Archive Keep Macedon Ranges Rural

MRRA has decided to extend the time for collecting signatures to its "Keep Macedon Ranges Rural" petition. The decision comes after weeks of pre-occupation with Council elections, which left little time to get out and about with the petition.

MRRA Secretary Christine Pruneau explains: "Wherever we've gone, people have been very enthusiastic about signing, and that also comes across in the signed petition sheets we are receiving from residents, groups and some of the shops around Macedon Ranges. There is a lot of support out there for keeping Macedon Ranges rural from both locals and people around Victoria. We have decided to allow more time for people to sign on."

"We thank very sincerely all of those who are helping with this, and all of those who have already signed. It's inspiring to find so many others feel the same way about Macedon Ranges, and are prepared to support doing something about it."

At this point, MRRA will continue to collect signatures at least until the end of February, 2009.

Minister for Planning And Mayor Noel Harvey: Tag-Team To Shut Down SPP8?

(14/10/08 - P) Labor colleagues are singing the same song, while Mayor seems to put "party" line before environment and community

There are two parts to this tale: The Mayor and the Minister.

The Mayor:

Barely before the ink had dried on Liberal Shadow Planning Minister Matthew Guy's media release calling for the State government to stop plans to urbanise Macedon Ranges, Macedon Ranges' present Mayor and Labor party faithful Noel Harvey fired off a media release under Council's logo, claiming to be presenting Council's position and the facts about protection of Macedon Ranges.

After pointing out that Mr. Guy's comments were "absolutely outrageous", Mayor Harvey says Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 is old, and "not strong enough" to protect. On the other hand, he also claims important elements of SPP8 are "enshrined" in our planning scheme.

He then picks up on the government's 2005/2006 line about current rural zones, and how they and "Council's strategic planning program over recent years have strengthened protection".

He then criticizes Mr. Guy again for not contacting and consulting Council, and finishes by saying Council is mindful of what makes Macedon Ranges "the most liveable rural municipality in the nation".

The Minister:

Last Thursday in parliament, former Macedon Ranges Councillor and now Northern Victoria region Upper House rep Donna Petrovich asked the Minister for Planning whether he would undertake to finally give the Macedon Ranges the planning protection afforded to the Shire of Yarra Ranges and the Mornington Peninsula; protection which has been eroded by his government's one-size-fits-all planning scheme. Donna did well by following that up with a supplementary question asking the Minister whether he thought Macedon Ranges' landscape character is more like Yarra Ranges or metropolitan Melbourne.

From Hansard, the Minister, Justin Madden, seemed to think this was something to make jokes about and score political points on (although there seems to have been admonishments all round from the President).

Between bouts of nonsense, he told the Upper House he had in his hand a press release from the Macedon Ranges' Mayor (by happy coincidence, the one referred to above) criticizing comments of the Opposition on this issue. The Minister twice said the government had had no input into the Mayor's release, although why he would emphasize that isn't clear.

He then went on and on about how old Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 was, and finally told the opposition that if they wanted to go back 30 years, good luck to them.

The Minister, rather incredibly, claimed his government had done more than any other government in the history of this state in relation to giving protection to rural and urban amenity.

He called Mayor Harvey's facts 'pretty accurate' and backed up Noel's comments re Council's recent strategic planning work 'strengthening' protection.

MRRA Says:

Please sign the Keep Macedon Ranges Rural petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/keep-macedon-ranges-rural.html

The Mayor:

Mr. Guy's comments are "absolutely outrageous"?? Mr. Guy's a bad boy for not consulting?? Well hello, 'Pot'... meet 'Kettle'!

Here's what's absolutely outrageous: a Mayor purporting to speak for all Councillors, and this community, without consulting them. A Mayor seeming to give a fair impression of pushing Labor party policy as Council policy. A Mayor who says "Facts" but doesn't seem to know or stick to them. A Mayor who seems to be selling out the environment and community he represents. A Mayor making policy on the run - as far as we know and the minutes show, the Council position put forward in the Mayor's media release is not Council's formal position.

Mayor Noel Harvey has been on Council for 6 of the 9 years that Macedon Ranges has waited for the State government to deliver its promise to protect this environmentally sensitive area, and has been Mayor 3 times. At face value he sounds like an experienced councillor, but...

