There is always something positive when we plan well

This world class development was established over 15 years ago . Like a lot of sound ecosensitive development its so good you can hardly notice its there.

Why didn't that work?-Great Ocean Green Apollo Bay

This project never went ahead , but it nearly did and it would have been a disaster . How can so much money be wasted over 8 years trying to stop something that should have been knocked on the head in the very first instance. The answer is that the person who would have normally knocked it on the head was not heard . Instead of a straight "NO" there was a "maybe" by those present , a case of duck-shoving suggestions instead of decisions that should be made on site; straight to any point of design contention. Only broad briefs were set, which predictably consultants drove their trucks through. The agencies asked for reports they couldn't digest, so what's the point . Setting up a paper trail that has no final brief and therefore no final end is a waste that is now far too normal . It maybe expensive for the client but each new consultancy brings the client closer to his aim . You should never let the client investigate what you do not understand yourself -this is what happens right across Australia - every day . Agencies of government who take on planning responsibilities but do not train their people to be accountable do not make decisions - they duck them . Careless Agencies, like the CCMA, gave a tacit yes to the idea- they were trying to be helpful, but failing to be competent. GOG was a big horse that bolted paper and the chase cost us millions .
Building on a floodplain with no equal for danger to life, limb and property in the State.
Capable risk management comments were published but not heard amongst the so called " authorities " Planning is about nipping the thing in the bud, but no nipping was ever done.Once trimmed its important to cultivate growth in the right area to find the best place for any development. I was never against tourism and growth. I just insisted on the best possible growth. The only sort of tourists you want are those who appreciate the best- the very best in nature and the very best design with nature.

Why didn't that work?-The Ecohotel at Yulong

Developers only have to put "eco" infront of their idea and some people will swoon thinking they are not necessarily going to not cut corners to make a buck . Let's make it clear , my job for 3 decades was to help people; design with nature; help people get through the hoops that can now strangle the unwary.
I've never been here to stop them making a buck , just to make sure the development fits in well with their chosen space and often , unfortunately to change that space if they should be silly enough to buy a bargain block that won't do the job and make costs for the community - for example intensive developments which would threaten water quality in high runoff areas.(eg The greek village at the wettest place in Victoria )
Sounds simple doesn't it, but its not . Unfortunateley you have to say No to people whose projects aren't thought through well enough for the location . There is usually a place for the development( and i've always been happy to help find that place) but not where people buy in haste ( "come and see me first" I would say)
This was the site for a proposed $1000 a night hotel but there wasn't enough room for it to work . The tennis courts were taken off and the whole development was too close to the road . Somewhere else would have been fine. I would have written the ticket to ride out for you if you had chosen better.
No we shouldn't let people do what they feel like on the environment ; feeling for the environment must come first .

Why didn't that work? -2

Why isn't that development world class?

There are a number of developments around the Otways where my recommendations as a geomorphical planner and risk analyst in the public interest were deliberately not brought to Council's attention . The result was a very second rate outcome. To be fair to those still with investments there, this matter is now private . But the development is big enough. It could have been outstanding with little extra cost ----and not threatened as it is now by the possibility of being duplicated elsewhere.
A warning to all those Councillors who, when a big development comes along,don't accept that it MUST fit in WELL with an ENVIRONMENT we locals know best. For the benefit of readers the development i am referring to here is the Otway Fly.I won't leave the reference to it here for long: only long enough for ratepayers to realize that our Council is not prepared to really find out whether applications on its desk are really well thought through . For all its value, the Otway Fly could have been world class, if the plan was "as advised." approved largely as presented .

How did that get there?-4

How did that get there ? 3

How did that get there ? 2

How did that get there ? 1

You might ask. Its a long story . At one of most precious beaches.

Why would you wait 70 years for a return on investment?

The owners of this safe haven on the Forest Apollo Bay are not allowed to harvest and regenerate the timber on their property.They have been paying rates and building fences , controlling weeds on the block for 3 generations Once sold to a plantation company at a bargain price there will be no fire safe haven , no view and no compensation to the current owner for the timber that most likely will be harvested by the next owner. This irrational decision will be reviewed by VCAT after the State Elections on December 9th.
The grounds of objection raised are
1. Existing use rights should be considered to apply
2. The Department of Sustainability and Environment has not clearly identified any significant environment effects that would justify opposition to the proposed use.

3. The Responsible Authority has not established a clear, consistent and sound environmental or planning basis for the grounds listed 1, 3, 4 and 6.
4. The rare and threatened species listed are not specifically threatened by the use.
5. The high level of reliance put on the Native Vegetation Framework Plan Strategy is not acceptable and threatens sound planning practice.
6. The Planning Authorities have not properly and adequately considered the application.
7. Failure to support this ongoing sound and low risk use is a denial of natural justice.
8. The planning authorities have treated this application for the use in an unfair manner.

Come and hear who makes sense at 55 King Street Melbourne .

Developers found it easy to do what they like once I left

North Apollo bay had a strategy plan but it was ditched when Swan Bay developments came along. The problem I and the consultants had was that the developer refused to comply with sound conservation practice in coastal management (one of my specialities ) on the basis that the government had created 2 agencies with the same apparent authority - "which one was he to believe ?", The same thing happened with Great Ocean Green . Nobody was acting as a responsible authority for sound earth planning, except perhaps in name only. What's been done to fix the problem -( Infact there are now 3agencies )- absolutely nothing and no mention is made of the immediate need to plan the apollo bay foreshore is mentioned in the current long lists of strategy plans being funded.