Archive: Real Estate Agents' Push For Houses on All Rural Lots
Last Updated 12/7/07
Like Vultures Circling A Carcass, "Fair Go Farmers" Show Their Hand At Kyneton Rural Land Meeting
Real Estate Agencies' Revival Meeting Rolls Into Kyneton 30 May
Old-Time 'Farmers' Wanting To Cash In Dominate Woodend Real Estate Agency Meeting
Woodend Real Estate Agency Tries Again For 'Open Slather' On Houses In Rural Zones
The ‘Keating’s Meeting’ - Woodend Public Forum About Permits For Dwellings on Rural Lots:
Woodend Real Estate Agent Calls Public Meeting, Challenges Rural Development Restrictions
Like Vultures Circling A Carcass, "Fair Go Farmers" Show Their Hand At Kyneton Rural Land Meeting
(13/6/07 - P) Ah, but these aren't really farmers, are they? They sound more like speculators demanding open slather, not a 'fair go'
Just as the Old Deep South in America was plagued by carpetbaggers, so too is (unprotected) Macedon Ranges becoming chockered up with opportunists looking for a quick kill and a fast buck. The victim is to be Macedon Ranges' rural land. If anyone needed further confirmation, it all became clear at the latest real estate agents' "revivalist" meeting in Kyneton recently (see story below). As if a meeting sponsored by a collection of real estate agents (who could reasonably be assumed to have a commercial interest in removing planning controls) didn't already have a credibility problem with claiming to represent altruistic principles!
The meeting itself confirmed that self-interests are paramount (and behind the noise being made) when it supported a motion to get rid of planning permits for houses on all lots more than 1.6ha in Farming and Rural Conservation zones.
Credibility credentials slipped even further when the Victorian Valuer-General apparently advised the meeting that, in his view, statements made by Woodend real estate agent, John Keating, about "horrible" valuation errors weren't actually supported by the facts. C'est la vie.
MRRA Says:
Seems like the meeting wasn't much of a triumph for "the cause". A step too far, perhaps? Several? Anyway, we'd like to thank the meeting for exposing the level of greed, selfishness and speculation that underpins and drives this little campaign, and for giving those of us who support protecting rural land something we can really use (and already have).
Real Estate Agencies' Revival Meeting Rolls Into Kyneton 30 May
(29/5/07 - P) Hallelujah - pass the plate and bring your Rural Land For Sale sign.
The next attempt to get rid of all rules preserving rural land is set to blast off on Wednesday 30th May at the Kyneton Town Hall. A person would have to be totally insulated to have missed the very expensive full page, coloured ads that have been running in all local papers for what now seems an eternity. First, it was roll up, roll up. Then, pay $10 to book your seat. The latest is an explanation of what the ten bucks admission cost will be used for.
MRRA Says:
This is just the latest episode in a somewhat grubby and misleading campaign to make rural land extinct by getting rid of all planning rules so a minority can make lots of money. As one person said to us, the fact that all of the real estate agencies in Macedon Ranges are bank-rolling or supporting the meeting says it all. Then there's the blurry Macedon Ranges Land Owners' Committee which seems to be an organisation promoting open slather subdivision and development of rural land for personal gain.
Allowing the on-going fragmentation and rural residential conversion of rural land just doesn't make sense. In fact, rules should be much tougher. Rural land is a non-renewal resource - it can't be replaced once it's gone.
The meeting's advertising selectively emphasizes one word from the objectives of planning in Victoria: fair. What it doesn't do is consider the other words: orderly, economic and in particular, sustainable. It also doesn't tell you that the next planning objective is "(b) to provide for the protection of natural and manmade resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity" [emphasis added] or that the last objective is "(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians". Yes, there is more than one word, and one objective, for planning in Victoria.
Would it be fair, or orderly, or economic, or sustainable to allow shopkeepers to burn down their shops when they no longer wanted to be shopkeepers? Then why allow anyone to 'burn down' rural land if they decide they personally have no further use for it or want to cash in, particularly rural land in Macedon Ranges which is a comparatively high rainfall area with large swathes of prime agi soil, close to Melbourne markets (not to mention much of it is also our drinking water catchments)? Fair, orderly, economic, SUSTAINABLE? Hardly.
MRRA's experience is that these meetings are the converted speaking to the converted, and are overloaded with rhetoric, posturing and self-interest, but extreeeemely short on accuracy and the big picture. Go if you must, but keep in mind who stands to gain, and be prepared to verify everything you hear before quoting it. In nuts and bolts language, this meeting could be seen as just another temper tantrum by those who want to do whatever suits them, and everyone and everything else - and a sustainable future - be blowed.
Old-Time 'Farmers' Wanting To Cash In Dominate Woodend Real Estate Agency Meeting
(18/3/06 - P) Get support from people outside Macedon Ranges Shire
MRRA sent a representative along to the Keating Real Estate Agency's meeting held in Woodend last Tuesday night. While the organizers thought 500 people would attend, MRRA counted just over 300. Most of those either came from outside the Shire - people wanting more subdivision/housing or upset that they can't subdivide under Green Wedge legislation - or were old time farmers mainly from the Romsey area wanting house permits for land they want to sell so they can maximise their financial return on the sale. Our rep found only a minority of the attendees were people wanting house permits for land they had purchased (which is what MRRA understood was the core issue). The organizers spent quite some time belittling Council's draft Administrative Policy for Houses and Subdivision in Rural Areas, claimed they counted some 1500 fewer lots in rural areas than Council said there were and called Council's figures dubious. A motion from the floor supporting houses on rural lots over 2 ha was passed, as was another motion calling for more certainty. A committee was formed. Only 3 Macedon Ranges' Councillors attended: Letchford, Relph and Neil.
