.g. new roads or water supply, or broadband facilities).
-Modelling the current legislation – identify the options for the
Green Wedges and proposed planning.
-Studying overseas agriculture and how they farm small lots of land
with limitations (e.g. water).
-Research – water availability studies (e.g. third pipe opportunities
or bore water- what situations are they most beneficial to the
agriculture on the land).
19
6
Biodiversity and Pests
Key challenges
-Baseline data – does it exist? If it does, how much does it cost to
access it?
-Social demographics of each Green Wedge area – guide the
priority level for biodiversity in each Green Wedge Mgt Plan.
-Resources at the council level.
-Baseline data exists at the landscape scale but not the local scale.
Opportunities and barriers
-Barriers include:
 Political will
 Commitment
 Capacity of councils to implement biodiversity and pest mgt
at a satisfactory level
 Who pays for data collection and protection?
 Current system rewards clearing
 Understanding in the general community
 Absentee land owners
 Different stakeholders with different priorities
 Complex planning system
 Political commitment.
-Opportunities:
 On-going management incentives
 Green Wedge Management Plans to be used to guide
offsetting
 Prioritise and link the most important riparian areas
 Thinking outside of the Native Vegetation Framework rules
 On-going management via incentives, particularly for new
land owners
20
6
What should be in a Green Wedge Management Plan
-Green Wedge Management Plans to direct knowledge gaps.
-To direct priority setting across the landscape e.g. for protection
of ecosystems.
-To direct multi-agency priorities so that they have regard for
biodiversity and pests.
-To direct the agencies to liaise with one another.
-Linking stakeholder and people – acting as a source of
communication for the community for best practice land
management.
-Green Wedge Management Plans to outline incentives to
manage vegetation rather than just retention.
-Link people together.
Roles and responsibilities
-DPCD to review the SPPs so that there is sufficient protection for
biodiversity.
-DSE to explore the framework so that it’s useable in the Green
Wedge areas. Also further research and ecosystem data.
-CMA through the RCS providing a forum for all the stakeholders
and community education, and strong coordination.
-Councils – first point of call for community education and to direct
people to information.
-Councils – administer the planning controls.
-State Government to take responsibility and demonstrate
commitment for enforcement particularly where councils have no
resources and no support and therefore loose cases with
significant damages awarded against them, and stop retrenching
extension officers.
-Community groups assist with data collection.
-DSE – improve the Native Vegetation Management Framework,
Bush Broker and Bush Tender, biodiversity and ecosystem data
collection and dissemination.
 A balance between regulations and incentives
 Ensure the appropriate planning tools are utilised.
Information, data and research
-Having baseline data.
-Being guided by Federal/State/Regional/Local priorities with
community input.
-Biodiversity indicators.
-Consistence between data collection methods and scale.
-Appropriate scale to inform site decisions.
Resources for Melbourne
Key challenges
-Need to understand what resources are - extractive industries are
one where land use changes (landfill sites). Airspace is also a
resource, also infrastructure, water and the land.
-Limitations for resources – limited by geographic distribution and
have to deal with them where they exist ‘they are where they are’.
-Challenge: variation and viability over time e.g. market gardening
areas that are struggling with the drought where water availability is
not the same as in the past.
-Extractive industries – rehabilitation challenge
-Water – access for a range of uses (agriculture, recreation etc)
-Airport operations.
-Economic benefits – commercial viability versus community
expectations.
Barriers and opportunities
Barriers:
 Community concept of ‘Green Wedges’
 Underlying geography of resources
 Regulating large areas of land for particular uses
 Lack of water
 Green Wedge Management Plans – ability to plan for long
term challenges of resource use.
Opportunities:
 Where increased recycling ,resource recovery and reduced
waste going to landfill may reduce the transfer of extractive
21
6
What should be in a Green Wedge Management Plan
-Explore the opportunity for Green Wedge Mgt Plans to contain
provisions regarding cost-sharing across all tiers of government
as well as the private sector to protect important resources and
natural resource assets and making them viable in the future.
-Identify appropriate areas for resource extraction/production.
-Establish conditions/management arrangements for industry.
