Sprawl: a serious threat to food security

While the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance applauds Hepburn’s efforts in the Rural Hepburn Strategy to protect agricultural land from further inappropriate development for so-called lifestyle blocks we assert that the town structure plans as drafted will thwart this intent to the detriment of both valuable farmland and the character and liveability of our shire’s towns.

First, rezoning agricultural land to expand the Daylesford town boundary will merely open it up for inappropriate development wildly out of character with its historical development. Making the 14 hectares at East Street available to development is not ‘planning for predicted growth’, it is pre-empting growth – making it almost a certainty that the town will grow quickly and uniformly for the profit of some distant development company.

It will not benefit locals by delivering more affordable housing stock, including rental houses, and the developments are nearly guaranteed to be a mundane monoculture of drab and unsustainable design.

In the interest of brevity, we make a final point, looking to the loss of peri-urban agricultural land around Melbourne, such as at Koo Wee Rup and Werribee, and say that while it may be ‘only’ 14 hectares this year, how many next time, and the next?

Drawing a line to protect farmland to feed our communities must be a priority in all rural strategies. There is plenty of space within the town boundary as outlined by council itself, if subdivision permissions are eased and the 380 vacant lots developed instead of farmland.

A policy to discourage or even prohibit the proliferation of short-term accommodation that leaves up to 40 per cent of houses vacant on any given night would genuinely address the housing crisis, whereas cheap, ugly peri-urban development will not.

We recommend reading the Foodprint Melbourne reports to better grasp the long-term implications of allowing towns to sprawl, which presents a serious threat to food security and the well being of local communities.

From Tammi Jonas, president, Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance Co-custodian, Jonai Farms & Meatsmiths, Eganstown

Keep housing within the town boundary is the ‘No 1 ask‘

I want to start by acknowledging the sheer enormity of the work council staff have undertaken in the development of the draft structure plans for the entire shire.

And no doubt a rewarding effort for council staff if this is endorsed by councillors in the upcoming council meetings. However, the expense, effort, process, content and outcome have massively let down the community that this council supposedly serves.

I’m a resident in Daylesford’s east and it was an enormous shock to see a proposed town boundary expansion over active and exquisitely picturesque farmland be dropped like a nuclear bomb into the draft plan.

Described as a “minor” piece of land in the report, the proposition is given a whole lot of non-conclusive reasons for proposing such an expansion. As a community we will continue to interrogate this and it’s very apparent already that the town boundary is not needed to expand to accommodate understandable and projected growth requirements into the future.

I will also declare that I was one of the voluntary community engagement panellists that has been referenced continuously by council communication as being part of the backbone of “community consultation”.

This is not the case. The panels did not contribute to tactical or planning outputs, instead we were invited into well facilitated and target discussion groups that worked around vision (also not unanimously endorsed) and identifying core focus areas like housing, business and economy, urban design, environment and heritage etc.

The exaggerated use of this panel’s input is not acceptable. And as found in the council’s Wayfarer Consulting Report (June 2023) available on its website, the #1 ask of the community was to keep housing within the town boundary. Unsurprisingly, this was also articulated in the engagement panel workshops at multiple times.

It is a giant leap from these loose, yet productive panel workshops and community questionnaire to this draft plan that proposes to steal farmland from multi-generational farmers.

It is at complete odds with the council’s ‘Agricultural Land Study and Rural Settlement Strategy’ draft plan, that’s also been released, and would dismantle the townships hamlet feel pulling it eastwards (and with the traffic through the cosy streets of town) to a proposed 100+ housing estate. And not forgetting the enormous environmental oversights.

Remarkably, in the draft plan the spring and creek know as Smith’s Creek, that rises from this farmland and meanders down through Cornish Hill and into Lake Daylesford, is conveniently not listed as one of the creek/water sources that will be preserved in the draft plan. This needs a lot of explanation.

This draft plan does not serve the community or the land and to enable it to be rushed through prior to imminent council elections should not be tolerated by our community. We deserve better. Because once it’s gone, it’s gone!

My heart sinks when I see the rich soils of ‘Middleton Fields’ be trenched, but its prudent to remember that while these proposed developments generated much community protest, it was already seemingly too late. The rezoning had already been done well prior. The town boundary proposition in the east has not.

From Graeme L, Daylesford

Perplexed

After attending Tuesday (May 14) afternoon’s meeting, I am still perplexed as to why the council has spent money on four consultants for over two years to come up with a solution that is not only basic and unimaginative but directly contradicts both the community feedback (via the consulting group of 21 residents and the community survey) and its own Agriculture Land Study and Rural Settlement Strategy.

