SAVE WILLIAMSTOWN News

Recently released: Marine Emergency Framework Review: Final Report

Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:49:48 +1100

Marine Emergency Framework Review - 30 September 2008
by Bruce Esplin, Emergency Services Commissioner
The Esplin Report.

It took three years for the confidential report of 2008 to be publicly released in late 2011.

Quote from report:
“...AS 3846-2005, The Handling and Transport of Dangerous Cargoes in Port Areas
The Australian Standard AS 3846-2005, The Handling and Transport of Dangerous Cargoes in Port Areas is a prescriptive guideline. Amongst other things, the Standard deals with firefighting resources and firefighting support ships. It provides a matrix setting out the number and type of firefighting support ships required to service various tanker sizes, which depends on the number of berth hours per year in the port.

However, AS 3846 does not prescribe minimum response times for firefighting support ships. Instead, it stipulates that “minimum response time should be set out in the emergency plan”, which leaves this issue in the hands of the port manager. The consequence of this is that the port manager has no obligations – statutory or otherwise – to set, or comply with, minimum marine emergency response times and government has no power to enforce them...

.....Broad Capabilities
There are a number of potential emergency response resources for the four commercial ports. Very few are assigned specifically to emergency response. There is no dedicated “all hazard” marine emergency response platform(s) capable of a significant response. At the different ports, there are a number of platforms available (e.g. Water Police vessels, 495 air wing, Svitzer firefighting tugs, etc.), but these may not be available in the event of an incident and may not be readily removed from competing tasks. For example, Water Police vessels may be involved in policing and security duties and tugs may be involved in towage duties elsewhere in the port.
There is no framework in place, or formally defined arrangements, determining how these resources would be utilised in the event of an emergency, nor is there any redundancy in terms of responding to an incident....

...9.3.3 Current Responsibilities, Current Statutory, Contractual and Voluntary Responsibilities
As noted above, port operators in each of the commercial ports have emergency management/emergency response plans in place and take responsibility for their preparation, review and maintenance. A number of the major private operators also have emergency management plans such as Shell Geelong and Mobil Melbourne, however, these plans are not integrated. In addition, port/channel managers are unable to impose emergency management planning requirements on their tenants.

It should be noted that under current State arrangements commercial ports are expected to undertake emergency management planning and to maintain emergency management plans but, there is currently no legislative requirement for them to do so. This is considered a major gap.
Arrangements involving the port communities vary between ports but there are uncertainties regarding role and responsibility. The processes around escalation from first response by the port to control by an emergency service organisation are not appropriately detailed. The default position within the port communities is reliance on Triple Zero (000) and on the emergency services to manage the emergency.

Major gaps in capability are clear also, but even where some plant and equipment exists (e.g. firefighting), there are ambiguities and uncertainties around the degree to which these may be relied upon. Their ongoing presence at any port may be at the whim of the marketplace, particularly if they are not included in the statutory emergency response framework or are not in receipt of government funding.

In addition, there is a lack of familiarity within the emergency services community around the nature of the maritime environment and the realities of operating within it. Role ambiguity is a natural outcome of limited capability – a state of affairs that is marked by inadequate equipment, knowledge, training and planning. This potentially exposes government and the port industry to commercial, reputation and political damage in the event of a serious incident requiring a multi- agency response....

.... (p50) WorkSafe believe that ports should be considered unique installations and therefore sit in the top tier of risk, similar to the Major Hazard Facility arrangements. This was due to the type of operations and quantities of hazardous materials and fuels transported and stored within large ships visiting Victorian ports. WorkSafe suggested that the Occupational, Health and Safety legislation for Major Hazard Facilities may provide a guide to identifying and applying standards for the port environment.
A number of stakeholders suggested that the current requirements for reporting and recording maritime emergency data are inadequate and that it is important to consider better and more stringent methods, to ensure that this information can be utilised in future for risk analysis. Data currently available from incident reporting and recording systems, specifically for near misses is inconsistent.
A number of port stakeholders believe that ships’ safety systems are improving. Accordingly they are increasingly relying on ships’ own firefighting capabilities and land based capabilities as a means of risk mitigation. It was acknowledged by stakeholders that reliance on ship’s safety systems does not address or adequately cater for possible ship equipment malfunction, poor maintenance and human factors. The risk management methodology used by the ports needs to address this issue in order to mitigate the risk of a high consequence event occurring due to a failure in these areas. There were varying opinions on who was/is responsible for managing this residual risk.....

.... (p54) Emergency services argue that there is a requirement for waterborne firefighting capability, which ideally, would be a firefighting tug, in the ports. Operating a firefighting tug requires specialist personnel available within defined call-out time. There are emergency services personnel with skills to operate on firefighting tugs, but they are not being trained for marine emergency response on an ongoing basis. Specialised skills and ongoing training with specialised equipment is required for fire fighters to combat marine based fires utilising firefighting tugs or other similarly equipped vessels......

.....(p56) Resources
The emergency services advised that they do not have the physical resources within the sector to manage a large-scale maritime emergency and are reliant on good-will arrangements with private organisations and other industry stakeholders for available resources. As previously discussed private service providers may be influenced by commercial factors and are not required to provide services during an emergency, which highlights the risk that critical resources such as firefighting tugs and other marine resources are may not be available at the time an incident occurs.....

.... (p64) Resourcing and indemnity
The availability of suitable resources to support emergency management within the ports environment must be predicable and reliable. The issue of indemnity for decisions made during an incident was raised.
Stakeholders acknowledged that provision of towage services (and possibly firefighting capability) is critical within the ports and for marine emergency response. Good-will arrangements currently exist between the emergency services and private tug operators but emergency services stakeholders; in particular, felt that these arrangements need to be predictable and secure. There are some agreements in place for the provision of tug services during an emergency, although there are significant limitations to the nature and operation of these agreements.
The emergency services acknowledged the need for waterborne firefighting capability, which ideally would be a firefighting tug, in the ports. If costs were not an issue , a number of port operators and users acknowledge the need for a firefightiing tug as part of an ideal capability. However based on their individual risk assessments, they argue that such a resource is not commercially viable.

Despite this view, the Review believes there is a requirement for waterborne firefighting capability-ideally a firefighting tug located in the port. Currently, the type availability and operation of waterborne firefighting capability is both inconsistent across the ports and cannot be guaranteed. There is a significant exposure if a firefighting tug/vessel and the qualified resources required to operate it, are not available within acceptable response time standards.”

http://www.oesc.vic.gov.au/resources/8/7/8764fc804470599b8044d48bf720486c/marine+emergency+framework+review+final+report.pdf

What does the port manager, Port of Melbourne, have in place as MINIMUM standards on Port Phillip Bay and is this suitable for Shipping Tankers 220m long carrying up to 150 million litres of fuel (crude or petrol).

See Government Gazette 12th January 2012 page 68-69

http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2012/GG2012G002.pdf

Port Management Act 1995
TOWAGE REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION Division 2 of Part 4A of the Port Management Act 1995

.....Fire fighting capability A fire fighting towage vessel must, as a minimum

(a) be fitted with:
(i) a fire pump with a minimum capacity of 1200 m3/hour; and
(ii) one monitor with minimum output of 1200 m3/hour.
The one monitor must be capable of dispersing water alone or suitable foam mixture. The one monitor requires to be capable of a height of throw of at least 50 m and a length of throw of at least 70 m.
(b) have available adequate onboard supply of foam to operate one monitor dispersing a 3% minimum foam mixture for at least 30 minutes; and
(c) provide adequate space on deck for:
(i) emergency equipment including, but not limited to, portable fire fighting equipment, searchlights, boarding ladder; and
(ii) at least 8 fire fighting personnel.

SAVE WILLIAMSTOWN agrees with the finding of the Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee Report that Williamstown peninsula needs and Emergency Evacuation Plan.

Request to Victoria’s Legislative Council to reject C86 and ask the minister to review safety considerations

Mon, 6 Feb 2012 00:02:27 +1100

Save Williamstown Letter to Members of the Legislative Council

•••

For the urgent & personal attention of:
Premier, Ministers and members of the Legislative Council

The Save Williamstown Group represents about 2000 residents of Williamstown, Victoria.

The Government and specifically the Premier, Minister for Planning, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and all Parliamentarians are on notice; this is formal advice to the Parliament of Victoria that the tabled HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C86 places our community and new residents in danger.
This amendment ignores formal evidence given to the Minister of Planning.

A catastropic incident involving the Major Hazard Facility (MHF) and fuel importation at Pt Gellibrand has the potential to place in mortal danger more people than the 2009 Victoria Bushfires.

The Government is already aware that there is NO CAPABILITY on Port Phillip Bay to fight a fire on a 240m long fuel importation ship at Point Gellibrand. These tankers are 63m longer than the MCG!

These internationally registered ships bring 70% of Victoria’s crude oil and petroleum products to Pt Gellibrand!

Inspection of these tankers is a responsibility of the Australian Government.

Victoria’s WorkSafe Authority responsibility stops at the pier.

The Port of Melbourne Corporation lacks suitable fire fighting assets
(The Age 2 Jan 2012).

C86 was laid on the table on 6th December 2012 and will be considered in the Legislative Council this week. Attempts by Williamstown representatives to meet or speak urgently with Liberal MLCs for Western Metropolitan Region have been refused even though requested in a non-sitting week.

In the interests of community safety and the protection of state and federally important industries and local employment, Amendment C86 must be rejected.

WILLIAMSTOWN RESIDENTS ASK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND SEND THIS MATTER BACK TO THE PLANNING MINISTER FOR PROPER CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE, CONSULTATION WITH INDUSTRY BASED ON RELEVANT EXPERTISE, AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT - WHICH ADVICE HAS NOT YET BEEN SOUGHT OR HEARD.

All members of the Parliament of the State of Victoria and the Commonwealth Government Ministers for shipping safety, industry, defence and emergency matters should be aware that:
• the safety of 1500 existing residents of Pt Gellibrand Williamstown, and
• the viability & safety of STATE AND NATIONALLY significant industry (1500 jobs)
has NOT been fairly and equitably considered by the Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy, when he exempted himself from the Planning and Environment Act, to prepare the tabled Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C86 .

Ministerial advice provided by public servants has ignored the evidence of and the crucial findings of the Minister’s Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee (PPWMAC).

The Premier, Ted Baillieu, publicly stated he is committed to “Community Certainty in Planning” (ABC Radio 31/1/12). We believe the process used for C86 is flawed and fails the test of good governance and avoids the findings of public consultation.

Like at Ventnor on Phillip Island, have DPCD public servants given advice contrary to the finding of advisory committees and planning panels? These public servants did NOT hold public consultation.

As with the Windsor Hotel case, mock consultation is replacing real consultation. The power of the DPCD Development Facilitation Branch continues, with the same public servants influencing the Minister, although it was a Liberal Party election commitment to close it down. Different day….same department!

In 2011, the community, state significant industries, local government and government authorities engaged in public consultation for three weeks of recorded public hearings about the proposed development of the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill.

The Minister’s PPWMAC assessed all submissions and expert advice in a fair and equitable way noting that although not within the Terms of Reference, the site was not suited to then Planning Minister, Justin Madden’s Residential Zoning.

Post Buncefield UK (2005) explosions. the safety requirements around MHFs were reviewed and the PPWMAC said the Minister should review the zoning as it involved new residential encroachment on an MHF. The committee also reported that the Minister should prepare an Emergency Evacuation Plan (EEP) for the area (not just the site) in close consultation with Council, PoM, Mobil, BAE and emergency services agencies. To be prepared for a catastrophic event involving the MHF or fuel importation, the 1500 existing workers and 1500 existing residents living on the peninsula, need the EEP BEFORE more vulnerable new residents are permitted. SAFETY should precede planning and development.

In C86, the Minister is making Hobsons Bay Council the Responsible Authority for the development but provides no delegated authority or funding to prepare the EEP. The Minister will make the zoning Mixed Use but allow residential development across the whole site including within the Worksafe 300m safety buffer and ignores the international oil industry 400m buffer (10 times the 40m tank diameter) and an appropriate buffer for Fuel Importation which in Western Australia the EPA sets as 1000m.

The Minister will remove the mandatory height limits so that high rise residential development could be applied for by the developer and permitted under a VCAT major case appeal.

Mobil has submitted publicly to THREE Advisory Committees of the Planning Minister in 2010 and 2011 that:
• New residential encroachment into zones around the MHF should not be allowed - the viability of industry is threatened and could relocate to other states or overseas.

RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND THAT REQUESTS BY MOBIL AUSTRALIA TO DISCUSS THESE URGENT MATTERS WITH THE PREMIER HAVE BEEN IGNORED AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE OR ATTENTION PRIOR TO THE DECISION ON C86.

IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO PUT THINGS RIGHT BY RETURNING THE AMENDMENT FOR REVIEW – THIS IS A MATTER FOR SAFETY PROFESSIONALS NOT CITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNERS WITH A BIAS TOWARDS PROPERTY DEVELOPERS.

Demolition Threat to Manufacturing Jobs Press Release Save Williamstown

Thu, 2 Feb 2012 00:06:31 +1100

Save Williamstown Press Release Thursday 2 Feb 2012

Demolition Threat to Manufacturing Jobs

The livelihoods of over 1500 local workers are under threat with the announcement that an application has been lodged to begin demolition work at the former Port Phillip Woollen Mill.

An application to demolish the former Port Phillip Woollen Mill threatens the future of manufacturing jobs at the Williamstown shipyards. Hobsons Bay City Council has received an application to demolish buildings and structures at 3-39 Nelson Pl and 41 Nelson Pl, Williamstown. No longer would the structures on site act as a barrier between local industry and residents. Instead, Kanowna, Ann, Aitken and Cecil St residents could be directly exposed to the 24-hour operations at the BAE Shipyards. This raises the prospect of residents making noise complaints to the EPA.

"BAE needs to meet contractual deadlines, but residents need to sleep. Up until now, the former Woollen Mill structure has acted as a circuit-breaker. If it goes, then local residents' needs threaten the ongoing viability of a 24-hour facility." Godfrey Moase, Save Williamstown spokesperson.

"The high Australian dollar is threatening enough decent manufacturing jobs as it is, we don't need sheer planning stupidity contributing to the crisis as well."

"We do need sustainable and appropriate development on the site. But it should occur as part of a strategic plan. Demolishing the structures now without being ready to build only makes sense if you don't care about the future of the shipyard, but instead see it as yet another high density development opportunity."

Local residents in Kanowna, Ann, Aitken and Cecil St are writing to the Council as well as State Parliamentarians, in order to prevent this conflict.

If you would like to interview and/or arrange a photograph with Cecil St/Kanowna St residents email gemoase “at” gmail.com

Developer applies for Demolition Order but has the planning scheme amendment become law yet?

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:51:40 +1100

Council Notification in The Hobsons Bay Weekly
Thursday, 2 February 2012

Urbis Pty Ltd has lodged an application to demolish buildings and structures at 3-39 and 41 Nelson Place, Williamstown (former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site). The application and supporting documentation may be inspected at the Hobsons Bay Civic Centre 8.30am to 5.00pm, Monday to Friday, or via Greenlight, the Council’s online permit management system at www.hobsonsbay.vic.gov.au. Any person who may be affected by the granting of the permit may object or make other submissions to the Council in writing, including the reasons for an objection and stating how the objector would be affected by 15th February 2012. Objectors will be advised of the decision. For further information, please contact Verity Castles on 9932 1000.

Its very premature - not only is there no approved Planning Permit for the site BUT the Planning Scheme Amendment C86 isn’t law yet... As the minister exempted himself from the Planning and Environment Act to sign this amendment it still needs ratifying by Parliament Legislative Council and that hasn’t happened yet.

Should it become law? Is it morally right that the community and industry presented important information to the Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee and after the committee prepared a report, the minister then asked his departmental public servants who recommended overturning the main findings of the report. Look at the facts, the minister had a Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee who prepared a report based on hearings over 3 weeks with many expert witnesses BUT the minister ignored many recommendations of the report and preferred the views of public servants who without any public consultation advised against many findings and recommendations of the report. IS THIS DEMOCRATIC OR A MOCK CONSULTATION LIKE THE WINDSOR HOTEL WAS TO BE.

Residents in the neighbourhood are receiving the Developer’s application to demolish the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill Site Buildings.

The community is worried about the removal of this sound barrier between the lovely heritage houses with no sound insulation and the heavy industry on the Pt Gellibrand.

Could this move by the developer stop night time work at BAE Systems - nationally significant ship builder and Mobil with 70% of Victoria’s fuel arriving at this port.

AND MORE IMPORTANTLY DOES A DEVELOPER WHO SEEMS TO HAVE HAD THE EAR OF FACILITATION BRANCH IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REALLY CARE ABOUT THE LOCAL RESIDENTS OF WILLIAMSTOWN OR INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE’S WEST?

Bulldozers and sledgehammers will soon sound loud during the day but it is the night-time noise from existing heavy industry which will tip the balance when residents sleep is disturbed. The Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee report considered the community submissions and Wade Noonan’s submissions on this very matter and stated there should be a CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. Where is this plan and why hasn’t council been required to adopt that prior to demolition at the site. As SEPP1 says night-time noise also has a psychological disturbance factor too..

MOBIL tells Planning System Adv Cmtee cc David Hodge - its industry is threatened by residential encroachment.

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:38:33 +1100

After the Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee had finished its hearings and Mobil had clearly spoken of its concerns about encroaching development and PEOPLE SAFETY, a letter has emerged from Mobil 31st August 2011 to the Chairperson Victorian Planning System Ministerial Advisory Committee.

A copy of this letter was specifically sent to Mr David Hodge, Executive Director, State Planning Services, Department of Planning and Community Development (DCPD).  Mr Hodge has recently been in the news concerning his role in the minister’s decisions and backflips on Ventnor.

The Mobil letter was sent 3 months before Minister Matthew Guy made his decision on the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill Site:
• overturning his own advisory committee’s recommendations,
• rejecting mandatory height limits &
• allowing residential development in the buffer zone of an MHF.
Before making the responsible authority for the planning applications council, which was not recommended, the minister also FAILED to follow the strong suggestion that emergency services & buffer issues had not been fully considered by the advisory committee and that further expert advice should be sought.

The letter was received whilst the DPCD officers were reviewing the Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee  report and providing advice to the minister.  The contents of the letter begs the question whether DCPD officers have any consideration of the viability of industries of state significance such as Mobil or whether they are there to just facilitate and rubber stamp any developer requests which cross the palms of their hands...... Should such officer have the power to “interfere” in the ability of industry to do its work or the ability of existing residents in Williamstown to live with Mobil’s assurance that “Nobody gets hurt!” because they regard People Safety as very important.

The source of this letter is an internet search, a public document, and is not information which has been handed to Save Williamstown by any other party.

http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/82006/273-Mobil-Refining-Australia.pdf

Is Planning in Victoria forgetting the role of industry for the State’s economic well-being. Bigger population maybe the mantra of the DPCD facilitation people but have they forgotten people need to have jobs and a safe environment in which to live! The seriousness of BAD planning forcing industry to close its doors is explained very clearly in these quotes from Mobil’s letter:

“...The petroleum refining industry in general is highly competitive. Altona refinery competes globally for its crude oil feedstock and it competes regionally with its products. Regionally there is an oversupply of refining capacity and in order to continue to compete effectively in this marketplace Altona refinery needs to operate at the highest level of efficiency and reliability, adding sufficient value to be able to overcome the higher costs associated with manufacturing in Australia (wages, utilities charges, rates and taxes, high regulatory imposts, etc) . Mobil has previously decided to shutdown its other Australian refinery in Adelaide in response to the competitive pressure in the industry and Shell has recently announced a similar decision in relation to their refinery in Sydney. One thing that Mobil would encourage governments at all levels to be sensitive to is the need not to impose additional, unnecessary restrictions and regulation and costs on local industries such as ours, which make it even more difficult for us to compete against overseas operations. One such area of current focus around Mobil’s and Esso’s operations in Victoria is the increasing encroachment of potentially incompatible land uses around our facilities and in proximity to inter-connecting pipelines.
Mobil welcomes the opportunity to provide our perspective into this current review of Victoria’s planning process and we hope that our input can be taken into account and result in a state planning process which is sensitive to and compatible with the interests of industry as well as residential and other land users.
Mobil is interested in seeing planning controls strengthened around major hazard facilities (MHFs), such as ours, so as to more effectively manage interfaces with more sensitive land uses, such as for residential purposes. We note that WorkSafe Victoria has been attempting to better educate Council planning departments about the need to ensure adequate buffers between sensitive land use developments and existing MHFs. We support their efforts and further suggest that consideration be given to placing a planning overlay over land within the acknowledged buffer distance so that potential land use conflict can be avoided. Mobil recognises that the existing strategic planning framework that governs development in Victoria already acknowledges how conflict between industrial and other land users should be managed. Mobil would like to see these concepts given more statutory weight and significance.....

........Further to this we are also seeking to prevent any future new residential development within the buffer distances around Mobil’s facilities, for instance the EPA buffer distance around the refinery and the WorkSafe buffer distances around tanks associated with our operations at Yarraville terminal and our marine berth at Point Gellibrand. Mobil is constantly fighting against new development that continually encroaches upon the refinery, Point Gellibrand and our Yarraville terminal.

An oil refinery is heavy industry and, as such, it can impact on the amenity of more sensitive land users. Hence it is appropriate to maintain a sufficient buffer zone to ensure that existing industry is able to operate without adversely impacting surrounding land users ...”

S Korean tanker explosion kills 5

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:56:08 +1100

ABC News
Updated January 15, 2012 20:03:58

“A South Korean fuel tanker has sunk after an explosion on board, leaving five crew members dead and six missing, the coastguard says.
The 4,191-tonne ship carrying 11 South Koreans and five Burmese citizens sank near Jawol island, about 32 kilometres off the port of Incheon in north-west South Korea where the vessel had unloaded its cargo, a coastguard spokesman said.
Yonhap news agency reported that the explosion was likely caused by gases leaking from the ship's oil tanks, citing an official from the firm that owns the vessel.
"We believe that something went wrong during the process to take out remaining gas in the oil tank," the Doora Shipping official told the agency.
"The vessel usually transports diesel, but this time it carried gasoline. We are now examining whether it had any relation to the explosion”........."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-15/s-korean-tanker-explosion-kills-5/3773508

See Pictures of the INTERNAL DAMAGE to the ship

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/15/10160862-oil-tanker-explosion-kills-5-off-coast-of-south-korea

Letter in The Age - Making Madden Proud - David Hodge doesn’t surprise one writer to the editor..

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:16:06 +1100

Re: The Age
by CLAY LUCAS AND ROYCE MILLAR January 12, 2012 “Planning minister 'ignored documents'...”
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/-1pvgs.html

Follow Up letter in The Age Saturday 14th January

“Making Madden Proud”
“IT WAS unsurprising to read that David Hodge, a senior bureaucrat in the Department of Planning, recommended the rezoning of farmland in Ventnor despite warnings it could be environmentally damaging and was unnecessary for housing supply (The Age, 13/1). He was carrying on as if he still worked for the previous minister, Justin Madden, who famously set up the Development Facilitation Unit.

Recent decisions by Minister Matthew Guy, such as the rejection of the housing estate opposite the Serendip Sanctuary, show he is serious about putting the planning back into his portfolio. However, he has inherited a department determinedly clinging to the laissez-faire approach of the previous government. Let us hope he delivers a ‘‘ planning system based on genuine consultation, honesty, openness and certainty’ ’ as he promised prior to the election, rather than the ad hoc shambles of a system that we have now.

Justin Ryan, Maidstone ..........”

Save Williamstown comment: When “bureaucratic” advice from well paid senior public servants is at odds with well researched and properly instituted planning consultation plus well documented prior planning decisions/recommendations, one has to wonder if it is really “political” advice. Should ministers in a new administration carry with them the “political” advisers of the previous administration? How does the electorate’s will to change government policy become enacted or is this a case of not YES MINISTER but MINISTER SAYS YES?

With Justin Madden, there was a minister clearly more willing to engage with the developers through his Facilitation Unit headed by public servant David Hodge (Executive Director Planning Services and Development Facilitation). The change of government was supposed to reflect a policy of better and more community consultation - if that hadn’t been an election promise, then Ted Baillieu could well have not been Premier today.

When in opposition the Baillieu Government had been highly critical of the fake community consultation for the Windsor Hotel development. But now the departmental staff continue to seem to hold the power to change the Minister’s mind from the rationality of what public and expert consultation recommended. Be it Advisory Committee Hearings and Panel Hearings the recommendations to the minister seem to have been subverted. In the case of the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill Site in Williamstown, the Advisory Committee recommended maximum heights in a heritage area in line with Practice Notes of the Planning Department. The minister had told the advisory committee to use these practice notes in their terms of reference. BUT the recommendations were overruled by the public service (DPCD) review of the Advisory Committee Report prior to the minister’s decision that no mandatory height controls should apply. With that decision embodied in the Planning Scheme Amendment, the responsibility for the development applications was then passed to Hobsons Bay Council.

What a huge benefit to a developer who has indicated he wants high rise on this spot. The path to the Gold Coast High Rise towers all around Port Phillip Bay has suddenly taken a massive step forward.