Mayor Harvey, in a new play on words, says SPP8 "isn't strong enough". Psst... the problem, Noel, is that SPP8 isn't implemented enough. It's not implemented enough because it's not State policy. Even Blind Freddy can see that.

Mayor Harvey says Council's recent strategic work includes Environmental Significance and Significant Landscape overlays, when there haven't been any recent ones. He credits Council with Wildfire Management overlays that were in fact produced by the CFA, State-wide.

What he doesn't talk about is the failure of Amendment C8 - Residential and Industrial Review. This dud amendment (abandoned in 2004 due to lack of strategic justification ) was initiated and produced during his watch. Ditto C59, the 2008 disaster-in-the-making Gisborne ODP. Ditto C62, the 2008 "Municipal Strategic Statement [MSS] Review" which takes SPP8 out of the scheme. The Department (government?) has said all references to SPP8 are to be removed, and that's exactly what has happened with the 'cleansed' MSS in Amendment C62. It's so sterile, it could be talking about anywhere in Victoria.

Important elements of SPP8 are "enshrined" in our scheme? Hardly, if the government's, department's and Mayor's views - and C62 - prevail. Is the Mayor saying he didn't know this?

Mayor Harvey says the 'new' rural zones protect us. Not quite. If they did, there wouldn't have been a resort application in a drinking water catchment at Macedon Lodge, or an application for 4 houses in a drinking water catchment upstream of the Woodend Reservoir (both in Rural Conservation zones), or a doubling of new houses going into rural areas since 2001, etc. etc...

The mild surprise here is the Mayor didn't pick up and run with former Planning Minister Rob Hulls' pitch that Macedon Ranges is protected by Green Wedges, although maybe there's still time...

Mmm... There's a difference, isn't there, between sounding committed, and sounding like there's an agenda on the line?

DO YOU APPROVE OF THE MAYOR'S ACTIONS? Send us your thoughts on mrra.sec999@gmail.com

Please sign the Keep Macedon Ranges Rural petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/keep-macedon-ranges-rural.html

The Minister:

The Minister would have been prudent to research the views expressed by the Mayor before relying on them, although we've noticed in passing that research and accuracy don't seem to be essential (or even desirable) ingredients when it comes to spin.

How silly to claim this government has done more to protect rural and urban character than any other Victorian government! Only developers and the faithful would readily agree. The real world hates what this government is doing to character; some go so far as to say what's happening now is worse than under the Kennett government.

With respect, Minister, as far as Macedon Ranges goes you are quite, quite wrong. It was the Hamer Liberal government that did more than any other government in the history of this State for Macedon Ranges. That government introduced Statement of Planning Policy No. 8, the 'Macedon Ranges policy'. Your own government indeed acknowledges and piggybacks on the excellence of the Hamer government's vision in relation to Green Wedges, but consistently overlooks the fact that protecting Macedon Ranges was part of that same Hamer vision and excellence.

Nor does the limp excuse that SPP8 is a "regional" policy - and is redundant post-Council amalgamations - stack up. Using that logic, the first to go should be the Upper Yarra and Dandenongs' Regional Strategy. Amalgamation happened 13 years ago. Whether it's one Shire or four, the issues haven't changed, and SPP8 has been endorsed by this government and panels as remaining relevant several times since then.

In 1998, the Labor party promised protection to Macedon Ranges as a sensitive environmental area.

In 1999, an independent panel said SPP8 remained as relevant as ever and recommended it be included in State policy.

In 1999, then Planning Minister John Thwaites agreed it should be State policy.

In mid 2000, then Planning Minister John Thwaites approved our planning scheme with a clause (21.04) that recognized SPP8 as former State policy, saying it remained as relevant as ever, and included SPP8 in the scheme as local policy (22.01), but not as State policy...

In 2004, then Planning Minister Mary Delahunty agreed to protect Macedon Ranges, and provided $90,000 for the Planning For A Sustainable Future project. The project would produce a State strategy that embraced SPP8 - to recognize and value the Macedon Ranges as an area of State significance - that would underpin strong protection for Macedon Ranges. The PFSF project is currently collecting dust.