They are determined to silo projects even when they are intrinsically linked which results in outcomes that are limited, short sighted and doomed to failure. We currently have enough vacant land for 380 new homes within the existing boundary. By their own admission – this is 20 years of stock. This doesn’t include any infill, subdivisions or existing developments. So why even commission this study?

This entire rezoning proposal will only create 100 new lots whilst having a devastating impact on our town, our farming, agriculture and tourism

And even then, it does not address the most significant cause of the current housing crisis: the conversion of hundreds of homes from owner-occupier/permanent rentals to short-term holiday rentals (currently over 400 just on Airbnb alone).

This “boom” has not only resulted in many locals living in streets without any neighbours, but long term holiday rentals becoming less and less viable as the market becomes saturated.

It could also be argued that the altered “balance” between permanent and holiday properties could have contributed to the marked increase in domestic burglaries of late. It doesn’t take blind Freddy to think that a vacant holiday house is easy picking for a criminal.

If the council lacks the skills, passion or desire to achieve great outcomes, they should let us devise the solutions. This community has more talent, expertise and passion than the council gives us credit for. We are not an “everyday” run-of-the-mill country town. We need a vision that reflects the nature and character of our town – innovative, sustainable and extraordinary.

From Sarah Lang, Daylesford

Pastures not pavements!

I am writing to voice my disapproval of the proposed Hepburn Shire Council Draft Plan to change the town boundary along a section of East Street directly across from where I live.

My main objection is that it is prime productive farming land which has been farmed for generations and should remain that way into the future.

While this is presently an East Street issue, I believe the entire Daylesford community should rally against this inappropriate land grab and the lack of council consultation in respect of the sudden announcement three weeks ago.

We were all blindsided, including the farm owners. Pastures not pavements!

From Sandy Breen, Daylesford

By Donna Kelly

It will be interesting. So many people against the idea to turn productive farmland into residential land in East Street, Daylesford, but can they change the Hepburn Shire Council’s mind?

I hope so. It seems crazy that you would talk about the importance of farmland – including what AusNet hopes to get hold of – and then go and carve it up for houses that are not yet needed.

And the poor bloody farmer and his family. We are taught from a young age to try and make a living for ourselves and our families, give back to the community and look after ourselves if possible.

Yes, there are safety nets there for people if needed, and I have been on the dole a couple of times in my younger days, but I reckon I have more than paid back my fair share of tax.

But the farmer and his family are going to be hit with higher rates and the added boot up the backside of the state government’s windfall gains tax. As Graham Kennedy said so well, apparently imitating a crow…”Farrrkkkk”.

So even if the farmer and his family want to keep farming, which they do, they may not be able to afford to stay on their own land. Their land. Maybe someone from The Castle can help them out.

And then Hepburn Shire Council’s Development executive director Ron Torres, who seems like a nice enough bloke, says planning is not allowed to take into account any monetary issues. They may not but the farmer has no choice. Life is all about monetary issues.

(Quick aside. Why do organisations like all levels of government twist their titles around? Mr Torres’ real title is Executive Director Development. I always change them back. Just for fun. Obviously I need more in my life.)

Anyway, we will see if the council will listen. Mayor Brian Hood, who I do like, says the council is hoping Future Hepburn will be a legacy for the current crop of councillors but they only have until September before they go into caretaker mode for the next election.

Cr Hood says getting it right is more important than the timing so we will see.

And legacy projects are not always all they are cracked up to be. The Rex, anyone? I also wonder why the council is not looking at residential land at the end of Jamieson Street. Lovely rolling hills, nice views, no farmland to chop up. Apparently there are concerns over the steepness of the land and potential bushfires. Hmmm.

I also wondered about the cost so far for all the planning consultants and experts. I am sure they have worked hard but we must have paid them pretty well – and that means ratepayers. (The council says $1.3 million to date.)

And some of the statistics are a little mind blowing. For example, Glenlyon’s documents say the town had a 2021 population nearing 450 which is expected to grow by 60 people by 2041. The same document says research expects demand for 54 new homes over the next 15 years. So this is 2024 and by 2039 we will need 54 new homes for 60 people. Are we just planning for divorcees?

The document then says housing capacity, including both infill and greenfield development, is only 47 dwellings, and “due to over-riding environmental and servicing factors” some of this demand could be accommodated in nearby Daylesford. Maybe in East Street? WTAF?

I guess it’s another watch this space but I hope the council goes for getting it right over getting it done. Just sayin’..

Planning

I write in concern about the proposal Hepburn Shire Council has to rezone prime farming land on the outskirts of East Street in Daylesford.

I have lived opposite this beautiful farming land for near on 30 years this September. Our home was purchased with the understanding that we were purchasing unique and peaceful quiet land out of the township to enjoy a very rural lifestyle while still having the opportunity of a very close-by community with all the facilities to raise our family.