Irrational Recommendations by Senior Planning Official David Hodge exposed in today’s Age - Ventnor Case

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:46:05 +1100

The Age
by CLAY LUCAS AND ROYCE MILLAR
January 12, 2012

Planning minister 'ignored documents'

“CONTROVERSY around the Baillieu government's bungled planning intervention at Phillip Island has been reignited by documents that reveal Planning Minister Matthew Guy ignored warnings that rezoning farmland was unnecessary for housing supply and could be environmentally damaging.
In September, Mr Guy stunned local residents, the Bass Coast council and planning experts when he announced his intention to rezone a 24-hectare site at Ventnor near Cowes, citing housing affordability as the justification.
Advice to Mr Guy released to The Age shows that senior planning official David Hodge ultimately recommended the minister intervene to approve the rezoning, despite a decade-long planning process including two independent panel reports opposing housing on the site.
But an accompanying report by Mr Hodge appears to be at odds with the recommendation, pointing out that Phillip Island already had more than enough vacant land to satisfy housing demand, and warning of the potential threats development posed for the nearby colony of short-tailed shearwaters.
.........Yesterday The Age sought comment on the officer's advice and the minister's decision from one of Victoria's most senior planning experts. ''From a planning perspective the reasons given by the minister do not reflect important strategic considerations,'' planning consultant Roz Hansen said.......”

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/-1pvgs.html

Save Williamstown Comments:
This is a similar situation to the irrational decision by Justin Madden to make the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill Site zone Residential 1 which flew in the face of the well researched and recently signed off by Minister Madden - Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme Amendment C33 - Industrial Land Management Strategy. Residential 1 over the whole site was clearly not suitable as the site was within a “Safety Buffer Zone” for a Major Hazard Facility. Despite this, David Hodge’s recommendation to the Minister stated that the proponent (i.e. the developer) “suggests that appropriate buffer distances are provided..” No reliance on expertise of safety professionals - just make it residential - the proponent says its okay!

Once the site was zoned Residential 1 by Ministerial edict, the minister’s advisory committee on planning issues at the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill Site was NOT ALLOWED to revisit the zoning of the land. Any person or organisation that raised the inappropriate zoning in the hearings had a firm reprimand from the chairman who stated almost by mantra that the committee was not there to consider the zoning of the land.

The Freedom of Information documents obtained by Save Williamstown last year showed recommendations to the minister signed by David Hodge which ignored the existing strategy.

Comparing the Ventnor decision, it is interesting that in the Ventnor decision Hodge spoke at meetings in December labelling the discrepancy as “more about politics than planning”. (see the article in The Age above)

We have been arguing that is the process which took place in Williamstown and would love to know who and what is behind the POLITICAL DECISION and who is benefiting!!! At least in December 2011 the current Planning Minister Matthew Guy changed the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill Site to MIXED USE as contained in the tables of C33. However, the removal of mandatory height limits and the ignoring of a buffer zone being needed for Fuel Importation remain issues which the community are at odds with the minister’s decision. Again the minister’s departmental staff were influential in changing the wording of the advisory committee recommendations to something which gives the developer a lot more latitude.

Are the Planning Ministers in the State of Victoria being well served by their departmental officers or are they being dumped in the deep end? These officers seem to exert more power over the ministerial decisions than the public consultation planning processes before specialist planning panels and advisory committees. That is a worry for democracy in our state.

AND THEN THERE WAS THE STRANGE DECISION ABOUT THE WINDSOR HOTEL.. WHO INFLUENCED THAT?

Fire on the bay, the spectacle we don't need - Point Gellibrand housing is VERY close to the industrial port

Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:24:05 +1100

The Age
Opinion
January 3, 2012

“THE gravest lesson of the Black Saturday bushfires that devastated much of Victoria in 2009 is how ill-prepared the state's emergency services were for the disaster. Sadly, the evidence of history is that this lesson is one Victorians keep having to relearn, for lack of preparedness was also a characteristic of the Ash Wednesday fires in 1983 and the Black Friday fires of 1939. Yet the horror of these great conflagrations - and the findings of the public inquiries they spawned - ought to challenge us to avoid the mistakes of the past. It is all the more alarming, then, to discover that the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB) lacks the minimal capacity to fight serious fires aboard ships on Port Phillip Bay.
As The Age reported yesterday, the MFB's equipment for responding to fires on vessels in the bay and in Melbourne's rivers is made up of two ''tinnies'' - four-metre aluminium boats fitted with pump hoses - and two inflatable dinghies. The board can also request the use of two tug boats that carry fire-fighting equipment, but the tugs are commercially operated and such requests are not always granted. These meagre resources are all that is available to fight fires on all the vessels that use the 100,000 hectares of port waters........

In 2008, the union's complaints were echoed in a review of the MFB's marine response strategy by the emergency services commissioner, who found the strategy ''deficient, particularly in relation to responding to significant marine emergencies''. And, lest any doubt remain, the MFB has now effectively conceded its critics' case. In October last year, board members accepted that ''the marine response capability has not been developed to match the legislative changes or developments in waterside and marine activity and is limited to … inadequate resources''. Internal MFB documents obtained by The Age confirm that the board has in fact known for years that it does not have either the physical resource or sufficient trained officers to cope with a large fire or chemical spill in the port, bayside marinas or in shipping lanes, all of which it is obliged to protect......

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/fire-on-the-bay-the-spectacle-we-dont-need-20120102-1pi9c.html#ixzz1iLIjSTbv.”

On the Grapevine! Tenants of Woollen Mill Site given 30 days notice just before Christmas.

Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:03:16 +1100

Save Williamstown has become aware that a number of tenants on the eastern side of Aitken St have been given 30 days notice. We are wondering why these tenants of the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill Site have been given notice when no plans have been submitted by the Developer for the site.

At the Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee, several submitters, including Wade Noonan who had visited Garden Island in Sydney, raised the issue that the existing buildings form a solid sound buffer between the shipyards and the residential streets of Ann, Kanowna and Cecil Streets. With BAE Systems working 24 hours a day, any nighttime noise which impacts the residential streets could be the basis for a complaint to the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has the power to force the industry to comply with a noise notice. It is therefore important that the Woollen Mills does not turn into “open” land for a lengthy period of time, whilst the developer goes through the planning stage of new buildings.

Williamstown, the State Government of Victoria and the Commonwealth Government of Australia ALL regard the ability to build ships without new restrictions at Williamstown as very important. We do not want to lose local jobs and have the shipyards close down because the noise from the shipyards starts to impact on existing residents. The developer must not be allowed to destroy our local industry.

The demolition of any buildings on site needs to be part of an overall staged plan which is carefully executed to prevent detriment to existing industry and existing residents

Bay fire protection crisis

Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:27:48 +1100

The Age
Adam Carey
January 2, 2012

“MELBOURNE'S metropolitan fire authority is dangerously ill equipped to deal with marine emergencies, with billions of dollars worth of private and commercial vessels that use Port Phillip Bay and the city's rivers virtually unprotected in the event of a large fire.
More than 100,000 hectares of port waters - including the shipping channels from the mouths of the Yarra and Maribyrnong rivers to outside the bay - rely for their fire protection on two four-metre aluminium boats fitted with petrol-powered pump hoses, and two inflatable dinghies.
Two commercially operated tugboats that ferry container ships in and out of the bay are also equipped with firefighting tools, but fire officers must request access to these, and it is not always granted.
Internal documents obtained by The Age reveal the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board has known for years that it lacks the resources or training to respond to a large fire or other emergency such as a chemical spill in Melbourne's port, marinas and shipping lanes - all of which it is legally bound to protect.
And despite multiple reports identifying an urgent need to fix the problems, the board has failed to do so.
Rapidly increasing activity and development on and around the bay means the risk of disaster is only growing, recent reports by the organisation's board have found.
The risk to public safety is poised to peak at this time of year as boating activity on the bay is at its busiest.
The United Firefighters Union has taken the MFB to Fair Work Australia over the issue, and more than 40 out of 64 qualified marine response officers have vowed to hand in their qualifications - rather than face a deadly emergency they cannot properly respond to - if resources are not boosted.
''The MFB are playing Russian roulette with lives and property, hoping something won't happen, and they have known about it for years,'' said United Firefighters Union Victorian branch secretary Peter Marshall.........”

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bay-fire-protection-crisis-20120101-1phan.html

Save Williamstown Comments:
Well this is precisely what Save Williamstown was telling the Ports and Environs Committee and the Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee and which the Advisory Committee categorised as only Williamstown Resident’s Opinion and not as Expert Witness information.

We have written to the Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner, the Police Commissioner, Energy Safe Victoria, EPA, Worksafe, Local Government, State Governments Departments, Premier and Politicians about these critical safety issues. We have made submission to the Green Paper “Victoria Prepared”. As a community group we feel that we are banging our heads against brick walls because none of these bodies are treating this issue seriously.

We told the Port Phillip Woollen Mills Advisory Committee that in WA there is a prescribed 1km zone around Fuel Importation facilities, that in NSW Kurnell has a moratorium on new development on its peninsula, Mobil told the hearings that internationally there is a buffer zone around tanks of 10 times the diameter (ie 400m at Pt Gellibrand) and SW presented evidence about fuel fires on board ship around the world. The international oil tanker community refer to the zone as CORDON SANITAIRE.

BUT much of this evidence did not find its way into the Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee report. The officers in the DPCD again watered down the findings to favour the developer’s plans....

In December 2011 the poison chalice was handed back to Hobsons Bay Council for development at PPWM to include residential dwellings up to 8 storeys which the Minister changed from mandatory to advisory height only.

No new building should be allowed at Point Gellibrand until our emergency services can give some sort of guarantees for the safety of existing residents and workers. It would be a FOOLISH government either state or local that allowed new buildings and particularly residential towers where WorkSafe rules do not apply and evacuation plans are not established and regularly tested...

Foreign buy-up flat out

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:26:41 +1100

The Age (Business)
Simon Johanson December 21, 2011

“FOREIGN developers have grabbed a 30 per cent share of Australia's apartment market, a trend not seen since the Japanese office and hotel development boom of the late 1980s.
Overseas investors are behind 13,000 apartments in 37 projects across the country. Based on the average number of apartments completed in 2011, that represents market share as high as 32 per cent, research from property group CBRE found.
About 40 per cent of those were under construction and the rest were being planned or marketed.
''Asian developers, predominantly from Singapore, are leading the pack, accounting for 92 per cent of all apartments being proposed or developed by foreign companies,'' CBRE executive director Kevin Stanley said.
''Development activity in Australia involving foreign companies has reached levels not seen in more than two decades,'' he said........”

http://m.theage.com.au/business/property/foreign-buyup-flat-out-20111220-1p3x6.html

Woollen Mill site: 'People vs profit' on development site

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:23:09 +1100

Hobsons Bay Weekly
BY GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK
21 Dec, 2011

“SAVE Williamstown protesters 'crashed' last week's Hobsons Bay Council meeting vowing to "stop at nothing" to ensure sustainable development on the Port Phillip Woollen Mill site.
The protest follows a state government decision to allow high-rise development at the Nelson Place site, while failing to set maximum height limits.
Planning Minister Matthew Guy was the target of protesters' wrath for his decision to make eight storeys the preferred, but not mandatory height limit. He also came under fire for waiving developer contributions that would have boosted council coffers by more than $360,000.
Save Williamstown spokesman Godfrey Moase said protesters had come out to show their endorsement of the council's tough stance. "I think it's clear that we've made an impact in the campaign so far," he said.
"We've never thought that we'd be able to get the place rezoned into mixed use and we've got the council back as the responsible authority.
"They're two big victories for the community and a way to protect the jobs down there and protect our safety with the major hazard facility."
The proposed development is next to BAE's military shipyard and Mobil's Point Gellibrand fuel tank farm and loading dock. "I just feel like we're in a two-horse race between people and profit," Mr Moase said.
"The state Liberal government has tried to change the rules of the game in favour of their favourite horse - profit. Otherwise, we can't really explain why the developer's contribution should go. We don't know of any other explanation for the height limit going from mandatory to indicative, which is almost without precedent in terms of Victorian planning. It's like we're making stuff up here to suit the developer's plans.".........”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/woollen-mill-site-people-vs-profit-on-development-site/2399195.aspx

Council Meeting 13th December PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:06:56 +1100

Item 11 on the Council Agenda was Public Question time. Council’s CEO answered the questions raised by Save Williamstown residents Charmian Gaud, Suzanne Orange, Godfrey Moase, Daniel McKinnon and Elizabeth McKinnon.