In 2005, then Planning Minister Rob Hulls told MRRA that SPP8 as local policy was law, and anyone not implementing it was breaking the law.

In 2006, then Planning Minister Rob Hulls said Macedon Ranges was already protected and didn't need State policy: it had Green Wedges!

In 2008, Minister Madden says no State policy, no SPP8 - no nothing.

Please sign the Keep Macedon Ranges Rural petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/keep-macedon-ranges-rural.html

Listening to the Minister and the current Mayor, SPP8 is borderline Methuselah, although from recent events it doesn't seem to be as far past it's 'use by' date as some of our politicians and governments.

There are plenty of documents around that are much older, such as constitutions, law and parliamentary process (probably even some tenets of the Labor Party), that aren’t thrown out because they are ‘old’. They are retained because the principles in them remain relevant. Ditto SPP8.

Let's make it crystal clear: The principles in SPP8 haven't aged - they are still about sustainable land use management in the context of the environmental significance and sensitivity of Macedon Ranges, and the issues and pressures SPP8 addresses are still here.

Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 is the policy that says Macedon Ranges is of State level environmental significance... That says no more subdivision on Mt. Macedon, and all development in urban and rural areas must harmonise with the natural environment and preserve and enhance rural character and high quality landscapes. The policy is based on sound, timeless planning principles rather than the politics of the day, and prioritizes the things that matter in Macedon Ranges. Now this government, apparently with the backing of the Mayor, wants to take it all away. Even the former Liberal Planning Minister Robert Maclellan didn't do that.

Back in 1976, the Liberal Planning Minister, GP Hayes, who oversaw introduction of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 said, "I hope that no one and least of all myself, will ever belittle this policy or the efforts that have gone into producing it."

Last Thursday, the present Planning Minister belittled the policy, treating it as a joke.

Age isn't the problem, politics are. SPP8 isn't too old, otherwise government would be stripping Mornington Peninsula and Yarra Ranges of their (older) Statements of Planning Policy as well. Or are they next?

No, SPP8 is not too old. It's only crime is that it's in the way of pushing suburban development up the Calder Freeway.

But it seems no-one in government, including the Mayor, has what it takes to 'fess up to this agenda, or consult the people about it. The preferred method of implementing the agenda is by stealth and spin. The Emperors definitely have no clothes... It's not a pretty picture, and it would be ugly whichever side of politics it came from.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PLANNING MINISTER THAT THIS STATE GOVERNMENT HAS DONE MORE TO PROTECT URBAN AND RURAL CHARACTER THAN ANY OTHER IN THE STATE'S HISTORY? Send us your thoughts on mrra.sec999@gmail.com

Please sign the Keep Macedon Ranges Rural petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/keep-macedon-ranges-rural.html

Victorian Liberals/Nationals Say The Government Must Stop Plans To Urbanise The Macedon Ranges

(6/10/08 - P) Macedon Ranges: Beautiful one day, suburban the next.

Welcome support for retaining Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 (the 'Macedon Ranges policy') has come from the Victorian Liberal Nationals Coalition, through Shadow Planning Minister Matthew Guy.

Mr. Guy yesterday issued a media release calling for the removal of the policy to be stopped. He said that if the removal goes ahead, "the character and rural charm of one of the state's most beautiful regions will be lost forever."

"These [Hanging Rock and Mount Macedon] are some of the most precious natural assets that Victoria has and they should be protected by the State, not seen as fire sale development opportunities."

Click here to see the full text of the media release.

MRRA Says:

This media release reflects and builds on the Liberal Party's policy position at the 2006 State election, where the Libs promised to not only keep Statement of Planning Policy No. 8, but elevate it to State policy through a McHarg and Macedon Ranges Strategy.

That position itself built upon the "Hamer Vision" of the 1970's, when the then Liberal Premier, Rupert Hamer, recognized the area's outstanding environmental features and values by introducing Statement of Planning Policy No. 8.

The depth of that government's commitment and the reasons for it were eloquently expressed by the Planning Minister of the day, GP Hayes, who said of Macedon Ranges:

"...we must constantly remind ourselves of these values and what it will cost us if we fail to plan and manage these valuable resources properly."

