A critique of Frankston Council Economic Development Strategy
16 Dec 10
Economic Development Strategy submission.
In my opinion the EDS miscalculates Frankston's status, misquotes population trends, provides an over estimation of the capacity and size the CAD, has no perception of economic growth per se and therefore has no environmental integrity.
Errors include:
1/ The ongoing practice of falsely claiming Frankston to be a "regional capitol".
The EDS states clearly that Dandenong is 20 minutes drive from Frankston yet cites 72,000 jobs in the "Frankston catchment" within a 30 minute drive.
2/ A ridiculous assumption that Frankston (with an existing CAD gross retail floor area of 120,000m2), can somehow conjure up from nowhere an additional 1.28 MILLION m2 of floor space, (10 times the existing floor area), to cater for the "desired growth".
3/ That Frankston's CAD "growth" can accommodate 18,000 employees.
4/ That Frankston's CAD "growth" can accommodate an additional 18,000 permanent residents.
5/ That Frankston's CAD "growth" can accommodate a full blown tourism "industry", an Aquatic Centre, Government Offices and the accompanying traffic generation.
6/ That Frankston can, under these circumstances accommodate "sustainable growth". The term is in itself an oxymoron, let alone in the context of the growth suggested in the EDS.
7/ That Frankston seeks to rezone Green Wedge land to accommodate purely economic development, this has been universally condemned since the inception of the I.P.C.C.
8/ That Frankston Council is so devoid of environmental integrity that they are prepared to see the destruction of Westernport Bay. I am attaching a recent press release and statement from environmental groups calling for a halt to the Port of Hastings development.
9/ P 21 makes blatant errors of fact and confuses timeframes frequently. On population projections the EDS clearly states that;
With approximately 155,000 additional residents expected to be accommodated in Frankston City (as a result of Melbourne's growth estimates), and the expectation that the City's Greenfield and Brownfield sites will be at capacity by 2015 - it is not unrealistic to expect a significant proportion of residential accommodation to be centred in Frankston CAD.
In fact the 155,000 figure is the TOTAL population projected for 2026 not the ADDITIONAL population. (Victoria in Future 2008, Department of Planning and Community Development , Frankston statistics) This casts doubt on many of the figures produced in the document. If the EDS cannot offer the correct correlation of population and timeframe what figures are reliable and which are not ? Will Greenfield and Brownfield development be spent by 2015, to me that seems a particularly erroneous projection.
Frankston CAD barely rates a mention in Melbourne @ 5 million. Either in status or as an employment generator I quote from the document ‘
Three employment corridors will be given priority attention by the Government through this process:
- Avalon Airport to Werribee, Melton, Melbourne Airport and Donnybrook (Hume-Mitchell);
- Caulfield to Dandenong; and
- Monash University/Chadstone to Box Hill, Austin Hospital and Bell Street.
Other employment corridors including Ringwood to Box Hill and Hawthorn, and Melton to Sunshine and North Melbourne, are also important for the future development of Melbourne and will evolve over time.
Frankston Council should face the reality that it has a hospital, University campus and a railway line and is NOT particularly integral to employment generation strategies, why then not concentrate on deleting employment from the CAD strategies and applying resources to residential development and tourism?
It is fallacious to think that Frankston CAD (an area measuring 800 metres north to south and approximately 400 metres east to west (i.e. 0.32 klm2), can accommodate the suggested growth. Compare this with Dandenong, which is over 3 times as big. (1000m by 1100m. i.e. 1.1 klm2) and it is obvious which centre is the "regional capitol", further evidenced by the bulk of the State funding. Frankston does not have the physical SIZE for the growth that is advocated in this study and it is laughable that by merely adding 2 storeys onto EVERY site in Frankston the noted growth can be accommodated.
The EDS urges local export increases and import decreases, yet advocates the "ratification" of the Port of Hastings becoming Melbourne's main container terminal complete with a fourfold increase on today's figures of 2 million containers imported per year. (Ratify Melbourne S.E. Strategy P32).
This strategy would see a massive increase of our Ecological Footprint, the destruction of a RAMSAR wetlands, the support of brown coal exports from Hastings and severe impacts on the municipality and residents of Frankston from freight movements on both road and rail.
Any economic development strategy based upon no environmental thought is totally unsustainable and open to ridicule.