Questions related to:

1. What was the current status of developer contributions for the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill Site? The CEO said that the council would seek to obtain developer contributions but the role of VCAT on appeal might remove or vary these as they were not contained in the ministers decision to hand the power of planning authority back to council.
2. Had the council received prior notification of the minister’s decisions? The CEO detailed the communications from the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD). He explained the lack of any notice to council of the minister’s decision. Council received its first information from an article published in the Herald Sun on Monday 28th November “Council to decide on Williamstown's high-rise row” and then rang the DPCD to ask for a copy of the Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee report which was then forwarded. Strangely the story in the Herald Sun didn’t relate to the advisory committee report. A letter to the mayor arrived on the Tuesday, which referred to rezoning and came without attachment so that the council had to contact the DPCD again to receive the Planning Scheme Amendment C86. The mayor wrote to the minister referring to the lack of information and changes made to the advisory committee recommendations of maximum height limits to indicative height limits, removal of developer contributions and removal of the reference group for architectural assistance. See press release HOBSONS BAY COUNCIL PRESS RELEASE
3. Had the council received any documented memo about why there was a discrepancy between the advisory committee report and the ministers decision? They only received the accompanying documents of the Planning Scheme Amendment C86 which contains information about how it meets the objectives of planning in Victoria.
4. Could council confirm that it will be taking into account the proximity of the Pt Gellibrand terminal MHF in any proposal for residential development? Council needs to wait for a formal application and then consider matters within the planning process. The amendment does requires council as planning authority to seek the views of owner of tank farm and Worksafe Vic.
5. Will the council rely on the evidence of the developer in determining the buffer zone around the Pt Gellibrand facility or seek advice from experts? The amendment states council is the responsible authority and should use the expert advice of Worksafe Victoria and other stake holders.
6. Does council have a legal duty to consider the safety of residents under the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act in Hobsons Bay? Council has the responsibility to consider safety and a broad range of other matters in assessing an application

Council Meeting 13th December receives PPWM report

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:08:52 +1100

A large contingent of Save Williamstown supporters crowded into the Hobsons Bay Council Chambers last night to listen to reports of council officers and councillors questions about the future of the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill Site.

Council’s chief planner reported on Planning Scheme Amendment C86 that
• the site had been changed to Mixed Use which was in line with the Industrial Land Management Strategy for that precinct;
• the mandatory heights had inexplicably been changed from those recommended by the Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee to indicative heights and that presented a problem for council in handling any developer applications;
• the removal of developer contributions from that agreed by all participants including the developer was a disappointment for the community infrastructure funding such developments impose.
Details at http://www.hobsonsbay.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=6875&h=0

Councillor Altair asked if the minister had made any changes to the Heritage Overlay and was informed that that had not changed. The old pubs on the site had heritage merit but decayed state could be used by developers to demolish such heritage buildings. She also asked about whether advertising would occur when the developer made its next move. It seemed that the minister in passing the decision to Council had provided a specific list of referrals for the planning application and public advertising was not listed. However the heritage provisions did require advertising and public feedback on proposals which impacted on heritage would need to be considered. A further matter was the anomaly of the map used in the rezoning changing the zoning of property on the corner of Ann and Aitken St. The planning officer indicated that this could be fixed up by referring the item back to the DPCD.

Draft minutes including the responses to item 11 Public Question Time will appear on this website http://www.hobsonsbay.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=6906&h=0 in the next few days

Woollen Mill site: Guy won’t deal with ‘hypothetical’ hazard issues - QUALITY JOURNALISM FROM LOCAL PAPER

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:24:59 +1100

Hobsons Bay Weekly
BY GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK (Winner of 2010 Quill Award)
14 Dec, 2011 11:27 AM

“In a candid interview in Wednesday’s Hobsons Bay Weekly, Planning Minister Matthew Guy talks to reporter GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK about the Port Phillip Woollen Mill site in Williamstown and residential development near major hazard facilities.
He explains why he approved high-rise development near Mobil’s tank farm and BAE’s military shipyard before receiving advice contained in the much-anticipated Ports and Environs report, which will shape future development around Melbourne’s ports.

• Hobsons Bay Weekly: Should the Port Phillip Woollen Mill report and the Ports and Environs report have been considered together?
• Matthew Guy: ‘‘Well, no. One’s site-specific and one’s more general.’’

• At the Mill site, development has been allowed within 300 metres of Mobil’s Point Gellibrand facility. What if the Ports report, for example, recommends a greater buffer distance between residential development and major hazard facilities?
• To be honest, it’s a hypothetical. I’ll just deal with it when it comes back to us as a fact.

• How would you, as the minister, deal with conflicting buffer recommendations?
• Well, I’ve got to get conflicting buffer recommendations first.

• The Port Phillip Woollen Mill developer [Ashley Williams] tells me there are no evacuation plans; that will come at the planning permit stage. Some people are saying Williamstown could experience another Black Saturday if the Mobil tank farm explodes. They’re on a peninsula. How do they get out? Residents are actually saying the government could be responsible for death in the event of another Buncefield fire, like in England.
• I think that’s a hypothetical. I can’t make comment on recommendations on reports that I haven’t even seen. I don’t want to pre-empt any of them.

• But in relation to the mill site, Mobil is still very concerned about the dangers.
• Well, I just take the advice of both the department and what was considered from the department in the panel report.

• But you didn’t listen to all of the recommendations in the report.
• Yeah, that’s right.

• Why did you go against the recommendations?
• Because I have a department of 650 people and they provided me advice and I took the department’s advice.

• Why did you choose the department’s advice over the advisory committee’s advice by deciding not to make eight storeys mandatory?
• Well, there is still mandatory heights in that area and there’s an indicative height across the other two thirds. The mandatory height is the buffer area on the side towards Mobil, and in the remainder of the site is indicative up to eight storeys.

• Why did you choose the department’s advice over the advisory committee’s advice by deciding not to impose mandatory heights on the entire site?
• The department’s advice was that the council, as the responsible authority or RA, will be able to consider either lower-level height closer to homes and then that might be offset by greater height in the tower, or the other way around — lower height in the tower, and higher buffering homes. But they felt that the flexibility was better for the responsible authority, which in this case will now be the council.

• There’s a feeling that Hobsons Bay Council’s been given a Clayton’s choice. Yes, they can refuse development if it’s over eight storeys, but they have to accept it if it’s within eight storeys in the centre of the site. Do they really have a choice?
• That would have been the case (they wouldn’t have had a choice) if it was mandatory. That absolutely would have been the case. The panel actually recommended mandatory controls over everything and that I be the responsible authority. That height level is there to be flexible. The council can consider a proposal that is smaller than that.

• However, the developer told me just last week that they’re already looking at 10 storeys because the market in Williamstown can’t sustain 20. Do you think that there’s going to be an eight-storey development?
• What I perceive is that the council will now be the responsible authority and I’ve said from the very start that I think that it’s best that the community, through their council, be the responsible authority for that site. While that wasn’t recommended to me, that was something that I believe was important and that’s what I’ve gone with......”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/woollen-mill-site-guy-wont-deal-with-hypothetical-hazard-issues/2392766.aspx?storypage=0

Guy quizzed over port development

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:59:01 +1100

Hobsons Bay Weekly
BY GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK
12 Dec, 2011 11:24 AM

“In a candid interview in Wednesday’s Hobsons Bay Weekly, Planning Minister Matthew Guy talks to reporter GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK about the Port Phillip Woollen Mill site in Williamstown and residential development near major hazard facilities. He explains why he approved high-rise development near Mobil’s tank farm and BAE’s military shipyard before receiving advice contained in the much-anticipated Ports and Environs report, which will shape future development around Melbourne’s ports. Here is a preview.

Weekly: Hobsons Bay Council, surely, is bound by state guidelines on buffer zones between residential development and major hazard facilities?
Matthew Guy: ‘‘That’s right, absolutely.’’

But those buffer zones haven’t been determined yet.
So what are you asking me to do, shelve everything?

The Ports and Environs report and the Port Phillip Woollen Mill report were both received at the same time, so why is one taking so much longer to be released [the former]?
They come out of my department. I can’t pre-empt their timing. I can’t pick up the phone and say hurry, hurry, hurry. It just comes when the department does it.

Will you publicly release that report?
Uhum.

The Weekly’s Freedom of Information application for the Ports report was rejected on the grounds that it was exempt from release.
Well it probably is at the moment because it’s going through a cabinet process. There’s advice that hasn’t been provided back to me. After that, then it should be.

Should be or will be?
Will be.

Full report in Wednesday's Hobsons Bay Weekly.........”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/guy-quizzed-over-port-development/2389715.aspx

Woollen mill site: Fight 'has just begun'

Thu, 8 Dec 2011 15:27:19 +1100

Hobsons Bay Weekly
BY GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK
07 Dec, 2011 01:00 AM

“PLANNING Minister Matthew Guy has accused former Hobsons Bay mayor Michael Raffoul of being "very disingenuous".
In a letter to Mr Guy, Cr Raffoul states that ratepayers will suffer financially because of the minister's decision to waive developer contributions on the former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site in Williamstown.
At $900 per dwelling, the developer contribution would have amounted to more than $360,000.
"The issue of developer contributions was comprehensively discussed and the $900 per dwelling contribution agreed to by the developer," Cr Raffoul wrote in the letter dated November 30.

He said the council was also "deeply disappointed" that no mandatory height restriction had been set.
Mr Guy has set a preferred height of eight storeys for the site.
"What I have done is take a mix of mandatory and discretionary heights - the department has given me that advice," Mr Guy told the Weekly.
"We've said the indicative height limit is around eight storeys."

He said it was now up to the council to renegotiate developer contributions.
"It is very disingenuous of the mayor to make that comment because it hasn't been waived," he said.
"I would expect it would be up to the council to set the developer contribution scheme. They are the responsible authority."
Save Williamstown spokeswoman Charmian Gaud said the fight had just begun.
"The developer may try to go way beyond the indicative heights and push for a monstrous tower."
State Williamstown MP Wade Noonan and Western Metropolitan Greens MP Colleen Hartland will attempt to use Parliament to block the removal of mandatory height controls........”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/woollen-mill-site-fight-has-just-begun/2384679.aspx

Crack opens in mega-ship plan (Leaking ballast tank)

Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:07:55 +1100

The Age (Business)
Kyunghee Park
Wednesday, 7 December 2011

“A VALE vessel leased from STX Pan Ocean Co to transport as much as 400,000 tonnes of iron ore to China will undergo repairs to fix a leak in a ballast tank about two months after being delivered.
The fault was found while the $US110 million Vale Beijing was being loaded at a port in Brazil, STX said.
The Seoul-based shipping line said it was investigating the cause of the leak and planned to move the ship for repairs.
The Vale Beijing is part of Vale's plan for a fleet of 35 mega-ships, the biggest dry-bulk vessels built, in a bid to cut the risk from fluctuating cargo rates to China, the largest buyer of iron ore.......”

The attached picture to the article about these ships includes a 458m Knock Nevis Oil Tanker...

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/crack-opens-in-megaship-plan-20111206-1ohha.html#ixzz1foZd4LRO......

Woollen Mill site: Tower shortened, but 'still 400 dwellings'

Wed, 7 Dec 2011 13:57:49 +1100

Hobsons Bay Weekly
BY GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK
07 Dec, 2011 01:00 AM

“HOW high does the developer of the Port Phillip Woollen Mill site plan to go?
Evolve managing director Ashley Williams, the man behind the controversial Williamstown towers proposal, says it's "too early for us to tell".
"We still think that heights in the order of six, eight, 10 levels are still appropriate on the site. It just depends on how they fit in the different parcels," he said. "At this stage, we've seen that the market wouldn't sustain a 20-storey building in Williamstown, and we've never suggested that it would.".......
......Instead, eight storeys will be the preferred, but not mandatory, height limit.
Mr Williams is an equal stakeholder in Evolve with former Fairfax chairman and Liberal heavyweight Ron Walker.
Last week, Mr Guy told the Weekly that he had not met Mr Walker - Evolve's silent partner - since the Liberals came to power.
Mr Williams said he also hadn't met Mr Guy since the election. "I wouldn't say we're close," Mr Williams said. "We've had the occasional meeting as part of an industry function or the like, but no more dialogue than that."
Originally, Mr Williams wanted to build more than 400 dwellings, including four towers up to 16 storeys, on a 2.1-hectare area bounded by Nelson Place and Ann and Kanowna streets.
Despite the recommended height being eight storeys instead of the planned 16, Mr Williams believes he can still fit 400 dwellings on the site.
"The height's actually been reduced on the tower portions, but the height's actually been increased in other portions of the site," he said.
"There's other areas of the site that have gone to four storeys and we need to consider how we respond to that."
Mr Williams said concerns about the site's proximity to Mobil's fuel tank farm would be addressed by a 25-metre buffer in Kanowna Street. "It's clear that we're allowed to develop lower-density residential - typically townhouse uses - in that zone," he said. "But any higher density - apartment-type uses - would need to be behind that 25-metre zone." He said an evacuation plan would be explored when a planning permit application was put to the council.
Mr Guy last week came under fire for waiving developer contributions which would have seen Mr Williams contribute $900 per dwelling - more than $360,000 - to Hobsons Bay Council.
Mr Williams said his only obligation to the council was an open space contribution, which is 5percent of the land value. "They can't mandate a developer contribution; they can enter into a negotiation with the developer," he said. "It can be a quidproquo negotiation, if you like.".......”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/woollen-mill-site-tower-shortened-but-still-400-dwellings/2384673.aspx?storypage=0

SW Comment
So still a bit open ended for the developer - nothing being given away - we need to be vigilant when the actual proposal surfaces because the big question is how can they develop any townhouses or low level flats which meet the noise specifications and will not impact badly on the viability of Williamstown Shipyards owned by BAE Systems.