"One often hears the argument that the resources of an area like Mount Macedon have no value at all unless they can be useful to man. Of course there is a lot of truth in that suggestion but it must never be used as an excuse for man to act like a pirate, robbing, plundering and exploiting the environment. That kind of irrational or narrowly conceived exploitation is completely unthinkable."

"I hope that no one and least of all myself, will ever belittle this policy or the efforts that have gone into producing it."

The need to protect the environmental assets of Macedon Ranges for future generations is so fundamental, it should never be a matter for debate, or of politics or ideology. It's a matter of principle and common sense.

Our sincere thanks to the Liberal National Coalition for their support.

'Can Do Better' Takes Up Fight To Keep Macedon Ranges Rural

(6/10/08 - O) Says "air-brushing" of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 NOT ON

Click here for link and related stories

Decision On Gisborne ODP Deferred - Unanimously!

(6/10/08 - P) High level of difficulty in major backflip to 9-0 vote on Gisborne ODP rescission motion from 5-4 the previous week

At a Special Council meeting in Kyneton last Wednesday, those in the gallery could have been forgiven for doing a double take. Far from the split 5 to 4 vote the week before at Romsey to move Amendment C59 (Gisborne ODP) forward to a panel, this time around Councillors voted unanimously for a rescission motion reversing the 5 to 4 decision taken the previous week. C59 will now NOT move forward at this time.

Councillors who changed their minds were Noel Harvey, Geoff Neil, Helen Relph, John Connor, and Sandra McGregor.

Those who originally voted against moving the amendment forward at Romsey, and again on Wednesday night, were Henry Bleeck, Rob Guthrie, Tom Gyorffy and John Letchford.

The rescission motion was lodged by a quick-thinking Cr. John Letchford at the 24 September meeting at Romsey, on the grounds of allowing Councillors more time to read the large number of submissions on the amendment.

A second part to the rescission motion was also passed on Wednesday night, although the motion carried differed substantially from that originally proposed by Cr. John Letchford.

The original part two motion related to Council calling for the Minister for Planning to provide strategies for the Calder corridor and towns in Macedon Ranges, to re-instate the principles and strategic direction of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 in the Gisborne ODP, provide state protection for Macedon Ranges through special state level exemptions, and that the 2005 version of the Gisborne ODP be adopted as interim policy for Gisborne pending completion of these other actions.

However, this version of the second part was left "in abeyance", and a new second part substituted: "That Council having regard to the diverse range of submissions received resolve to review the proposed planning controls relating to Amendment C59 by mid December 2008 and the Submitters be advised accordingly and the Minister for Planning be kept informed of Council's actions." The vote on this was almost unanimous, but not quite. Cr. Geoff Neil voted against, giving an 8 - 1 result.

DPCD Orders The 'MACEDON RANGES POLICY' Removed From Our Planning Scheme

(29/9/08 - SP) There's only one reason to do that: to open the door for suburbia

At last Wednesday's Council meeting in Romsey, the suburban hammer fell on Macedon Ranges.

It was announced in Chamber that Council had received an email from the Department of Planning and Community Development saying that all references to Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 - Macedon Ranges and Surrounds 1975 were to be removed from the planning scheme.

This 'Macedon Ranges policy' recognises Macedon Ranges as an area of special and State significance. It lays out policy that puts the environment first, and gives rights to the local community to be consulted. It is all that stands between a rural Macedon Ranges and a suburban one.

An attempt was made at the Council meeting to have Council approve a motion calling on the Minister for Planning to provide State level planning protection (which would include making Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 a State policy again, as it originally was) but the motion was defeated on a 5 to 4 vote.

Those for State protection: Henry Bleeck, Tom Gyorffy, Rob Guthrie, John Letchford.

Those against: John Connor, Noel Harvey, Geoff Neil, Sandra McGregor, Helen Relph.

Click here for more information.

MRRA Says:

It's good to see Henry Bleeck and John Letchford (who moved the motion) joining Tom Gyorffy and Rob Guthrie, but there's not much to be said for the rest of our Councillors.

MRRA wrote to Planning Minister Madden on 24th August requesting a meeting regarding the (what seemed) strange removal of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 from the Gisborne ODP, and from local policy as part of the MSS Review (now Amendment C62). To date we have received no response, but have heard that our letter has landed in the Department's Bendigo office. Hmm... Not a good sign. MRRA has long viewed the Bendigo office as part of the problem, not the solution. If responses such as we have received from Bendigo in the past are anything to go by, we can pretty much predict what this one will say... We will have heard it before.