Roles and responsibilities
-Having a standardized approach to resource management – a
metropolitan strategy or something to that affect, but recognise
the importance of councils to retain the ability to make local level
decisions on land use planning and development within the Green
Wedge. This is because it is not fair to leave with individual
councils with decisions dealing with the exploitation of resources
(e.g. sand, agricultural soils etc) – a metro plan for extractive and
agricultural industries, but allowing the detail to be dealt with at
the local scale (NOTE: Not sure how much control councils have
over extractive industries).
industry sites to landfill sites and therefore become
available for other purposes e.g. recreation
 An important opportunity is to keep opportunities open to
maintain resilience and adaptability for future changes e.g.
carbon offsetting, we’ve got the capacity to respond
 Conservation incentives
 Carbon market
 Renewable energy production
 Cost sharing opportunities.
Information, data and research
-Protecting resources for future use or exploiting them now
imposes costs – There’s no provision in the Green Wedge Practice
Note on establishing or allocating costs – big gap.
Public Land Management
key challenges
-Emergency management, particularly fire, is a challenge going
forward regardless.
-Identifying all the categories of public land and their management
authorities needs to be understood.
-Look at and examine funding sources for acquisition and
maintenance of public land going forward – capacity to acquire
land for open space purposes.
-Identify legislative constraints or conflicts exist in regards to
getting coordination between public land managers.
-Do we have enough public land to satisfy current challenges and
needs in the Green Wedge particularly in light of population growth
and how it will change in time – No ability to acquire land in the
Green Wedge, like the subdivision development process –
acquisition and maintenance funding.
-Identify where public land exists in the Green Wedge.
-Thinking of public land management beyond the administrative
boundaries e.g. the next Green Wedge.
-What prominence Green Wedges have outside DPCD?
-Multiple uses of Green Wedge public land.
-Coordination between public land managers.
22
6
-MAV having an advocacy role for a cost-sharing scheme.
-DPCD Liaising with the Minister.
-CMA analysis role for biodiversity and natural resources .
-Councils to manage land use and development.
-DSE-Purchasing/reserving strategic State Government land for
future resources.
What should be in a Green Wedge Management Plan?
-Clearly identify the role of public land in the Green Wedge and
outline the secondary uses of that land.
-Look at realistic capacity for public land acquisition– there are
expectations that other agencies will do certain things and their
needs to be a fair testing of their capacity to do that, or consider
capacity to fund it in a better way (NOTE: some concern about
acquiring more public land in areas where it is predominantly
private, and it provides benefits e.g. agriculture – shouldn’t be
trying to buy up the Green Wedges). However, ordinarily land for
Parks Vic for recreation etc is acquired through the subdivision
process where land is reserved for open space use – When
there’s development not being considered at a scale that would
result in the reservation of land for open space, if there are to be
corridors for habitat or recreation, either they are established on
private land, or it is to be public land, it has to be acquired through
acquisition through the subdivision process – about the balance to
allow public land to support the Green Wedge principles.
-Opportunities for public land to support the Green Wedge
objectives.
-Coordinate the role of land management across agencies
particularly where contiguous land exists in various public land
tenures.
-To flag and recognise existing management plans that may exist
so that the Green Wedge Mgt Plan may not require the detail if it
already exists – work to bring together the various plans.
-Government departments need a consistent approach regarding
Green Wedge policy.
Roles and responsibilities
-Local government – preparation and implementation of plans.
-DPCD – assisting in the coordination and keeping it as a
prominent policy issue and planning concept across other
agencies so assisting local government by greater coordination
across the various agencies.
-DSE, DPI and others – supporting the Green Wedge policy
throughout their agencies role, powers or capabilities.
-MAV – advocacy and coordination.
-Need to raise Green Wedges as a policy framework beyond local
government and DPCD to the other agencies.
Barriers and opportunities
-Barriers
 Entrenched cultures in public land mgt organisations and
silo thinking which limits cooperation and coordination
 Restrictions on roles and responsibilities
 Legislative restrictions on how land managers can conduct
themselves will need to be addressed
 Need for long-term budgeting to be considered – longer
than the three to five year horizon if we’re going to get
genuine cooperation and coordination across long-term
issues
 Security and access to public land
 The need for longer term funding beyond three to five
years.
-Opportunities
 Examine the commercial operations and tourism
opportunities on public land to be part of the solution
 Opportunity to enhance biodiversity
 Opportunities for commercial operations and tourism on
public land if it is well managed.
Information, data and research
-Collating and standardising the data that has already been
collected: biodiversity mapping and other natural assets.