Victoria Government Gazette No. S 391

Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:43:32 +1100

Planning and Environment Act 1987
HOBSONS BAY PLANNING SCHEME Notice of Approval of Amendment Amendment C86
The Minister for Planning has approved Amendment C86 to the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.
The Amendment comes into operation on the date this notice is published in the Government Gazette.
The changes apply to land known as Precinct 20 as defined by the Hobsons Bay Industrial Land Management Strategy 2008. Specifically the Amendment applies to the following properties:
• 1, 3–39, 41, 57 and in part 2–10 Nelson Place, Williamstown;
• 17 and 21 Ann Street, Williamstown and
• 15, 23, 25 and 27 Aitken Street, Williamstown.
The Amendment modifies the controls for the precinct as follows:
• Rezones that part of Precinct 20 that forms the boundary to Kanowna Street and Nelson Place to Mixed Use Zone; and
• Applies the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 11, and the Environmental Audit Overlay to all of Precinct 20.
A copy of the Amendment can be inspected, free of charge, at the Department of Planning and Community Development website at www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/publicinspection and free of charge, during office hours, at the offices of the Hobsons Bay City Council, 115 Civic Parade, Altona.
PETER ALLEN Executive Director Statutory Planning Systems Reform Department of Planning and Community Development

http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2011/GG2011S391.pdf

This is the full amendment documents as provided to Hobsons Bay Council on Monday 28th November C86.pdf

Labor moves on Woollen Mills site in Williamstown

Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:35:55 +1100

Media Release
Wade Noonan MLA Williamstown
December 1, 2011

Member for Williamstown, Wade Noonan MP, has today announced that Labor will move a disallowance motion in the Upper House of the Victorian Parliament next week in an attempt to block the Baillieu Government’s removal of mandatory height controls at the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site in Williamstown.

Following the release of the Independent Advisory Committee’s Report earlier this week, Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy wrote to the Hobsons Bay City Council to advise them that he had decided to rezone the site to mixed use and apply a new set of planning controls.

“Minister Guy must explain to the community why he has ignored the key recommendation of his Independent Advisory Committee,” Mr Noonan said

“By removing the mandatory height controls for the Woollen Mills site, Minister Guy is really saying the sky’s the limit for this development.”

“The Independent Advisory Committee made it absolutely clear that mandatory height controls for this site were warranted and supported.”

Minister Guy has also failed to heed the expert advice of the Independent Advisory Committee in relation to developer contributions and the appointment of a Design Review Panel.

“Minister Guy has also rejected the expert advice contained in his Advisory Committee’s report to impose a levy on the developer to support public infrastructure, such as landscaping, footpaths, and community spaces,” Mr Noonan said.

“The recommendation to appoint a Design Review Panel to allow public input into the design of the building has also been trashed.”

In the lead up to the last State Election in 2010, the Liberal Party openly pledged to stop high-rise development plans in Williamstown.

“The Liberal Party’s pledge at the last election to stop high-rise developments in Williamstown is now in tatters,” Mr Noonan said.

“Labor will move to block the lifting of mandatory height controls for this site in the Victorian Parliament next week.”

“Labor’s disallowance motion will provide a chance for Bernie Finn and Andrew Elsbury, the Liberal Party’s two representatives in Melbourne’s west, to place the interests of local people ahead of their Party’s masters.”

“If successful, the disallowance will provide the breathing space needed. The cost of the Government ramming this Planning Scheme Amendment through without any consultation will be paid by future generations that may have to live with an unsightly tower and inadequate infrastructure."

The Victorian Parliament resumes on Tuesday, 6 December 2011.

Media contact: Chris Ransom 9399 9022 or 0413 482502

Guy rejects advice on height limit

Thu, 1 Dec 2011 00:23:20 +1100

The Age
Jason Dowling
December 1, 2011

“PLANNING Minister Matthew Guy has rejected the advice of an expert planning committee for compulsory height controls at a key development site in Williamstown, which is part-owned by former Liberal Party heavyweight Ron Walker.
The Nelson Place Village proposal by Evolve Development for the Woollen Mills site, includes 412 units and towers up to 13 storeys.
It has been bitterly opposed by some locals, including former premier Joan Kirner. Mr Walker said he had not discussed the proposal with Premier Ted Baillieu, or with Mr Guy.
''I have not spoken to or met with Matthew Guy since he has been elected, and nor have I spoken to him about it before he was elected,'' he said.
A planning advisory report from May recommended mandatory height limits of up to 25 metres (eight storeys) for buildings on the site.
But new planning controls expected to be introduced today by Mr Guy will instead introduce a mix of mandatory and ''indicative'' height limits for the controversial Woollen Mills site.
This will allow the developer to exceed the 25-metre limit if it gains the approval of Hobsons Bay Council or the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
While the Hobsons Bay Council welcomed a decision by Mr Guy to make the council the responsible authority for future building applications on the site, it is unhappy about the decision not to have mandatory height limits there.
''Without a mandatory limit, developers will inevitably seek to go higher than the 'indicative height','' Hobsons Bay mayor Michael Raffoul said. ''Not delivering clear mandatory height limits will only lead to uncertainty for the community, the developer and the council.''
Andrew Davidson, of the Save Williamstown community group, said the government was planning to remove ''the single most important control'' recommended by the advisory committee.
''This will give the developer a free licence to build whatever height they can get through VCAT,'' he said.
A spokesman for Mr Guy said the combination of mandatory and discretionary height limits that would be applied to the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site ''are as advised by the department''.
''Hobsons Bay Council will have full responsibility for any decision in relation to deciding any permit application, including consideration of any proposed heights across the remainder of the site, mindful that the maximum indicative height is eight storeys at the tallest point,'' the spokesman said.
He said Mr Guy had not discussed the proposal with Mr Walker in the past year.......

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/guy-rejects-advice-on-height-limit-20111130-1o71u.html

Letter to the Minister from  Wade Noonan MLA Williamstown

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:53:35 +1100

Hon. Matthew Guy
Minister for Planning
Victorian Government

By email: matthew.guy@parliament.vic.gov.au

Dear Minister,

RE: FORMER PORT PHILLIP WOOLLEN MILLS SITE - WILLIAMSTOWN (AMENDMENT C86 – DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY SCHEDULE 11)

I urgently write to you regarding your decision to intervene and rezone the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site in Williamstown and apply the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 11 (DDO 11) without consultation with the Hobsons Bay City Council.

As you would well appreciate, this development site has been the subject of much community interest in the Williamstown area, particularly among local residents and industry.

The previous Planning Minister established a Planning Advisory Committee to assist with recommending planning controls for the site. Together with Joan Kirner and Shelley Penn, I submitted a 183-page submission which included additional planning and heritage evidence from Rob Milner and Helen Lardner. In all, there were more than a dozen references to our submission contained within the Advisory Committee's final report (released earlier this week).

I have already publicly stated that I believe the Advisory Committee's final report was considered and fair.

The Committee made a range of very sensible recommendations and included at Appendix 5 of the Report a "Committee Preferred DDO". This model DDO captured in detail the various controls that arise from the Committee's package of recommendations.

In an extremely disappointing turn of events, it now seems that you have decided to disregard a number of the Advisory Committee's key recommendations by watering down the terms of your proposed DDO 11 for this site. In my view, you have demonstrated a disregard for the Committee's expertise and advice, and failed to offer any explanation as to why you have departed from the key recommendations to set mandatory height controls and developer contributions.

Of particular concern is your unwillingness to include a specialist Design Review Panel chaired by the Victorian Government Architect as part of your DDO 11. Again, this is a departure from the Committee's Preferred DDO. A Design Review Panel would not only deliver good design and good community engagement, but it would also recognise the importance of this site's significance to Victoria.

I submit to you that your decision to scrap a number of the key recommendations contained in the Advisory Committee's Preferred DDO, such as mandatory height limits, developer contributions (worth at least $300,000), and the appointment of a Design Review Panel are a deliberate strategy to relax the planning controls for the site.

Therefore, I would urge you to reconsider your approach and not ram through this Amendment C86 until a proper explanation is provided to local residents and industry as to why you're prepared to drop some of the most important planning safeguards for this site as part of your DDO 11.

Failure to respond favourably to this reasonable request would confirm that you have disregarded the Committee's expertise and advice.

Worse still, you've packaged this to the media in such a way to mislead people into thinking that local democracy will prevail. You are quoted in the Herald Sun on 28th November as saying, “The Government was elected on a platform of giving more power to Councils and we mean it”. I find it interesting then that the Hobsons Bay City Council has today said that they are “deeply disappointed with the Minister for Planning's decision on the future of the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills". Perhaps they’re not buying your line on this.

Contrary to what you might say Minister, this decision to set the planning controls for the Woollen Mills site still firmly rests on your shoulders.

Yours sincerely,

Wade Noonan MP
Member for Williamstown

The sky’s the limit for Nelson Place, Williamstown PRESS RELEASE HOBSONS BAY COUNCIL

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:56:41 +1100

The Mayor of Hobsons Bay Councillor Michael Raffoul said the Council was deeply disappointed with the Minister for Planning’s decision on the future of the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills.
Cr Raffoul said the 191 page Advisory Committee report was comprehensive and balanced and the Minister’s decision showed a disregard for the Committee’s expertise and advice.
“The Minister has failed to heed the expert recommendations of the Independent Advisory Committee report,” said Cr Raffoul.
“The Advisory Committee Report provided compelling advice to the Minister that mandatory height restrictions and developer contributions to social infrastructure were an imperative.”
Williamstown Ward Councillor Angela Altair expressed concern about the lack of mandatory height restrictions for the site and the scrapping of the developer contribution requirement.
“The Independent Advisory Committee advised the Minister that introducing preferred and indicative heights only instead of mandatory height restrictions may lead to protracted, costly and less certain applications that will test the boundaries and push the envelope,” said Cr Altair.
“Without a mandatory limit, developers will inevitably seek to go higher than the ’indicative height’. Not delivering clear mandatory height limits will only lead to uncertainty for the community, the developer and the Council.
“However, we look forward to working with the developer and key stakeholders to progress the redevelopment of this important site.”
“The decision to abolish the development contributions is disappointing for the local community. At the hearing, the developer agreed to a contribution of $900 per dwelling to be used to fund community facilities. Based on the current density proposed by the developer this is less than half a million dollars.
“The Minister has now taken this off the table, further adding to a level of uncertainty for a community already experiencing gaps in social infrastructure.”

Media enquiries: Senior Communications Officer Brooke Valente 9932 1144 I 0407 324 951

Woollen Mills: Guy hands site decisions to council

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:42:09 +1100

Hobsons Bay Weekly
BY GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK
30 Nov, 2011 01:00 AM

“A PREFERRED height limit of eight storeys has been recommended for any development on the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site at Williamstown.
Planning Minister Matthew Guy's office this week informed Hobsons Bay Council that he would rezone the site from residential to mixed use in an amendment known as C86.
Nicholas McGowan, a spokesman for Mr Guy, said the minister had agreed with the recommendations in an advisory committee's report but not on the issue of taking over control of the site.
"The developer will now need to seek approval from the council and, by extension, the community," he said.
Developer Ashley Williams, who had proposed to build more than 400 dwellings including four towers up to 16 storeys high, said he was still awaiting official advice from Mr Guy.
"The advisory committee report strongly supports the redevelopment of the former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site as a significant residential precinct," he said.
"We expect that the resolution of the planning framework based on the recommendations of the advisory committee will see the transformation of almost three hectares of redundant industrial buildings into a vibrant precinct with the potential to provide 300 to 400 new dwellings."
The committee's report suggests "lower intensity commercial premises facing onto Kanowna Street and possibly parts of Nelson Place adjacent to the Titanic theatre restaurant".
It suggests these premises could include "small retail, community, commercial or health-related facilities". Mr Williams said it wouldn't mean any real change for his proposal. "Mixed use is usually considered medium to high residential use, but it also allows for other ancillary uses around the edges."
Save Williamstown spokesman Godfrey Moase said the lobby group would continue to campaign for sustainable and appropriate development of the site. ......
.....The group expressed concern that no mandatory height limit had been set.......”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/woollen-mills-guy-hands-site-decisions-to-council/2376258.aspx?src=rss

In comments:
“Ashley Williams may say they will be able to include 300 to 400 dwellings but at the (Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee) hearing they (the developer) couldn't come to any sweetheart deal with BAE Systems about the impact of noise from BAE on the dwellings. Will these residents need to live behind locked doors and windows or will their complaints have the effect of shutting down the Williamstown Shipyards? Mixed use now gives the developer some sensible choices BUT height limits should be retained.”

