Well whats the problem with building houses, there is nothing out there anyway?
What you said, with particular emphasis on the agricultural land - seriously, most of Australia is not good crop growing land, wtf are we building extensively on the small amount we have?! This really does irritate the crap out of me. Factor in food miles and petrol, and suddenly you've got a major increase in the cost of food that completely offsets any benefit of having the affordable housing.
Personally I'm all for government incentives to start building up regional centres, and putting in the infrastructure to move jobs and people to those areas rather than increasing Melbourne to the point of stupidity (which it already is kind of at, actually).
(Small side rant: I really, really, really wish that if they government is going to release land to developers that they would require the damn developers to plan for public transport and have it set up and ready to go at the same time as people are moving in. Factor in bus pullovers/stops so the traffic flows. Factor in rail corridors and extend the line/build the bridges as you develop. None of this "oh yeah, it's the government's problem now" so it gets left for 20 years until the problem is bloody acute. It should be being planned in the same way that schools and shopping centres are. Then we wouldn't end up with this freaking South Morang Rail Extension Ongoing Bullshit. OK, rant over.)
Also, the more we we infringe on what was "nothing" land, the more wildlife we impact and the more kangaroos we have on the street/in our backyard/in front of the cars. This really came home to me out in Whittlesea a couple of years ago - there was a quite large grey (I think) kangaroo hopping down the middle of the newly developed street, obviously looking for food/water.
Anyway. I think I share quite a few of your rational environmentalist views. If that's how you'd describe them. Want to come storm Parliament with me? :-)
There is a legal requirement for developers to consider cultural and environmental heritage concerns prior to development. I agree that the developments should also have to take accessibility and PT concerns into account. The Melbourne 2030 plan did some of that - however it has since been scrapped as policy.
That said - if people stop building in south east Melbourne I think I'd probably be out of a job :)
Seriously tho. There are serious concerns with policies for development, many new housing estates are not constructed in a sustainable manner, there are also serious concerns with the lack of sustainable farming policies. This is why I'm voting Green.
This is true however in the case of the environmental assessment it is "here are our designs, what to we have to do to get this cleared" when it should be "There is some land out there that we want to build on. What is the best design given the existing values of the land"
Our Native Veg Framework calls for the three step approach - Avoid, Minimise and Offset. Guess which one hardly ever happens
There is an attempt to change that by doing Precinct Planning surveys prior to land sub division but then you come up with the issue of who pays for the survey? Councils, current land holders, developers who are looking to buy and develop or state government.
See I can only really comment on the cultural heritage side of things. And I've seen that work, including leading to the redesign of projects to accommodate heritage recommendations.
The issue of who pays for surveys is a tricky one. I think the government should be doing regional and local area surveys, where the developer should be paying for the ones that involve their 'activity area'
What you said, with particular emphasis on the agricultural land - seriously, most of Australia is not good crop growing land, wtf are we building extensively on the small amount we have?! This really does irritate the crap out of me. Factor in food miles and petrol, and suddenly you've got a major increase in the cost of food that completely offsets any benefit of having the affordable housing.
Personally I'm all for government incentives to start building up regional centres, and putting in the infrastructure to move jobs and people to those areas rather than increasing Melbourne to the point of stupidity (which it already is kind of at, actually).
(Small side rant: I really, really, really wish that if they government is going to release land to developers that they would require the damn developers to plan for public transport and have it set up and ready to go at the same time as people are moving in. Factor in bus pullovers/stops so the traffic flows. Factor in rail corridors and extend the line/build the bridges as you develop. None of this "oh yeah, it's the government's problem now" so it gets left for 20 years until the problem is bloody acute. It should be being planned in the same way that schools and shopping centres are. Then we wouldn't end up with this freaking South Morang Rail Extension Ongoing Bullshit. OK, rant over.)
Also, the more we we infringe on what was "nothing" land, the more wildlife we impact and the more kangaroos we have on the street/in our backyard/in front of the cars. This really came home to me out in Whittlesea a couple of years ago - there was a quite large grey (I think) kangaroo hopping down the middle of the newly developed street, obviously looking for food/water.
Anyway. I think I share quite a few of your rational environmentalist views. If that's how you'd describe them. Want to come storm Parliament with me? :-)
Reply
Reply
Reply
That said - if people stop building in south east Melbourne I think I'd probably be out of a job :)
Seriously tho. There are serious concerns with policies for development, many new housing estates are not constructed in a sustainable manner, there are also serious concerns with the lack of sustainable farming policies. This is why I'm voting Green.
Reply
Our Native Veg Framework calls for the three step approach - Avoid, Minimise and Offset. Guess which one hardly ever happens
There is an attempt to change that by doing Precinct Planning surveys prior to land sub division but then you come up with the issue of who pays for the survey? Councils, current land holders, developers who are looking to buy and develop or state government.
Yep Sustainable planning is important!
Reply
The issue of who pays for surveys is a tricky one. I think the government should be doing regional and local area surveys, where the developer should be paying for the ones that involve their 'activity area'
Reply
Leave a comment