-Prioritising the natural assets and the mapping process.
-Getting a good understanding on how the land is being used
-Making sure that the data is available for planners and decision
makers to understand what we’ve got.
-Consider the vulnerabilities that exist and the risk management
23
6
strategies are needed to protect values.
-Look at the processes that are used for the disposal of surplus
public land and ensure that it’s delivering what we need it to deliver
-Risk management assessment.
-Surplus public land – future uses, process for selling.
Safe, Healthy and Resilient Communities
key challenges
-Finding the balance between the importance of agriculture and
environmental protection versus sustainable communities such as
giving businesses opportunities and residential growth.
-How to manage fuel reduction versus native vegetation protection.
-Accommodating changes in sustainable farming practices within
Green Wedge Mgt Plans.
-Economic resilience is a key theme – what will keep people
there?– determining the key economic challenges for the area
-Planning for escape routes.
-Prevent subdivision for rural living versus encouraging resilient
communities and their growth.
Barriers and opportunities
-Resourcing for local government in implementation findings from
the Bushfire Royal Commission.
-Prescriptive measures such as subdivision sizes versus
performance or what the land capability is.
-Current zoning prohibits uses not as flexible agricultural based
versus trying to keep jobs locally.
-Funding streams that are unavailable to interface councils versus
rural councils because they are not ‘rural’.
-A water supply certainty (particularly for agricultural areas)
-Economic resilience.
-Understanding what will retain people.
24
6
What should be in a Green Wedge Management Plan?
-Raises questions: do we want diversity in housing stock? (NOTE:
some concern with this – Housing not a principle use of the zone,
therefore does not make sense to allow for housing choices) –
However, in terms of ‘resilience’ need to consider the community
staying there, particularly for people ageing – need to consider
maintaining communities in situ.
-Provide for a clear economic plan.
-A clear economic, social and environmental statement.
-It needs to look at what currently is and is not working.
-To provide a future plan but build in some flexibility.
-It needs to ask questions with regard to subdivision and controls
– should the land be further subdivided?
-Should provide for land capability studies.
-Establish mechanisms or policies to encourage local employment
to reduce travel.
-Sort out health plans and services that may be required for the
community.
Roles and responsibilities
-Open communication between individuals and authorities.
-Should there be an over-arching Green Wedge authority?
-DPCD needs to provide parameters, resources and approval for
the Green Wedge Management Plans.
-MAV – an advocacy role to ensure the needs of councils are
being met and serviced.
-DSE to provide knowledge, expertise, funding, research,
identification of gaps.
- A single plan that establishes the overarching goals for Green
Wedge management.
-A whole of government approach.
Information, data and research
-What are the demographic criteria of a resilient community?
-The findings and recommendations from the Bushfire Royal
Commission.
-The DPI to explore opportunities to promote efficient farming
practices to increase the knowledge.
-Research into what is the demographic of a resilient community.
-Population forecasting – what services are required now and in
the future?
Rural Residential Living
key challenges
-Each Green Wedge is different and the forms of rural living vary
from farms with offsite income to small residential lots.
-What do we do with existing subdivisions and what do we do with
new ones? There shouldn’t be any new rural residential lots
because the proliferation of houses on small lots is a serious threat
to the purposes of Green Wedges.
-What do we do with existing lots?
-A particular challenge for fire risk areas – no more houses in those
areas, However, any Green Wedge may be a fire risk area,
particularly for the land owners electing to provide biodiversity
benefits by planting trees in order to have the right t have a house.
-There is a diversity of views.
Barriers and opportunities
-Existing pattern of land ownership.
-Tighten the rural residential provisions to remove the discretion to
stop rural residential subdivision.
-Putting house on lots under the minimum subdivision size, an
applicant should be required to demonstrate a net gain in
agricultural or biodiversity benefits.
-If there are areas where there is existing quality agricultural land
or land with biodiversity values and recycled water opportunities,
there should be extra protective measures.
-Where there are small lots without houses, the owners should be
encouraged to consolidate the number of lots that could have
houses on them.
25
6
What should be in a Green Wedge Management Plan?
-Greater restrictions on land uses where appropriate.
-Use of the variety of zones to reflect the different priorities of
various areas.
-A sustainability rate to support agriculture.
Roles and responsibilities
-State Government community engagement.
-State Government needs to tighten the planning provisions to
stop further subdivisions.