Interestingly the final comment on the website talked about having seen the plans.. Lucky person - must be a friend of the developer!

Advisory Committee Report Publically released and Minister prepares Draft Rezoning to Mixed Use

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:12:30 +1100

The Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee report to Minister Matthew Guy was publicly released on Monday 28th November, an outcome requested by the community and other parties at the hearings in February March. We thank the minister for publicly releasing this report, so that we are now aware of what recommendations the minister has been considering.

The report is on available to read on this Save Williamstown website
REPORT: Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee May 2011
In both the Executive Summary and main report the committee refers to the important issue of what Save Williamstown has always believed to be the wrong and illogical zoning of the land. The mantra throughout the hearing was that the “Resdiential Zoning would not be revisited” and it was a matter expressly prohibited from inclusion by the terms of reference. We thank the committee members for including appropriate comment on these matters and making the minister aware of these issues.

“Zoning of the land
The Committee notes that while many submissions have opposed the
rezoning of the land to Residential 1 (preferring a Mixed Use Zone), it is clear that its Terms of Reference specify that this is not part of its tasks. However, the findings of the Committee on the issues of risk, safety and interface as discussed in this report logically raise doubts as to the zoning of the land.
The Committee notes that one of the most defining elements in its
consideration is the WorkSafe Advisory Note which was only issued in
September 2010, about five months after the decision to rezone the land to residential. Armed with that advice, and mindful of its other recommendations, it seems to the Committee that an alternative outcome might have been for a ‘skin’ of lower intensity commercial premises facing onto Kanowna Street and possibly parts of Nelson Place adjacent to the Titanic theatre restaurant. These premises could include some small retail, community, commercial or health related facilities.
The Committee appreciates that these observations are outside its Terms of Reference but it brings them to the attention of the Minister for Planning in light of the numerous submissions on this issue and on the change in circumstances since the land was rezoned.

Also in the report, the committee within it’s terms of reference prepared a “suitable” DDO (Design and Development Overlay) for the site.

On Tuesday Save Williamstown became aware that the Minister in passing the planning decisions, about any development on the site, to Hobsons Bay Council was rezoning the land to Mixed Use. This is an outcome we had been seeking as it complied with the well researched Hobsons Bay Industrial Land Management Strategy 2008. BUT when we saw the actual amendment which is to be gazetted on 1 December, there is a “barb in the tail”. The Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee had recommended a DDO with actual height limits for each part of the site in detail but in the Planning Scheme Amendment notice to Council the subtle extra words “and indicative heights” had been added by the planning department.

Currently Council and the Community are attempting to change the planning scheme amendment to that recommended by the advisory committee.

Height limits as recommended by PPWMAC compared with C86 to be gazetted

Has the report of the Advisory Committee been released to the PUBLIC..

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:25:48 +1100

Department of Planning and Community Development
Monday, 28 November 2011

Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee
The Minister for Planning established an Advisory Committee to review planning and urban design matters related to the proposed redevelopment of land including the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills, Nelson Place, Williamstown........
.........
Advisory Committee Report
The Advisory Committee submitted its report on 10 May 2011. This page will be updated once the report has been released to the public.

http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/panelsandcommittees/current/former-port-phillip-woollen-mill-advisory-committee#Report

Council to decide on Williamstown's high-rise row

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:14:20 +1100

Herald Sun
by: John Masanauskas
November 28, 2011 12:00AM

“THE Baillieu Government has dodged a potential battle with local residents over a $200 million high rise development planned for Williamstown.
Planning Minister Matthew Guy will allow the local council to make a decision on the controversial Nelson Place Village project, despite an independent panel recommending that he take responsibility.
Mr Guy's move is a setback for the former woollen mill site's developers, including Liberal Party heavyweight and Formula One Grand Prix chairman Ron Walker.
But it will be welcomed by a residents' action group and the Hobsons Bay Council, which opposes the current plan for more than 400 flats and townhouses, including towers up to 13 storeys.
Former planning minister Justin Madden rezoned the industrial site as residential in March last year, and set up the expert panel to suggest planning controls to shape the future design.
Its report, seen by the Herald Sun, has recommended a height limit of about six storeys for parts of the site and the need for Mr Guy to take responsibility for the ultimate decision.
But Mr Guy said yesterday the council and local community should have involvement in the decision "given the contentious and highly charged nature" of the report.
"The Government was elected on a platform of giving more power to councils and we mean it," he said.......
....Mr Guy said there were different issues involved in the Williamstown decision.
"This is one that's obviously been around for a period of time and we believe this is the right way to manage this issue," he said.
"We've got to make a decision on the back of the recommendations and we've accepted virtually all those recommendations," he said..”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/baillieu-dodges-high-rise-battle/story-fn7x8me2-1226207455945

Lights, camera, no action: studios may go - PORT PHILLIP WOOLLEN MILLS WILLIAMSTOWN MIGHT SUIT THE BILL

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:10:39 +1100

The Age
Jason Dowling
November 19, 2011

“THE future of the taxpayer-funded film studios at Docklands is uncertain, with authorities believed to be considering whether they are the best long-term tenant for the prime six-hectare site.
The studios were a key part of a Bracks government plan to bolster Victoria's film and television industry by attracting overseas and national investment.
In 2003 the then state and regional development minister, John Brumby, said the studios would generate an extra $100 million a year from films.
The studios turned a modest operating profit last financial year but recorded a loss of $1.6 million after depreciation costs and has a deferred rent debt to the state government of almost $2 million.
The chairman of the Melbourne City Council's Docklands Co-ordination Committee, Kevin Louey, says the studio's time has passed and there are better uses for the site.......
.....The Liberal Party expressed reservations about the location of the studios as far back as 2001.......
........Senior council and government figures have indicated the future of the studios on the site was being examined as a part of strategic planning for Docklands, particularly for the future Western Park next to the studio.
One source said the studios were ''large sheds that could be located anywhere in Melbourne''.......

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lights-camera-no-action-studios-may-go-20111118-1nn3w.html#ixzz1e763IMop

Coalition Government announces priority infrastructure projects for Victoria

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:02:12 +1100

The Hon Ted Baillieu MP
Premier Minister for the Arts

The Victorian Coalition Government has released its 2011 Infrastructure Australia priority list which provides the platform to begin addressing Victoria’s infrastructure backlog and delivering the infrastructure capacity to grow Victoria’s economy and liveability.
Premier Ted Baillieu said the Infrastructure Australia priority list was part of the Coalition Government’s broader infrastructure agenda and included city-shaping projects that could drive the next wave of productivity growth and enhance Victoria’s liveability.
“The Coalition Government has introduced more rigorous processes for decision-making on infrastructure projects to get the delivery of major projects right,” Mr Baillieu said.
“Major projects in the past have suffered from poor planning and project management failures that have resulted in completion delays and cost blow-outs.
“The Coalition Government has reviewed and enhanced the East West Link project to include a new stage that would connect the Eastern Freeway to CityLink and connect CityLink to the Port of Melbourne as well as the connection between the Port of Melbourne to the Western Ring Road.
“The new East West Link is a once in a generation project that would transform the way people move around Melbourne in a way not seen since CityLink and the City Rail Loop were constructed,” Mr Baillieu said.
The improved East West Link would provide an alternative to the M1 corridor, remove traffic from Melbourne’s inner-arterial roads particularly at Hoddle Street where the Eastern Freeway ends abruptly, and link industry in Melbourne’s north, east and west.
Mr Baillieu said the Coalition Government was also planning major new rail links including an improved Melbourne Metro project.
“The Melbourne Metro project is a city-shaping project of a similar size and scale to that of Melbourne’s City Loop 40 years ago,” Mr Baillieu said.
“The Coalition Government has improved the project from two stages to one by planning to use a shorter tunnel to connect the northern and south-eastern lines. The new alignment to South Yarra will connect the north and west rail corridors with the south-east, via the Melbourne CBD.
Goldfields tourism region,” Mr Baillieu said.
“The project includes five new stations at Arden, Parkville, CBD North, CBD South and Domain, and it is predicted that more than 140,000 passengers would board or alight trains at the five new Metro stations in the morning peak by 2030,” Mr Baillieu said.
The new Metro line would allow the rail network to move an additional 25,000 passengers each hour.
Mr Baillieu said some of Victoria’s existing infrastructure could be significantly upgraded and improved to increase the capacity of the rail network and reduce road congestion.
“The Dandenong Rail Capacity program would deliver additional metropolitan and regional train services and increase commuter capacity by approximately 11,000 passengers per hour,” Mr Baillieu said.
The Coalition Government is committed to a program of improving and eliminating level crossings across Melbourne and regional Victoria to reduce road congestion, increase train reliability and improve safety.
“Level crossings contribute to road and rail congestion because trains need to slow down at various points across the network for safety reasons and road traffic needs to stop at these points to give way to trains. This is particularly the case as more train services are added to the system,” Mr Baillieu said.
“Commonwealth funding will assist the Victorian Government to fast-track the necessary planning for the Removing Level Crossings project and enable more level crossings to be removed sooner.”
The Coalition Government is delivering on its election commitment to undertaking a number of rail network expansion feasibility studies, including rail links to Doncaster and Rowville in Melbourne and the Rail Revival study that would deliver rail services between the regional cities of Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo.
Mr Baillieu said the Upgrade Regional Passenger Lines project was focused on providing additional tracks and an electrified service between Sunshine and Melton, and track upgrades on the Ballarat and Bendigo lines.
The Coalition Government is committed to delivering the Avalon Airport Rail Link and is seeking Infrastructure Australia support to carry out the next stage of project development work.
Mr Baillieu said the Avalon Airport Rail Link would be an important part of developing Avalon as Victoria’s second major international and domestic airport.
“The Avalon Rail Link will benefit Geelong and south western Victoria by increasing jobs and investment opportunities, improving goods and services supply chains, improving accessibility to national and international markets and supporting inbound tourism,” Mr Baillieu said.
“Victoria has learnt from the lessons of the past and we know it is important to plan and build the rail link early in the development of this area to get the best value for money outcome.
“The Avalon Airport Rail Link has the potential to interface with the Rail Revival study, capitalising on the significant population catchments of most of Victoria’s largest regional cities and the Goldfields tourism region,” Mr Baillieu said.
The development of the Port of Hastings has also been included for the first time as a priority infrastructure project.
Mr Baillieu said the Coalition Government was committed to developing the Port of Hastings as Victoria’s next container port to complement the Port of Melbourne and to relieve bottlenecks and congestion.
“In providing an alternative to the Port of Melbourne, the development of the Port of Hastings will generate competition flow-on benefits for the Victorian and national economies,” Mr Baillieu said.
The Coalition Government is seeking Infrastructure Australia support for Commonwealth funding for transport corridor planning funding, which is required to prepare for construction of the first stage of the development of the Port of Hastings.
Other freight-related projects submitted to Infrastructure Australia include the Western Interstate Freight Terminal and Green Triangle road improvements.
Mr Baillieu said Victoria’s infrastructure requirements to reduce congestion and increase capacity on road, public transport and freight networks were well known and understood by the community.
“The financial cost to address this backlog is now at a scale not experienced in Victoria for several decades and the investment required is beyond the capacity of even the best-managed state budget in the most favourable economic cycle,” Mr Baillieu said.
“Commonwealth and private sector partnerships will also be essential to fully address Victoria’s infrastructure backlog and achieve maximum economic and liveability benefits.
“The submission is one part of the Coalition Government’s broader infrastructure agenda that includes projects which fall outside Infrastructure Australia’s Reform and Investment Framework including schools, hospitals and other state-based service-orientated infrastructure,” Mr Baillieu said.
The submission has been developed using Infrastructure Australia’s Reform and Investment Framework and taking into account Infrastructure Australia’s recent statements that it will only consider projects in excess of $100 million.
Mr Baillieu said the nominated projects were a practical and pragmatic response to Victoria’s key infrastructure challenges and the Coalition Government was looking forward to working in partnership with Infrastructure Australia and the Commonwealth to plan and implement this exciting agenda.
“The submission requests funding support of $640 million to plan and begin delivery of a number of major new road, rail and port projects as well as projects to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure,” Mr Baillieu said.
“The Coalition Government understands the limitations on expenditure announced by the Commonwealth and the government has responded by requesting affordable planning and development funding from the Commonwealth to ensure Victoria will have quality projects ready for capital funding when the funding environment changes.”
Victoria’s 2011 Infrastructure Australia submission is available to download at www.premier.vic.gov.au.