MRRA Says:
A key point for us was that there were more people in attendance who wanted house permits so they could sell land at a higher price than there were people wanting house permits for land they had purchased. It sounds like the same old story of some landholders wanting 'rubber stamp' permits to 'maximise' their profits. It was also interesting that the organizers had counted rural lots and found a shortfall (compared with Council's count). This tends to confirm MRRA's discovery that a similar number of rural lots have been left off new planning scheme maps, and we are pleased to have helped solve that mystery.
In summary, there was nothing at this meeting that convinced MRRA that Macedon Ranges' rural land should become the victim of some people's aspirations to have additional houses in rural areas. Think of what's at stake: our landscapes, on-going farming, our bush, even the water we drink. When it comes to personal profit versus public benefit, in our book public benefit has to win every time. PS Don't forget to let Council know you support preserving our rural land. Click here for details
Woodend Real Estate Agency Tries Again For 'Open Slather' On Houses In Rural Zones
(11/3/06 - P) Agency's version of planning still 'cocked up' and confusing, no discernable improvement over December meeting
A Woodend real estate agency, Keatings, is holding another meeting next week in Woodend trying to whip up support for getting rid of all impediments to putting a house on every lot in rural zones. It takes a while to even work out what the meeting is focussing on. According to advertizing material, a key feature seems to be a retrospective By-Law, whatever that is.
MRRA Says
It's difficult to see anyone being the wiser about the issues in hand after this meeting. Why? For starters, 'by-laws' have been called Local Laws for the past 10 years, they can't be retrospective unless there is clear authority in an enabling enactment, and they are in fact subservient to a planning scheme (e.g. they can't tell a planning scheme what to do).
We suspect this unknown 'by-law' is in fact Council's draft administrative policy addressing houses and subdivision in rural zones, on which public comments are being sought until April 28. The real estate agency's allegations that this policy is being introduced secretly, without due process, are therefore wrong. Another agency statement, that people have been entitled to expect to build on rural lots for 30 years is also wrong. That may have happened elsewhere but not in Macedon Ranges Shire where strong restrictions (and prohibitions) on house permits applied during most of the 30 years until 2000, a fact the agency should know.
On the basis of these inaccuracies alone, it could perhaps be said that people attending the meeting on March 14th could leave more mis-informed than informed. If this meeting goes anything like the meeting last December, they'll certainly leave feeling confused. The people we feel sorry for are those putting their faith - and money - on the information (or is that mis-information?) being bandied about.
Is there an objective of getting the facts straight and addressing all of the issues at these meetings? If there is, we are having trouble finding it. Is there open and equal disclosure that not being able to put a house on every lot, that not being able to increase land values by 80 - 90% through obtaining a house permit, could proportionately eat into selling agents' incomes and profits? If there has been, we are not aware of it.
Judges' Score: Noise - 1. Credibility - 0.
Go to the meeting if you like but don't be surprised if you are gob-smacked by the audacity and inaccuracy of what you hear.
The ‘Keating’s Meeting’ - Woodend Public Forum About Permits For Dwellings on Rural Lots:
(15/12/05 – SP) Inaccurate information, mixed messages and misinterpretation of planning schemes is causing heaps of confusion
Woodend Real Estate Agent Calls Public Meeting, Challenges Rural Development Restrictions
(10/12/05 – SP) With the Council we now have and the State government’s failure to protect Macedon Ranges, are we surprised developers are pressuring for a house on every lot?
Woodend real estate agent John Keating has organized a Public Forum at the Woodend Community Centre on Monday December 12 at 8.00 pm. The topic is ‘permits for dwellings in rural zones and Amendment C21’. The organizers seem to be concerned that State policy and Amendment C21 (which has ‘been on the Minister’s desk’ for 9 months awaiting approval) are being used as ‘yardsticks’ in considering rural dwelling applications, and are severely restricting development. Macedon Ranges Council recently (albeit somewhat inconsistently) began assessing dwelling applications in rural zones against our planning scheme’s requirements and refused most of the applications. Many of the applications, as well as being in rural zones, were also in proclaimed water supply catchments where development is supposed to be strictly limited to protect the quality of the water we drink. The ‘restrictions’ so recently applied by our Council have actually been around for quite a long time – Council just wasn’t using them. You Are Strongly Encouraged To Go To The Forum With The Message: “KEEP IT RURAL”
MRRA Says:
This forum appears to be attempting to raise public objection to Amendment C21 but we aren’t sure whether that’s intended to impress our new Council or the State government or both. It doesn’t impress MRRA. We hear developers and real estate agents are beating a path to the Minister’s door complaining about any potential for tougher planning controls and we wonder if this lobbying has influenced the interminable time the Minister is taking to approve Amendment C21 (and translation of the Macedon Ranges planning scheme into the new State rural zones). When MRRA met with the Minister in April, he told us that if Council did the work (which it has in this case), he’d approve it when it got to his desk. That commitment seems to be going the same way as the Bracks government’s promise to protect Macedon Ranges – nowhere – particularly when no-one in the Minister’s office or the Bendigo branch of the Department of Sustainability and Environment seems to even know where the Amendment is these days. Does Macedon Ranges matter? Based on this performance, it seems not…