-Councils in partnership with the CMA – proper consultation.
-Expectations of right to occupy.
-An opportunity may be the transfer of development to inside the
UGB.
Information, data and research
-We need data on exactly how many lots there are in the Green
Wedges (RMIT has undertaken research in the Bendigo corridor
and found 17,000 vacant lots which would substantially alter the
nature of that Green Wedge and rural area.
-Specific characteristics of each Green Wedge.
-An assessment of the policy tool kit to determine which parts are
most appropriate.
Research on the actual impact of rural residential development on
the environment and agriculture.
Tourism and Recreation
key challenges
Tourism:
-Making tourism and recreation diversification for businesses
enterprises viable.
What goes where and what is the appropriate scale?
-What is appropriate? Needs to be based on the triple bottom line.
Recreation:
-Green Wedges to be the recreation space for Melbourne but how
is it to be funded?
-What is recreation? E.g. paths, trail bikes, golf courses – what is
appropriate?
Barriers and opportunities
Tourism Opportunities:
 The Melbourne population (market size) provides certainty.
 Farm gate clustering e.g. you can grow strawberries on
your land and sell them at the farm gate, but if you get the
jam manufactured in the industrial estate in the near-by
town, you can’t sell the jam.
 Better links with natural systems, not just agriculture.
 Proximity to Melbourne.
 The need to control tourism uses to protect other values.
26
6
What should be in a Green Wedge Management Plan?
-The role of villages for tourists versus locals and the impact on
the Green Wedge.
-The need to identify existing uses that should not age or expand
in place, but there might be some so need to set criteria for site
specific planning scheme amendments for special uses that have
been selected on those criteria – become a virtual licensing
system (not a true one) rather than opening it up and letting things
be done by permit through osmosis that changes character.
-Marketing and improved transport.
Roles and responsibilities
-A leadership role for DPCD in adhering to state policy up and
down, providing some spine. Also reviewing the definitions in the
land use terms in the VPP to give more certainty in the Green
Wedge Zone.
-DSE particularly on the role of maintaining public land because of
its connection to recreation and tourism.
-MAV has a role in advocating with regard to the DPCD role
above.
-Councils maintain their role as we currently understand them.
 Opportunity to select small townships for expansion (e.g.
Seville) – selection based on facilities such as school halls
versus maintaining existing characteristics that attract
tourists.
 Opportunity for a tourisms business licensing system or
land use rationing system by way of planning scheme
amendments, rather than ‘free for all’ permits.
Tourism Barriers:
 The need for tools such as precincts to protect agriculture.
 The planning system prohibits tourist accommodation, small
yoga centres, and existing uses.
 Market not performing to provide low scale accommodation.
 Opportunity to re-define the unique selling proposition of
Green Wedges and help people understand what
constitutes a Green Wedge – more than just a forest or
bushland.
 Many opportunities to cluster for a tourism product.
 Generational change within families means that means that
businesses may not continue.
 Locals opposing any change – even businesses in the
Business 1Zone.
Recreation opportunities:
 Green Wedges have the opportunity to be Melbourne’s
‘backyard’ – opportunities across eco-tourism, beaches,
pathway experiences, bushland etc.
 Different potential in different Green Wedges.
 Promote the uniqueness of Green Wedges.
 Huge opportunities for short day trips.
 Contribute to conservation.
 Improved transport.
Recreation Barriers:
 There are missing links camping and eating facilities.
27
6
-The Regional Catchment Strategy should have a role particularly
addressing common for the common land management issues
across the Green Wedges.
 The future demand is unknown.
 Difficulty in funding and obtaining new paths.
 Do not destroy what is valued.
 Landscapes views being screened out.
Information, data and research
- Planning tools to give certainty and consistency.
-Land use master plans for the Green Wedge.
-Sustainable tourism capability study for the Green Wedges –
things that can be linked, expanded or established.
-Information and funding for planning compliance.
-Research on the provision of new transport services.
-Research on new legislation to promote new paths across private
land.
Managing the Rural-Urban Interface
key challenges
-Uncertainty – especially at above or between the metropolitan
rural layers – Flexibility of the UGB is the main problem.
-Rural landholders will behave according to the expectation that
the UGB will expand.
-Rural viability versus people land banking for future development.
-The amount of land for productive agriculture is shrinking.
