Book Club
Tales of the City
Urban Design


Save "Our" Coast from the locals
Russell Degnan

It must be fun being a local council these days. After suffering through amalgamations, structural changes, operational requirements and outright threats to toe the line or be summarily removed from office under the last government; they are being slowly stripped of their planning powers as well.

The main purpose of the original Local Government Act was to offload the burden of essentially local issues from the (voluntary) colonial parliament onto self-governing councils. But, this, and the long line of previous governments aren't troubled by having to deal with local issues. There is, apparently, nothing a centralised army of bureaucrats can't handle in today's world.

This is why the latest plan for our coastlines involves the state government applying the same strategic planning guidelines to coastal towns that it does in Melbourne 2030. Including, most importantly, an urban growth boundary, to prevent "ribbon-development" along the coast.

There are three reasons why you might want to take power from local government hands: one, the local council is woefully incompetent and incapable of handling planning issues at all; two, there are negative externalities involved for the wider community if you leave important decisions to petty local bureaucrats; or three, the local government - like decisions concerning Greater Melbourne - has insufficient control to affect an outcome.

The first - while possibly true from a State Government perspective - is insulting to local government, and to our system of local government in general. If that's the case you may as well pack it away now and run everything through the state. Democracy in general depends on local decision-makers to be properly representative, and shouldn't so willingly be disposed of. On the opposite side of the ledger however; many councils (including some of our coastal councils) are woefully unrepresentative because of the hodge-podge collection of amalgamations a decade ago. If the State Government was paying attention they'd notice this, and allow local people to decide their own council boundaries.

Skipping ahead, the third is not true of coastal councils, and reiterating my last point, should not be true of any council. State Government power-mongering to keep the City of Melbourne in it's place prevents a more rational division of power between state and local governments in Melbourne however.

The second point is the heart of the matter. This Age editorial sums it up nicely:

"Driving bumper to bumper, hour after hour, Victorians who recently endured the ritual trip to and from the coast would not have enjoyed the irony that the idea is to get away from the urban rat race. Every year the crush gets worse as a tide of humanity floods into the coastal towns and environs, and threatens to sweep away the very character that makes them such special, attractive places."

Which doesn't explain the hopeless naivety that could cause someone to state the obvious effect of an urban growth boundary, that "property values can be expected to increase", and then follow it up with this:

"There is a risk of turning the humblest towns into elite enclaves. The challenge will be to ensure state policy does not simply help the "we got here first" brigade keep the pleasures of the coast for themselves. The problems that will have to be managed are nonetheless preferable to allowing some of the most attractive features of the coast to be lost to development."

They don't go on to explain how they might manage this "problem". Local residents are already complaining that property prices are too high because of weekenders and retirees, the solution would appear to be drive them up further - it will, if nothing else, remove the local scourge. Wait and see, the next step is for city-folk to complain that bread and milk prices are too high over summer, because the owner of the general store will only be getting an income for the six months a year that people go to the coast.

If the locals want an urban growth boundary, that is their prerogative. But the State Government plan is either elitist, brain-dead or both. It might stop development along the coast, but it will be at the expense of local residents, who won't be able to afford to live there. Local councils are - or should be - well placed to decide what's best for their community. Perhaps they - and not city politicians looking out for their coastal retirement home they're going to buy with their extravagant tax-payer funded superannuation - should decide what happens on the coast.

Planning 28th January, 2004 12:05:32   [#] 


Local Councils are incompetent
Rural local councils are living, breathing examples of the Peter Principle (everyone rises to their own level of incompetence). Half are reflexive NIMBY-ists, the other half are in the pockets of developers (through fair means or foul). All are dominated by their own bureacracy.

Aside from this, have you considered that local councils are not in a position to take a statewide view of the health of the coastline? Sewage outfalls and use of coastal water supplies have statewide implications.
Robert Merkel  28th January, 2004 13:59:01  

True, but
The Peter Principle has a corollary. If you strip power from an organisation, and therefore require a lower level of competence to administer it, then the people in that organisation will get progressively worse. I'd prefer the opposite: grant power to local bodies to make them better. Certainly, local bureaucracies have the largest say in the running of country towns, but just as certainly, a state bureaucracy won't be any better. It is rare that important local issues register with the state government.

Regarding water and sewage. The state border is no less an arbitrary boundary than a local council, perhaps more so. The force of gravity implies that there are certain natural boundaries for water catchment and sewage that should be respected. There are lots of ways to do that that don't involve ceding all power to the hegemonic state.
Russell  1st February, 2004 13:33:48  


May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015

Recent Comments

Optimal stop spacing and
      Russ, Tony Morton
Mode Choice and Rational
      Russ, Jason Murphy
The Gastronomic Pub Crawl
      Russ, Andrew
Monday Melbourne: CCLIV,
Monday Melbourne: CCXXXII
      Russ, Andrew
Monday Melbourne: CCXXXII


Scribbling on Bricks
Melbourne 2030 Portal
Melbourne on Transit
Save Our Suburbs
Sustainable Melbourne
Urban Creature


The Next American City
Andrew Blum
Architecture and Morality
Bright Lights Dim Beauty
       of Chicago

City Comforts
The City Desk
City States
Diamond Geezer
Forum for Urban Design
Me, My Life +

Progressive Reactionary
Rebuilding Place in the
       Urban Space

Urban Cartography
Urban Commons
Urban Planning Research

Design and Development

A Daily Dose of

Beyond Brilliance,
       Beyond Stupidity

Brand Avenue
CoolTown Studios
City of Sound
Curbed [LA] [SF]
The Ground Floor
Lebbeus Woods
The Measures Taken
New (Sub)Urbanism
Private Sector
       Development Blog

Reason Commentaries
Richard Green Sit Down Man, You're
       a Bloody Tragedy

Urban Planning Blog
Veritas et Venustas
Wow Flutter

Culture and Theory

2 Blowhards
Abstract Dynamics
Aesthetic Grounds
Anne Galloway
James Howard Kunstler
Junk for Code
Karrie Jacobs
Life Without Buildings
Martin Krieger
Place Space
Rough Theory
The Sesquipedalist
Side Effects
Space and Culture
Strange Harvest


Blog Like You Give a Damn
The Commons Blog
Environmental and
       Urban Economics

Impact Analysis
Jetson Green
Landscape and Urbanism
Muck and Mystery
The Perfect City
Web Urbanist
World Changing


cfsmtb in low
       earth orbit

Live from the Third Rail
Peter Gordon's Blog
Streets Blog
Train Blog
The Transportationist

Non Blogs

Planners Web
Project for Public

New Urbanism
American Planning

Polar inertia

Australian Policy

Liveable Places
Australian Transport
       Discussion Board

Urban Design Forum
Urban Residue
Environmental News
Metropolitan Transport