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

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

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

The potential rezoning of farm land to residential in East Street, Daylesford, as part of the Future Hepburn draft plans, has raised the ire of many residents in the region, along with the farming family who owns 14 hectares of the land.

Farmer Ned Powell said it was a shock for his family to discover the move on the draft plan for Daylesford and Hepburn Springs. Mr Powell said his family bought the farm in 1921 and had continuously farmed the property. And he says, despite the potential for profit, they were completely opposed to the idea of rezoning.

Mr Powell, whose social media post is reprinted with permission, right, also has concerns that his rates could go up if the land was rezoned and it could also be subject to the state government’s windfall gains tax, introduced last year.

Hepburn Shire Council Development executive director Ron Torres acknowledged Mr Powell had monetary concerns but said no calculations had been carried out on any possible increased rates or state taxes.

“The reason is because whatever strategic planning we do across the shire, and there will be potential monetary impacts, those factors are not considerations under the planning framework. I know that sounds shocking but the planning framework expressly requires planners not to factor in changes to land value and rates.”

Mr Torres said housing growth was going to occur in Daylesford and while most people would prefer it within the existing township boundaries, there was also a need for new, more diverse houses for the next 30 years “and that is what East Street is doing”.

Mayor Cr Brian Hood said the council was aware many in the community believed the deadline for input into the town structure plans, June 12, and to be passed at the August council meeting, was too soon for such important planning framework.

“I think through all of the publicity people knew this was coming and we have been saying for ages we are working on these high level plans to set the direction for planning and growth controls,” Cr Hood said.

“But there are 70 pages for each town, plus the rural strategy and there is a lot of technical detail here and it is bloody important stuff, long term planning for 25 to 30 years. So I don’t blame (people) if they are wondering ‘what does this do to my property?’ or ‘what does it mean my neighbour can do?’. We are working through this six-week (consultation) period and will see where we get to.

“We always aimed at getting it through this term, and it is pencilled in for August, then we meet in September (before doing into caretaker mode) and then we are done.

“But we have to get this right and getting it right is more important than timing. It is pleasing and encouraging the amount of engagement across the shire and great that people are raising their concerns and questions and we are genuinely there to listen and what people’s concerns are, so we can get this right.”

Mr Torres said there was also a push from the state government on councils to see every council “carry its weight in future growth” with potential housing targets on the horizon. “It is imperative to have our plan locked in, our own community vision.”

Mr Torres said another area, the end of Jamieson Street, was also looked at for more housing but was not considered because it was considered too steep and exposed to heightened bushfire risk from the north.

Since its start four years ago, Future Hepburn has cost about $1.3 million. Community sessions will be held at Newlyn on May 22, Trentham on May 24, Hepburn Springs and Glenlyon on May 25, and Clunes and Daylesford on June 1.

Community feedback closes on June 12. Link: www.participate.hepburn.vic.gov.au/future-hepburn

Words: Donna Kelly