-Getting rural and urban interface planning together (directed at the
growth areas where there is effort, unlike the interface with Green
Wedge areas).
Barriers and opportunities
-Biggest one is the lack of funding for interface and Green Wedge
management.
-No clear mechanism for taxing or charging to raise funding for the
greater public amenity benefit – Broader benefit for Melbourne, but
left to local government to fund all the time.
-Councils having to fund the protection of areas that provide
metropolitan benefits.
-Lack of buffers between uses.
Information, data and research
-An audit on what’s actually out there and what’s happening. We
28
6
What should be in a Green Wedge Management Plan?
-A clear physical barrier between rural and urban areas.
-A clear strategic attempt to create a transition zone e.g. golf
course, an appropriate farm use, wetlands, roadway, river and a
mechanism and process to implement it – or public open space
identified as part of structure planning. Would need to provide
clear strategic intent for the transition zone and a process to
implement it.
Roles and responsibilities
-DPCD has a proper role for oversight for the development of
Green Wedge Management Plans.
-A clear statement that the State Government should hold the line
on the UGB.
only know a bit of it (biodiversity as well as agricultural).
-We need to understand the value of the land, although currently
it’s based on urban land values.
-Viability assessment of the land, but cognisant that it can be
tested (e.g. whether agriculture is viable on a piece of land can be
questioned).
-Why are some UGBs more acceptable than others? E.g. Yarra
Ranges and Mornington Peninsula may be more iconic and
therefore it’s easier to communicate why they are significant,
whereas some of the others (western grasslands) aren’t as
recognised.
29
6
4
Acknowledgements
The MAV acknowledges the contribution made by the Green Wedges Working Group in
the development and delivery of the Green Wedges Forum. In addition, the MAV
appreciates the involvement of guest speakers and panel members who provided input to
the discussions. Importantly, the MAV acknowledges the councils, agencies and other
authorities that participated in the event. The effort of Nillumbik Shire to host the event at
short notice was greatly appreciated.
30
Appendix 1
Green Wedge Councils Issues Matrix
Issue
HB
Wyn
GW scale
1
4
Growth Area
N
Y
Green Wedges
1
2
(no.)
Agriculture
0
4
Rural residential
0
2
Landscape value
2
3
Natural Resources
0
4
for Melbourne
Future urban
0
5
5
Rural-urban
0
5
Interface
Social
0
3
Biodiversity & Pest
4
5
Plants and Animals
Indigenous
2
3
Heritage
Tourism
4
3
Subdivision/
0
2
Consolidation
Public Land
5
2
Management
Fire Management/
2
2
Prevention
Melt
4
Y
2
B’bk
2
N
1
Hume
4
Y
2*
W’sea
4
Y
2*
N’bik
4
N
3*
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
5
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
2
4
0
2
5
4
4
0
4
3
5
3
2
3
3
4
4
5
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
5
5
5
Council
M’ham
3
N
2*
M’dah
1
N
1
Knox
1
N
1
Card
4
Y
2
Casey
4
Y
3
GD’ng
3
N
1
K’ton
3
N
1
F’ton
3
N
2
MP
5
N
1
5
5
2
3
3
1
1
2
3
0
1
2
2
1
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
2
2
2
3
4
4
5
3
0
4
0
2
0
1
0
2
3
4
3
3
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
4
2
4
1
2
1
1
3
4
3
3
2
3
2
1
2
3
4
4
4
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
5
4
3
5
4
2
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
3
2
5
4
4
5
3
2
2
4
3
2
2
3
4
4
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
4
YR
5
N
2
4
4
5
5
5
Note: Numeric scale 0-5 where 1 is minor and 5 is maximum relative to other issues for that council (i.e. not relative to significance of the same issue for
other councils).
Shaded cells indicate municipalities where the issue may be most significant, relative to the significance of the issue in other Green Wedges.
* Indicates minor areas of the municipality, requiring little if any management from the council (e.g. portions of Plenty Gorge and Warrandyte Parks that
straddle LGA boundaries but for convenience have been allocated entirely to a single green wedge).