KEEP MACEDON RANGES RURAL PETITION

MRRA has started a petition to the Victorian Legislative Assembly calling for the Victorian Parliament to act to overturn DPCD's order, to give Macedon Ranges interim protection, to reinstate Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 to State policy, and to legislate and provide specific planning provisions to permanently protect Macedon Ranges.

Please help and support us to protect Macedon Ranges and keep it rural! We are calling on the Victorian Legislative Assembly to protect Macedon Ranges so that this precious environment and the area’s rural amenity are safeguarded.

You can sign the petition online at

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/keep-macedon-ranges-rural.html

or download a hard copy of the petition

Hard copies of the petition will be distributed around Macedon Ranges' towns in the next few days. You might like to take some forms along to your local shop so others can sign up to Keep Macedon Ranges Rural.

We will have an update in a few days with more information.

Alarm Bells As The ODP Plan You Weren't Told About Tries To Push A Suburban Future On Gisborne

(31/8/08 - P) Residents not consulted about 180 degree metropolitan shift for Gisborne

Somewhere, somehow, someone has decided Gisborne will be a suburb of Melbourne.

Back in 2005, the Gisborne community was consulted on what type of future it wanted for the town. Three options were offered: no change, balanced growth, and high growth. The high growth option was rejected and subsequently a draft Outline Development Plan [ODP] was exhibited in May/June 2005 which contained a preferred option of balanced growth. This ODP recognized Gisborne as a rural town, as well as the importance of its role/location within the wider and significant Macedon Ranges and Surrounds area. The town would grow by another 3200 people by 2031 and, in line with community expectations, would have larger lot sizes and lower density development to protect landscapes and rural character.

Roll forward to August 2008 and Amendment C59. The purpose of Amendment C59 is to put the ODP in Macedon Ranges planning scheme as the plan for Gisborne for the next 20 years. It also introduces some new planning controls for Gisborne and New Gisborne. The problem is, the ODP going into the planning scheme isn't the ODP Gisborne thought it was getting in 2005.

The ODP in Amendment C59 is dated July 2007. Since 2005, when the community last saw it, the ODP has been re-written to produce a suburban outcome for Gisborne.

Between 2005 and now, larger lots became smaller lots, lower density became higher density, areas designated for medium density development doubled, 3200 extra people by 2031 became 6800 extra people (i.e. double the current population), Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 and 'rural town' were deleted and replaced by Melbourne 2030 (e.g. A Fairer City), existing larger setbacks in some areas were replaced by ResCode, and the new planning controls for Gisborne were watered down and reflected changes made since 2005.

MRRA Says:

The Gisborne / New Gisborne Outline Development Plan was funded and initiated by the State government in 2005. It all went fairly swimmingly until the draft ODP was exhibited in May/June 2005. After that, the ODP disappeared behind closed doors and has only emerged for public consumption with the recent exhibition of Amendment C59.

For three years, it seems the Department of Planning and Community Development refused to move Amendment C59 forward until Council agreed to accept an ODP that had a 'suburban' agenda. All the while, better planning controls for Gisborne sat on the shelf gathering dust. With no end and no improved controls in sight, Council finally gave in. We can only wonder how differently things might have turned out for Gisborne if those new controls - in their 2005 form - had been introduced at that time. Everyone knows Gisborne has been crying out for years for better planning controls. After the collapse of Amendment C8 in 2004, that's why the ODP went ahead in 2005.

MRRA and members have submitted objections to the 2007 ODP moving forward. Amongst other things, it sets a precedent for officially urbanizing a town in Macedon Ranges - are the other towns next? And while there was a strategic basis and strategic justification for the 2005 ODP, we are still looking for any strategic justification for the changes in the 2007 version.

The Department's high-handed actions have put Council and our community in a terrible position. It seems that if we want any better planning controls, we have to take a suburban agenda as well. MRRA says that's not on.