We were always of the understanding that the land opposite was rich, valuable, farming land and would always remain this as per the zoning of it.

In all my time of living in my family home this amazing piece of land has been farmed by generations of families whom continue to honour the rich soil that it sits on.

It has always been cropped, grazed or rested as per old school farming practices. Often on a hot summer night I listen to the tractor frantically raking or bailing hay to beat the oncoming rain.

Many a day and night I listen to the sound of baby lambs as they are delivered onto this sacred farming land. Not a year goes by when this land is not honoured for the use it has been set aside for.

The council must reconsider this proposal, it will destroy a beneficial farm that supply’s our farming sector with much needed product. I have attached a photo (above) of said land for your viewing pleasure to enjoy its beauty.

From: Ann Maree Mackley, Daylesford

Reconsider the East Street rezoning plan

The HSC proposal for potential rezoning of prime agricultural land along East Street must be reconsidered and removed from the Draft Structure Plan.

On page 10 of the draft plan under the heading 3.3 Strategic and Statutory Context – State Policy, Plan Melbourne states that “development in peri-urban areas must be in keeping with local character, attractiveness and amenity.

Growth boundaries should be established for each town to avoid urban sprawl and protect agricultural land and environmental assets”.

In the draft plan there is no mention or mapping of the natural spring that starts on that farm and becomes Smith Creek, which runs through the old trout hatchery and eventually into Lake Daylesford.

It’s like the councillors and planners haven’t even read their own document.

It should also be noted that the current owners of ‘Mayfield’, the farmland intended for rezoning, were not consulted and have no intention of selling, but may be forced to if this current proposal is adopted. We must not let that happen. Pastures not pavements!

From: Martin Hinck, David Triscott, Daylesford

Proposed re-zoning a shock

I’m part of the family who owns the farm on East Street, Daylesford (called Mayfield) which is being proposed to be rezoned, and I’m currently living on that farm.

It was bought by my great-grandfather in 1921 and has been farmed continuously and productively since then (as well as before my family bought the land). My family are proud of having farmed it all this time, and wish to continue doing so.

It was a shock to all of us to discover when the draft plan was released that 14 hectares of our farm (one third of the entire farm) was being proposed to be rezoned into residential. Despite the potential for profit, all of the family are opposed to the proposed rezoning, and have had no part in that proposal.

Although there seems to be a number of inconsistencies and problems in the draft structure plan, I commend the council on the plan overall. It’s been a huge effort by many people to put together, and I think it’s important for the shire to have such a structure plan.

I understand there is pressure from the state government on council to allocate
new housing for growth in the town. However, Daylesford is not an ideal location
for much growth with its geographic constraints, forest to the west, farmland to the
east. Perhaps council needs to push back on the state government’s required growth
obligations for the town?

For whatever growth is necessary, I would argue it should be contained within the existing urban growth boundary, including vacant blocks, in three-storey buildings in parts of the centre of town, on some of the more difficult hilly terrain and in some of the bush-fire prone areas when built to the appropriate bushfire attack level, before developing prime agricultural land.

Our farm is on amongst the best farmland in the entire country, with its rich volcanic soil and good rainfall. It has the potential to feed a good portion of the town if farmed intensively, and offers future food resilience to the community, especially with it being located right beside the town. The whole reason we have farmland zoning is to protect the best farmland.

My principal objection to the proposal is on these grounds. Farmland should be valued more highly in the structure plan assessments and should be amongst our highest priorities to protect.

The council goes on about how important it is to them to protect our farmland, yet this just seems like rhetoric when I see such a proposal in the draft plan. This is our chance to stand up for our farmland! I would urge all the councillors to uphold their purported values, to put their rhetoric into action, and
vote to remove this proposed rezoning of prime agricultural land from the plan.

Of course not everyone will agree on all aspects of the plan, but I believe there is widespread opposition, both in the neighbourhood and the wider community, to the proposed rezoning on East St.

As others have mentioned, it would be good to see the alternative options for growth to the East St rezoning, and perhaps community could vote on the options, or provide their feedback. Considering the alternatives seems especially prudent given that my family do not wish for the land to be developed, and without increased rates pressure forcing our hand, do not intend to sell the land.

A slide from the meeting’s presentation claims that our rates will not increase if our land is rezoned to residential so long as it continues being farmed, but I am quite sceptical of this.

It is contrary to my own prior understanding and to what I’ve heard from several other people, including a former Hepburn Shire mayor.

Surely such a rezoning would increase the property’s valuation and thereby incur higher rates, not to mention land tax and windfall gains tax. What assurance would we have that our rates would not increase with this proposed rezoning?

This is of great concern to my family, as the future of our farm would hinge on it.

From: Farmer Ned Powell, East Street, Daylesford.