31
Green Wedge
Werribee
South
Councils (% area of Green
Wedge)
Wyndham (>90%)
Hobsons Bay (<10%)
Western
Plains South
Wyndham (~65%)
Melton (~35%)
Western
Plains North
Melton (100%)
Sunbury
Hume (~94%)
Brimbank (~5%)
*Whittlesea (<1%)
Whittlesea (100%)
Whittlesea
Nillumbik
Manningham
Yarra Valley
and Yarra &
Dandenong
Ranges
Southern
Ranges
Westernport
Nillumbik (~97%)
Whittlesea (~2%)
Manningham (~1%)
Manningham (~99%)
Nillumbik (~1%)
Yarra Ranges (~95%)
Cardinia (~5%),
Maroondah (<1%)
Knox (<1%),
Cardinia (~85%)
Yarra Ranges (~6%)
Casey (~6%)
Knox (~2%)
Greater Dandenong (<1%)
Cardinia (~75%)
Casey (~25%)
*Frankston (<1%)
Key Values (M2030)
Some Key Issues
Wetlands, recreation & tourism, environment &
landscape, high quality horticulture, Pt Cook
airfield, Western Treatment Plant (part)
Quarries & landfills, water recycling potential,
Avalon (flight-paths), environment & landscape,
grasslands, potential growth area, potential future
industry, odour buffer
Quarries & landfills, water recycling potential,
Melbourne Airport (flight-paths), grasslands,
potential growth area
Environment & landscape, parks, Melbourne
Airport & flight-paths, high quality horticulture,
water storage
Quarries & landfills, environment & landscape, red
gum woodlands, grasslands
Environment & landscape, habitat including red
gums, National Parks, water storages
GWMP adopted, precinct approach, growing visitor
pressure, water for horticulture, dryland area, urban
interface.
UGB review, grassland reserves, dryland farming,
rural residential, weeds, waterways
UGB review, grasslands, dryland farming, fire (north),
weeds, water, parks
UGB review, parks, dryland farming, airport
operations, water quality & quantity for farming,
Environment & landscape, National Parks, water
catchments & storages, biodiversity & habitat,
agricultural capacity (especially vineyards)
UGB review, fire, rural subdivisions, GW townships,
biodiversity, weeds, dryland farming
Fire, rural residential, GW townships, tourism
(potential), biodiversity, parks & reserves, urban
interface
GWMP adopted, due for review, small size, rural
residential, parks & reserves, biodiversity, tourism,
urban interface
Fire, public land management, GW townships,
biodiversity, intensive agriculture, tourism, water
quality
National Parks, recreation & tourism, environment
& landscape, water storage
Fire, public land management, GW townships,
biodiversity, catchment, extractive industry
Ramsar wetland, agriculture (especially intensive
horticulture), water recycling potential, landscape
& environment, possible long-term potential for
airport
UGB review, farming, drainage, GW townships,
biodiversity, coastal issues
Environment & landscape, metropolitan & State
parks, biodiversity & habitat, agricultural potential
32
South East
Mornington
Peninsula
Greater Dandenong (~40%)
Frankston (~30%)
Kingston (~25%)
Casey (<5%)
Mornington Peninsula (>98%)
Frankston (<2%)
Ramsar wetland, Eastern Treatment Plant, water
recycling potential, quarries & landfills, landscape
& environment, odour & safety buffers, Moorabbin
Airport, agricultural capacity
Ramsar wetland, agricultural capacity, water
recycling potential, landscape & environment,
National Park, tourism & recreation
Urban interface, airport & other public infrastructure,
off-site impacts of GW uses, transitory land uses,
parks, biodiversity,
Fire, biodiversity, visitor pressure, coastal issues,
intensive agriculture including vineyards, GW
townships, parks & reserves, rural residential
Action is underway to seek transfer of Whittlesea land in Sunbury Green Wedge to Whittlesea Green Wedge and Frankston land in Westernport Green
Wedge to South East Green Wedge. Consideration may be given in future to transfer of Casey land from South East Green Wedge to Westernport Green
Wedge. Possible rationalisations of Council involvement with the Whittlesea, Nillumbik and Manningham Green Wedges would involve splitting significant
public parks (that straddle municipal boundaries) between green wedge management plans, whereas the current green wedge boundaries enable those
parks to be addressed in toto in a single green wedge management plan. Changes to those green wedge boundaries are therefore unlikely to occur.