One thing the Department's behaviour has done is to highlight how very vulnerable Macedon Ranges is, not only to speculators and agendas but mediocre minds. An attempt is also being made to have Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 - Macedon Ranges and Surrounds (Clause 22.01) removed from our planning scheme. Consequently Macedon Ranges is, more than at any time before, at the crossroads in terms of where the Shire goes in future.

As well as the revised ODP being an unacceptable outcome for Gisborne, the Department's stealthy imposition of metropolitan policy carries much wider implications for the whole Shire, particularly in the absence of the strong planning protections the Shire used to have before 2000. MRRA has campaigned for several years to have the area's sensitivity recognised at State level and for the protections we lost in 2000 to be re-instated. We say, make it State policy to protect rural character, rural land and environment in Macedon Ranges.

MRRA has now written to the Minister for Planning asking for these matters to be clarified.

Hello, Hello, Hello - Where Did Statement Of Planning Policy No. 8 Go?

(16/7/08 - P) Council's 'review' of Macedon Ranges' Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Policies sees the Macedon Ranges Policy dropped from the Macedon Ranges planning scheme. MRRA says, we want it elevated to State policy, not shredded

Macedon Ranges Shire Council is in the process of 'reviewing' its MSS and Local Policies. Originally due to be finished in 2003, the review began several years ago, stopped, then started again. A draft revised MSS and local policies were exhibited in 2007, to which MRRA made a hefty submission.

A final draft of changes arising from the review recently hit MRRA's desk. One or two areas have been strengthened, but its most compelling feature is what has been taken out.

Together, the MSS and local policies constitute the Local Planning Policy Framework [LPPF], and are the only part of a planning scheme where a municipality can describe itself.

An MSS is the 'engine' of a planning scheme - it is the strategic heart that drives a scheme. It is supposed to say what's important to us, and what we are going to do about it. On the other hand, local policies provide advice and guidance on making day to day decisions to get outcomes that are right for, and take account of, local conditions. Without them, the fallback position is generic State-wide policy which isn't specific to any area.

There are moves from the State government to 'slim down' MSS's and local policies, which in itself diminishes the ability of communities to describe themselves - to say what is different about each municipality: its identity, people, characteristics, values, constraints and needs.

This review seems to 'follow the company line', with much of current MSS content and local policies dropped. The upshot is that there is plenty that is 'diminished' about this final draft, because there just isn't enough in it to define Macedon Ranges. Overall, its 'condensed' content misses the point - and what makes Macedon Ranges tick. It could be talking about anywhere.

The existing township policies are gone - moved to the MSS.

And then there's the quiet assassination of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 - Macedon Ranges and Surrounds. The Macedon Ranges policy. SPP8. Clause 22.01 in the current scheme. This policy is the only thing left that stands between a rural Macedon Ranges, and Macedon Ranges: the suburb.

It has been the foundation stone upon which all planning schemes have been built in Macedon Ranges for 35 years.

It started life as a State level policy backed by legislation (much like the Green Wedges today).

By 2000, and the arrival of the VPP format planning schemes, it was down-graded to Local Policy, even though the Planning Minister of the day (John Thwaites) agreed it should be State policy. That didn't happen.

In 2004, MRRA launched a campaign to have SPP8 re-instated as State policy, but the State government has said we are already protected, that SPP8 as local policy is law, and protects us from over-development. The difficulty with SPP8 as local policy is that there is no easy way to implement it and many ignore it, which is why it needs to be State policy.

But instead of SPP8 becoming State policy, along comes Council's MSS and local policy review and... hello, hello, hello - where did Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 go? As far as MRRA knows, Yarra Ranges still has its Statement of Planning Policy, so it seems it's just ours that has vanished.

Not only isn't it a State policy, it's not even a Local policy any more - it is just gone.

THE $64,000 question is, who said it could go?

MRRA Says:

There was an attempt back in the days of the first post-amalgamation Macedon Ranges Council to get rid of Statement of Planning Policy No. 8. Surely it is merely a coincidence that, with some of those same Councillors currently in office, it's happening again?

How dare anybody... ANYBODY... think they can arbitrarily lop this huge and critical policy out of our scheme.

Bet on it, you will be hearing more from us on this one. In fact, we think we can feel a letter to the Minister for Planning coming on right now, and possibly to a couple of other places as well.