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/mediareleases/2011/111117_Baillieu_-_Coalition_Government_announces_priority_infrastructure_projects_for_Victoria.pdf

Woollen Mills report buried deep

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:46:49 +1100

Colleen Hartland MLC
The Greens

“Greens MP Colleen Hartland says a failure by the Baillieu Government to release a report into Woollen Mills is avoiding scrutiny and creating uncertainty.
"My Freedom of Information request is now a whole month overdue" said Colleen Hartland. "It appears that the Baillieu Government is either unable to meet their obligations or they are hiding something."
"When they were in opposition, the current government said they would be transparent, and that too many planning decisions were being taken away from local council. Now we are in the same position."
"I have pursued the Report of the Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee so the community knows what information the Planning Minister is using to make a decision."
"It shouldn't be his decision, it should be the Council's, but it should at least be transparent."
"My office has called the Planning Department three times and the request is now a month overdue."
"For the Williamstown community it's more like Freedom FROM Information than Freedom OF Information." ”

http://mps.vic.greens.org.au/node/3307

Final call for public feedback on Green Paper “Victoria’s crisis and emergency management arrangements”

Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:08:31 +1100

Premier of Victoria - Media Release
The Hon Peter Ryan MP
Deputy Premier Minister for Police and Emergency Services Minister for Bushfire Response Minister for Regional and Rural Development

Time is running out to have a say on a review into Victoria’s crisis and emergency management arrangements with the deadline looming for submissions on the Victorian Coalition Government’s Green Paper Towards a More Disaster Resilient and Safer Victoria.
Deputy Premier and Minister for Police and Emergency Services Peter Ryan today issued the final call for public submissions ahead of the 14 November closing date.
“The Green Paper represents a once in a generation opportunity to reform Victoria’s emergency management framework,” Mr Ryan said.
“Victoria’s emergency services are among the best in the world but more can be done to improve our all-hazards, all-agencies approach during large and complex disasters.”
Mr Ryan said the Green Paper built on considerable progress by the Coalition Government to implement all 67 recommendations of the 2009 Bushfires Royal Commission and was part of its bid to create a more disaster-resilient and safer Victoria.
“The Green Paper is designed to challenge current thinking about Victoria's crisis and emergency management arrangements and pose provocative questions about the practical options for reform,” Mr Ryan said.
Mr Ryan said the Coalition Government would consider all submissions made during the eight-week consultation period as well as the recommendations of the final report of the Flood Review due 1 December. A White Paper outlining the government’s response and actions will be produced next year.
Fire Services Commissioner Craig Lapsley said the Green Paper aimed to overcome the barriers that prevented communities from receiving the highest possible service, particularly at times of critical need.
“This paper provides a range of options to address these objectives and we look forward to hearing what the community has to say,” Mr Lapsley said.
The Green Paper can be accessed at www.dpc.vic.gov.au and submissions can be made until 14 November.

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/mediareleases/2011/111107_Ryan_-_Final_call_for_public_feedback_on_Green_Paper.pdf

Victoria’s newest suburb: Clyde North

Sun, 6 Nov 2011 17:03:37 +1100

The Hon Matthew Guy MLC
Minister for Planning Sunday 6 November 2011

“Planning Minister Matthew Guy today announced the approval of a new plan for a residential community at Clyde North, in the City of Casey.
The Clyde North Precinct Structure Plan comprises approximately 432 hectares of developable land, as well as 137 hectares of open space and is located south of the Princes Freeway and east of Berwick Cranbourne Road, near Berwick South.
“Approval of Clyde North is an important step toward opening up land to create a new community in one of Melbourne’s fastest growing areas,” Mr Guy said.
“Clyde North will comprise housing, four small retail precincts and a local town centre. The development will also feature attractive community facilities, open space and transport networks, 15 local parks, four outdoor sports facilities, and employment areas. In addition, it will include a conservation reserve along Cardinia Creek and an attractive waterway.”
Other key features in the plan are community hubs that will bring together schools, kindergartens, maternal and child health centres, parks and sports grounds.
Land has been earmarked within Clyde North for construction of three government schools to complement the existing Hillcrest Christian College. Hillcrest already has over 1200 students and is one of the fastest growing schools in the region.
“The Clyde North PSP will guide the development of quality residential development and cater for Melbourne’s expanding population, which is growing by more than 1300 residents a week,” he said.
Clyde North PSP will provide more than 6600 new houses and accommodate a population of approximately 18,500.
“These plans are a crucial part of the Growth Areas Authority’s work to rezone suitable land for development to ease land supply pressures in the growth areas,” Mr Guy said.
“Streamlined planning processes have helped reduce the average timelines for the creation of new precinct structure plans from more than six years to around two years or less. This has ensured land is released in a timely fashion and helps improve housing affordability throughout Melbourne.”
Clyde North PSP has been approved through Planning Scheme Amendment C153 and has the support of the City of Casey. Mr Guy has also approved a Developer Contributions Plan to ensure provision of $117 million of local community infrastructure.......”

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/mediareleases/2011/111106_Guy_-_Victorias_newest_suburb_-_Clyde_North.pdf

The darker side of urban development

Sun, 6 Nov 2011 15:43:07 +1100

The Age
Michael Green
November 6, 2011

“Solar initiatives in built-up areas may be left struggling to see the light of day.
The eco-friendly Australian cities of the future will combine dense housing with savvy, energy-smart design. Or will they? Is there a conflict looming between the twin green goals of urban densification and widespread harvesting of the sun's rays?
More and more people are installing solar panels and solar hot water systems, growing their own vegies and adapting their houses for passive solar gain. But as they do so, they may find their desire for direct sunlight overshadowed by bigger buildings next door.
Kim Dovey, professor of architecture and urban design at The University of Melbourne, says the right to sunlight is a growing issue.
''Since the 1990s, there's been a strong push for higher densities, often based on green arguments, such as getting more people living closer to train stations and so on. But at the same time, the solar access issue has been forgotten,'' he says.
He says planning rules treat sunlight as a matter of amenity, not sustainability. ''To me, the deeper issue is that the ownership of a block of land seems to imply some kind of right to access the solar energy that comes with it,'' Professor Dovey says. ''And we also have a public imperative for distributed energy systems - the idea that we should generate electricity everywhere, not only in one place.''
Currently, although every level of government offers subsidies or incentives for solar panels and hot water units, there's been no equivalent attempt to safeguard such investments against overshadowing.
Similarly, the Victorian planning controls don't shield householders' access to direct sunlight in the winter, the time of year when it's most needed for passive heating.
Despite this criticism, the Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development maintains that its regulations adequately protect existing north-facing windows and backyards.
Under the rules, shadow diagrams are drawn at the spring equinox, not the winter solstice - which means they don't take into account the six months when the sun is lowest in the sky.........”

http://theage.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/the-darker-side-of-urban-development-20111105-1n0th.html

Coalition Government delivers on commitment to clean up at Brookland Greens Estate

Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:35:04 +1100

Premier of Victoria - Media Release
The Hon Ryan Smith MP
Minister for Environment and Climate Change Minister for Youth Affairs
Friday 4 November 2011

“The Victorian Coalition Government has delivered on its election commitment to provide $24 million in funding to help cover the cost of rehabilitation works at the former Stevensons Road Landfill.
Environment and Climate Change Minister Ryan Smith has executed an agreement with the City of Casey to provide the funding for the estate.
Mr Smith said this agreement delivers on our election commitment to provide funding to clean up the Brookland Greens Estate site.
“The Brumby Labor Government turned its back on the residents of Brookland Greens.
“It was the Brumby Labor Government’s failure to take responsibility and to leave the Council with no financial assistance to clean up the site.
The Brumby Labor Government wrongly accused the Coalition Government of not being able to deliver on this commitment.
“The Coalition has always listened to the concerns of the Brookland Greens residents and understood the significance of this issue and the Coalition committed to delivering $24 million to clean up this site,” Mr Smith said.
Treasurer Kim Wells said when the Coalition Government was elected negotiations commenced immediately to deliver the committed funding, those negotiations have proceeded as quickly as possible and in good faith.
Mr Smith said the Coalition Government is committed to helping the residents of Brookland Greens and this funding will provide the City of Casey with the financial support required to address the issue of methane gas at the site.
Inga Peulich, State Member for South Eastern Metropolitan Region, extended her appreciation to all those who assisted in the resolution of the terms of the agreement to ensure that the election commitment is honoured within the four year term of government.
Media contact: Lauren Bradley 0409 658 977”

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/mediareleases/2011/111104_Smith_R_-_Coalition_Government_delivers_on_commitment_to_clean_up_at_Brookland_Greens_Estate.pdf

Ned Kelly 'one of us' in Williamstown

Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:55:18 +1100

More Early Australian History in Williamstown....

Hobsons Bay Weekly
02 Nov, 2011 01:00 AM

“WHILE most people know the story of Ned Kelly's demise, few would be aware that he spent time off the shores of Williamstown.
Spotswood resident Ashley Davies said: "He served time on a prison hulk, the Sacramento, and worked in a bluestone quarry in Williamstown. There's rumours he played football for Williamstown."
Kelly, the bushranger, was convicted of three counts of murder and hanged at Old Melbourne Gaol in November 1880.......”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/ned-kelly-one-of-us-in-williamstown/2344677.aspx

Rezoning 'threat' to refinery, says Mobil

Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:49:17 +1100

Hobsons Bay Weekly
BY GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK
02 Nov, 2011 01:00 AM

“MOBIL has accused Hobsons Bay Council of bowing to pressure from developers and risking residents' safety by pushing for residential development near the Altona refinery.
The council wants to rezone an area of land known as precinct 13, west of the refinery, from industrial 3 to residential.
Mobil's business development team leader, Peter Reale, has written to Planning Minister Matthew Guy, accusing the council of contradicting its own and the state's planning framework, saying the rezoning would "enshrine the conflict".
"Mobil intends to use all available avenues to prevent rezoning of any parcel of land within precinct 13 from industrial to residential as this would be inimical to our legitimate business interests," Mr Reale said......”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/rezoning-threat-to-refinery-says-mobil/2344676.aspx

MPs banned from soliciting donations

Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:45:43 +1100

The Age
Farrah Tomazin
October 30, 2011

“State government MPs will be banned from soliciting political donations and party officials who become lobbyists will be forced to comply with tough new fund-raising rules, under the biggest shake-up of Victorian campaign financing in years.
The reforms, which some MPs fear could make it harder for the Coalition to boost its stocks ahead of the 2014 state election, will be released by Premier Ted Baillieu today. Amid claims by some MPs that their campaign war chests are empty, the new guidelines, obtained by The Sunday Age, reveal that no member of the Baillieu government will be allowed to ''solicit or receive direct donations''. This means all donations must now be dealt with at Liberal or National headquarters.
Under the rules, ministers will be banned from attending ''cash-for-access'' business functions and using their offices for fund-raising activities. Any former MP or party official now working as a lobbyist will have to disclose their role on a public register.
The changes are among a suite of reforms spearheaded by Mr Baillieu, who in opposition was critical of Labor using ministers and the premier of the day to raise money for the party.
Former premier John Brumby, for instance, would sometimes be the star attraction at ALP fund-raisers, where business leaders paid thousands of dollars for one-on-one meetings with him and cabinet ministers.
Mr Baillieu campaigned hard on the issue ahead of the election. But only four months later he was forced to cancel a $1500-a-head fund-raiser with Transport Minister Terry Mulder and Planning Minister Matthew Guy - hosted by Deloitte, which was conducting a review of the myki ticketing system at the time - amid claims of hypocrisy.
Mr Baillieu claims the new code will put an end to such ''cash-for-access'' events. But some Liberals fear this will make it harder to raise funds and network with industry leaders.
While the code was being drafted, Mr Baillieu banned his MPs from attending fund-raising events - reportedly resulting in about $2.5 million in lost donations for the Liberal Party.........”