33
Appendix 2
Planning for Melbourne’s Green
Wedges
An Economist’s Perspective
MAV
September 2009
34
This Report has been prepared for:
MAV
This report has been prepared by:
SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd
ACN 007 437 729
Level 5 171 Latrobe Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
P: + 61 3 8616 0331
F: + 61 3 8616 0332
E: sgsvic@sgsep.com.au
W: www.sgsep.com.au
Offices in Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney
35
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
2
Challenges and Potential Solutions........................................................................... 1
3
Governance .............................................................................................................. 2
36
1
Introduction
The Green Wedges have been an integral part of the planning vision for metropolitan
Melbourne for almost 40 years. They have always been seen as productive areas of nonurban land with their own purpose and integrity, as distinct from ‘areas left over’ from urban
development.
In delivering on this vision, the Green Wedge policy faces some major challenges. From an
economist’s perspective, two issues are particularly prominent:
2

‘Land value pollution’; and

Lack of resources to implement much needed environmental rehabilitation and recreational
resource development.
Challenges and Potential Solutions
‘Land value pollution’ relates to the uncertain status of Green Wedge land under current policy
practice. The fact that the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) has morphed from a clear limit on
urban expansion into a ‘control line’ which is subject to continuous review pending housing
market conditions means that the essential non-urban character of Green Wedge land is
always suspect, at least in those areas which enjoy good access to road and water cycle
infrastructure. This, in turn, means that some property holders will be under a constant
incentive to eye off higher development potentials. This leaks through into higher land values
than what can nominally be carried by land uses permitted under the Green Wedge policy. As
a result, productive agricultural uses can be pushed out or induced to operate on a ‘holding
pattern’ basis which militates against fresh investment in farm infrastructure.
As noted in the workshop documentation, the area of land covered by the Green Wedges is
very extensive and characterised by highly patchy environmental quality. The public sector
investment required for rehabilitation is likely to be well beyond the capacity of the host
Councils which have responsibility for the development of Management Plans for these areas.
Underlying both these problems is the question of value capture. There has been no provision
for taxing betterment upon rezoning or the granting of higher order development approvals,
since the Town and Country Planning Act was replaced by the Planning and Environment Act
in the mid 1980’s. However, through Growth Areas Authority, the State Government is
currently attempting to introduce a form of value capture via the Growth Area Infrastructure
Charge (GAIC). This provides an opportunity to revisit this issue and propose a more generic
betterment taxation mechanism which could be deployed to the benefit of Green Wedge policy
objectives (amongst many other planning objectives).
Rather than couching the debate over value capture in ‘taxation’ terms, it is likely to be more
efficacious, from a community acceptance perspective, to pursue a system of ‘development
licence fees’, such as that which is practiced in the ACT. This is premised on the theory that
planning restricts where and when higher order land uses can take place for social efficiency
reasons, in much the same way as governments regulate the markets for taxi licences,
broadcasting licences, commercial fishing licences, forestry licences and so on. In each of the
latter cases, government’s routinely charge fees for the development or ‘business operating’
rights conferred by a licence. Such fees are not directly sought for development rights
conferred under planning controls, and as a result this value can be capitalised into higher
land prices, partially explaining the ‘betterment uplift’.
37
In the ACT, the holder of a development approval must also pay a ‘Change of Use’ charge,
linked to the consequential uplift in land value. This is facilitated by the Territory’s leasehold
land tenure system, but, in concept, can be applied within a freehold system such as
Victoria’s.
The introduction of development licences as a means of value capture would achieve two
ends in the context of Green Wedge policy:
3

It would generate significant revenues, over and above those from infrastructure charges and
impact mitigation fees. These could be used, in part, to fund environmental rehabilitation and
infrastructure investment in Green Wedges.

It would dampen speculation (‘land price pollution’) in Green Wedges as those contemplating a
shift to higher order land uses would need to factor in the license fee.
Governance
The Green Wedges represent metropolitan assets but, under current arrangements they are
expected to be largely managed by institutions which have a local community focus, namely
municipal councils. Aside from the funding limitation of Councils, these arrangements
represent a subsidiarity mismatch. Councils cannot be expected to act as metropolitan
planning authorities; when any tension arises between local and metropolitan planning
interests (and these come up regularly), Councils are placed in an awkward if not untenable
position.
Similar subsidiarity issues confront the State Government in its endeavours to manage Green
Wedges. In principle, the State’s capacity to properly represent metropolitan interests is
severely hampered because its governance remit is much broader than Greater Melbourne.
Ideally, Melbourne would have a metropolitan planning authority to take care of metropolitan
issues, including Green Wedges.
38