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/mps-banned-from-soliciting-donations-20111029-1mple.html

New Urban Renewal Authority established

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:21:40 +1100

Premier of Victoria - Media Release
The Hon Matthew Guy MLC
Minister for Planning
Thursday 27 October 2011

“Planning Minister Matthew Guy today announced the establishment of the Urban Renewal Authority Victoria and the appointment of the board of directors.
“I am pleased to announce the appointment of nine directors to the Board. The Board will lead the Authority in developing its business operations to deliver on its mandate to facilitate urban renewal outcomes across Victoria,” Mr Guy said.
The Board will be led by Peter Clarke, who was the chairperson of the former VicUrban and will be supported by Ken Fehily, as deputy chairperson.
The newly appointed directors are William Bowness, Lorna Gelbert, Judith Nicholson, Graeme Parton, Timothy Shannon, Janet West and Professor John Stanley.
“I welcome the new Board members who have been selected for their diversity of commercial experience, skills and knowledge that will be integral to leading the Authority and ensuring it delivers on its urban renewal mandate,” Mr Guy said.
Mr Guy acknowledged the outgoing Board members of VicUrban; Gabrielle Trainor, Andrew Fairley, Julia Mason, Michael Roberts, Hamish MacDonald and Meredith Sussex.
“I would like to thank the outgoing Board members for their service,” Mr Guy said.
Messers Clarke, Fehily, Parton and Ms Nicholson have been appointed for a five year term. The remaining directors are appointed for a term of three years.
Media contact: Nick McGowan 0409 023 823”

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/mediareleases/2011/111027_Guy_-_New_Urban_Renewal_Authority_established.pdf

Movie crews make a scene in Hobsons Bay

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:02:03 +1100

Hobsons Bay Weekly
BY GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK
26 Oct, 2011 01:00 AM

“HOBSONS Bay has been described as "Hollywood Down Under" with film crews spotted all round the city this month.....

....Tipped to premiere next year on the Family Movie Channel, Conspiracy 365 is being filmed at Truganina Coastal Park as well as Ferguson Street, Williamstown, and Bent Street and the Esplanade, Altona. It features teen fugitive Callum Ormond, who on a New Year's Eve receives a warning from a seemingly crazed man: "They killed your father. They're killing me. They'll kill you. You must survive the next 365 days." Williamstown ward's Cr Angela Altair says Hobsons Bay is "just another Hollywood Down Under".....”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/movie-crews-make-a-scene-in-hobsons-bay/2336509.aspx?src=rss

SW Comment
This is a specialism of our local government area.. and a possible NON-RESIDENTIAL use for the Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill Site!

National Trust switches off on Gellibrand lighthouse plea

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:55:57 +1100

Hobsons Bay Weekly
BY GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK
26 Oct, 2011 01:00 AM

“THE National Trust shows no sign of handing over the Gellibrand lighthouse to Williamstown despite pleas and an angry outcry from residents.
As reported by the Weekly, residents are rallying against the trust's plans to put what is left of the Gellibrand pile light outside the Melbourne Convention Centre.
Built in 1906, the light was struck by the Melbourne Trader vessel in 1976 before being set ablaze.
The top section survived and was donated to the trust by the Victorian Public Works Department in 1978.
Williamstown ward's Cr Angela Altair told last week's Hobsons Bay Council meeting that the trust was being very high-handed.
"The National Trust have, very high-handedly I suggest, decided that they have found a natural home for the Gellibrand pile light on the newly constructed boardwalk along the Yarra River, and they believe that it will enhance the maritime experience for pedestrians and passing boats.
"Sadly, the National Trust, despite our many endeavours over the years and, I guess, protestations, never thought that Williamstown's maritime experience could be so enhanced."........”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/national-trust-switches-off-on-gellibrand-lighthouse-plea/2336515.aspx?src=rss

Williamstown towers: Six months on, mill site report still secret

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:15:28 +1100

Hobsons Bay Weekly
BY GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK
26 Oct, 2011 01:00 AM

“........PLANNING Minister Matthew Guy is yet to release a report on the proposed Williamstown towers development near Mobil's marine berth, nearly six months after an expert panel made recommendations to his department.
Recommendations by the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills advisory committee remain secret, despite being submitted to the Planning Department in May.
The committee's report will affect a 412-dwelling proposal for the mill site, which includes plans for apartments, townhouses and four towers up to 13 storeys. The Weekly last week lodged a request under freedom of information to obtain the mill committee's report and recommendations.
Mr Guy last week said more than 500 submissions were being considered by another advisory committee as part of the government's overhaul of Victoria's planning system.
The new committee will submit a preliminary report to Mr Guy by the end of next month.
A submission from Mobil states that it seeks to prevent new residential development close to its major hazard facilities, including its Point Gellibrand crude oil tanks and marine berth.
Mr Guy also hasn't released findings from the port and environs advisory committee, which reviewed planning controls for Melbourne's ports and will affect the Williamstown towers proposal.
On March 31, the Weekly lodged an FOI request with the Planning Department to obtain the ports report, only to be told the department "had not located a copy".
The Weekly appealed and when the department finally located the report, we were told that all 228 pages were exempt from release. State Williamstown MP Wade Noonan criticised Mr Guy's handling of buffer distances between major hazard facilities and future residential development.
"This is all becoming a bit of a circus," he said.
"Minister Guy has some explaining to do. He is either sitting on his hands or has not bothered to follow through."
At last week's Hobsons Bay Council meeting, Williamstown ward's Cr Angela Altair requested an update ........”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/williamstown-towers-six-months-on-mill-site-report-still-secret/2336507.aspx?src=rss

Lighthouse could shine again - Why not return it to Pt Gellibrand where it belongs!

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:26:31 +1100

The Age
Miki Perkins
October 13, 2011

“THE centre of the city is the last place most people would look for a lighthouse, but the National Trust wants to install a seven-metre historic lighthouse outside the Melbourne Convention Centre.
The lighthouse previously sat in the maritime museum complex next to the Polly Woodside, but has been in storage for the past five years.
Used to mark the Gellibrand's Point reef off Williamstown since 1859, the lighthouse survived intact until the 7000- tonne Melbourne Trader collided with it in 1976 while its foghorn wasn't working, and it was badly damaged.........”

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lighthouse-could-shine-again-20111012-1ll4h.html

Disturbing developments

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:19:37 +1100

The Age
Kate Shaw
October 13, 2011

“........There are good reasons for urban consolidation. They include limiting commuting distances, maintaining agricultural lands and protecting the bush. The advantages have to be reconciled with disadvantages of declining residential amenity, increasing traffic congestion and stress on existing infrastructure in the established city. Questions of housing affordability and access to public space further complicate a discussion that affects large cities everywhere.
City governments are looking to the renewal of waterfronts and former industrial lands as a solution to these tensions. Through the re-use of old buildings, construction of new buildings and provision of new infrastructure, new mixed-use areas are being created in many parts of the world with varying degrees of success. There are no simple answers, but ingredients of successful urban renewal include community involvement and an appreciation of ''mixed use'' that allows socially, culturally and economically diverse activities.
This kind of diversity is most likely to be ensured through strategic planning. The much-publicised problems at Docklands, Melbourne's signature urban renewal project, are not a failure of planning; there was no planning, only the division of publicly owned land for handover to private developers to do what they wanted, with a substantial gift of state-funded infrastructure. The developers responded as developers do: focused on maximising returns, they had little regard for the public realm and no regard for what other developers were doing on neighbouring sites.
The outcome was predictable: enormous buildings on massive podiums, arbitrarily varying form with no attention to the spaces between the buildings, and large residential, office and commercial spaces demanding maximum possible rents.
This is a very narrow interpretation of mixed use. Social and cultural diversity is severely constrained by the fact that only the most economically successful individuals and businesses can afford to locate there.
In part due to Docklands' failings, councils are getting better at strategic planning. Small area renewal and structure plans are now being prepared throughout the city, using consultative processes and informed by research that shows that building in strategic locations to a height of four to six storeys can accommodate the projected population increases and produce small ground-floor spaces that are better suited to diverse uses.
But a disturbing phenomenon is intruding on these strategic planning processes. In Footscray, St Kilda, Abbotsford, North Melbourne and Kensington at least, development applications many times the size and height of what is proposed in the relevant structure plans, and which offer the same old high-cost residential/office/commercial mix, are being made and seriously considered.........”

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/disturbing-developments-20111012-1lkzg.html

Mobil closes Altona plant for six weeks - NB during this time processed fuel will arrive at Pt Gellibrand.

Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:29:39 +1100

It is understood from the Port Phillip Woollen Mill Advisory Committee hearings that during the shut down of Altona, processed fuel including petrol will be imported into Victoria at Point Gellibrand.

Hobsons Bay Weekly
Tara Murray
5 October 2011

“ALTONA'S Mobil refinery will be shut down for six weeks as the company completes planned maintenance works.
It's the first time in more than 30 years the plant has completely closed. The shutdown, which begins this week, is
part of the company's normal refinery turnaround project to ensure the future safety, reliability and viability of the plant, which has had problems, with several flare-ups recorded in the recent past.
Refining manager Glenn Henson said the shutdown was two years in the making.
"Maintenance of safe and reliable operations is a key focus for Mobil and we are investing significant resources on this during the turnaround," Mr Henson said.
"The cost of this year's turnaround is substantial and, together with expenditure on maintenance and upgrades of the plant over the past three years, we have committed over $250million to the future of the Altona refinery.".........”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/mobil-closes-altona-plant-for-six-weeks/2314241.aspx?src=rss

Nelson Place high-rise opponents spy glimmer of hope

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:37:54 +1000

Hobsons Bay Weekly
BY GOYA DMYTRYSHCHAK
28 Sep, 2011 12:00 AM

“WILLIAMSTOWN residents opposed to a proposed high-rise development in Nelson Place are hopeful that a planning decision on Phillip Island could bode well for them.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy last Thursday said he had changed his mind about rezoning farm land for development at Ventnor, on the island.
"Our commitment to listen is genuine, and the government has heard the community and the council's concerns on the proposed rezoning in Ventnor and will not pursue land supply in this area," Mr Guy said.

Save Williamstown spokeswoman Charmian Gaud said she hoped Mr Guy would listen to local residents and reverse the residential rezoning of the former Port Phillip woollen mill site.

Mr Guy is yet to decide on an amendment that will determine the future of a 412-unit, 13-storey development proposed by Nelson Place Village.

Former Labor planning minister Justin Madden paved the way for it by rezoning the site residential. "If they can reverse Ventnor's residential zoning because everyone is against it, why can't they reverse Williamstown's?" Ms Gaud said. "Both were [rezoned] on the developer's request with no proper reference to appropriate authorities. In the case of Williamstown, it isn't Guy's own zoning he would be reversing but Madden's zoning. So why not do it?"

Ms Gaud said Greg Hunt, the federal Liberal MP whose seat covers Ventnor, had opposed the rezoning because of "near universal" opposition across the island. "The Port Phillip woollen mill advisory committee heard that in Williamstown there was also near universal opposition - 97percent against."

Ms Gaud said nearly every presenter at a VCAT hearing(NB it was a Minister’s Advisory Committee Hearing) was against the woollen mill rezoning. The exception was the developer........”

http://www.hobsonsbayweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/nelson-place-highrise-opponents-spy-glimmer-of-hope/2306265.aspx?src=rss

Lack of 'soul' has Docklands tenant ready to leave

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:30:06 +1000

The Age
Jason Dowling
28 September 2011

“ONE of Docklands' cornerstone corporate tenants has threatened to quit, saying infrequent public transport and a lack of ''charisma'' and ''soul'' puts it at risk of losing staff....
....it has not lived up to expectations, has few trees and open spaces, and is grinding to a halt with congestion.....
.....''But I just don't get the lack of design and creativity in the streetscape, where 50,000 people walk, exercise, commute, eat and socialise - or try to,'' he said. ''No trees, no birds, no grass, a lack of community but a plethora of structures.''
Mr Savvides is particularly critical of the decision to turn the heritage-listed Goods Shed at Docklands into office space rather than a food hall.
One of the Goods Shed's tenants is VicUrban, the government developer partly responsible for Docklands.....
.....Mr Johnston would also like to see more waterside attractions to make Docklands a destination that Melburnians recommend.
''If you think Hobart and Salamanca, Docklands could consider a Salamanca-type development along Harbour Esplanade,'' he said. Salamanca was an old warehouse and storage area close to the docks, which was transformed into bars, eateries, galleries and craft or gourmet-based retailers.”

http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/lack-of-soul-has-docklands-tenant-ready-to-leave-20110927-1kvgz.html

SW comment - putting concentrated residential towers in an area with no open space and community facilities may make money for developers but it lacks the components of a good community. The Former Port Phillip Woollen Mill Site proposals is just another concrete jungle and would have similar problems.