It is extremely disappointing that FCC administration and elected representatives have not seen these fundamental errors, wildly inaccurate ‘guesstimates' and environmentally destructive policies.
Basic trends of global economic growth, (with some countries still caught in the GFC, i.e. USA and Europe), and the ecological limits with which growth will be confronted in the very near future, are missing from this document. The fact that Australia's precarious economic survival is completely dependent on mineral exports to China does not rate a mention.
You would be aware of the grinding economic halt that occurred in 2008 when oil prices caused the current economic system to collapse. Oil per barrel reached $147, it is now $90 per barrel and rising.
The basic fact (of which the economic development unit seems unconcerned), is that ALL economic development was based on the availability of cheap energy (oil). Global growth has now hit the resource limitation of "Peak Oil". A dollar value on carbon pollution is about to be introduced yet there is no hint of any impact at all in the EDS on growth. It is extremely "yesterday" to consider the environment an "externality".
There is no call for EXISTING business' in Frankston to become "energy efficient", the words are not mentioned in the EDS, let alone "Life Cycle Analysis" or "embodied energy assessment".
Frankston Council should be aware of the International Energy Association's "World Economic Outlook 2010", - documentation upon which ALL national governments base their economic forecasts. The IEA has, after years of denying the fact of "Peak Oil" finally conceded the fact that production "peaked" in 2006 and oil production has been in decline since that time.
For your information I have attached the WEO 2010 summary, in which it clearly states that the global forecast for oil stocks is one of future scarcity of cheap oil - ergo contraction of economic growth.
I would also sincerely recommend that the following link be used to find out what Prof Tim Jackson calls his "Economic Reality Check" at
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check.html
In this talk he condemns economic growth as the production of "novelty", leading to "conspicuous consumption" which leads the community into deep debt.
Spending money we don't have,
On things we don't need,
To create impressions that won't last,
On people we don't care about.
This is the growth the EDS supports, and typical of the unsustainable consumption and production which is detailed in FCC Environmental Sustainability Policy.
I find it incomprehensible that an administration which was awarded "the most sustainable municipality in Australia 2008", which has a recently introduced "Sustainability Policy" - (upon which ALL decisions must be made), and an excellent Environmental Sustainability Policy, can present such ill considered documentation for public comment which is completely devoid of environmental integrity.
Council seems completely spellbound by the "growth fetish" so eloquently articulated by Dr Clive Hamilton some years ago, and oblivious to the connection of economic growth to climate change.
Environmental degradation, resource depletion, species decline, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification, occurs because of the inability of economists to separate economic growth from adverse environmental impacts.
The EDS assumes that because it is advocating a "sustainable industrial park", and the word "sustainable" is littered throughout the document, everything is "fair game", including the destruction of Westernport Bay and rezoning Green Wedge land for economic plunder.
Melbourne @ 5 million has the following to say on Green Wedge zoned land ;
Government remains committed to protecting green wedges and in Planning for all of Melbourne and sets out future priorities for their management:
- Additional resources to complete the 12 Green Wedge Management Plans within agreed timeframes and reach an appropriate balance between central coordination and resourcing and local input;
- Planning scheme controls that continue to deliver the intent of green wedge policy; and
- A high-level whole-of-Government mechanism to help clarify management priorities of departments and agencies to coordinate implementation actions for each green wedge.
There is no consideration that Frankston CAD is flood prone, or that sea level rise will see Frankston Beach disappear by 2100, both these issues prominent in your own Environmental Sustainability Policy.
No mention is made of the Karingal Major Activity Centre and/or its ability for retail/office expansion or residential intensification, why has this "relief valve" on the CAD been omitted from the EDS altogether.
I am also attaching a book by Prof Tim Jackson called "Prosperity without Growth", the most sensible treatise on the economic future I have yet seen. It details western civilization's responsibilities to the 2 billion people who live on less than $2 per day. Given the EDS, it is obvious that there is no intention to stop and think of the plight of one third of the world's population whose glass is neither half full nor half empty, they do not have a glass.
When does FCC begin to think about this mass sector of the global community who have no economic growth ?
When does FCC begin to consider that it is our "affluence" and self enrichment that has impoverished these people, does the thought only occur when there is a natural disaster which forces its way into the news headlines ?
Is it not worth contemplating that our further economic growth, which adds to the climate change dilemma will further impact on a social strata which has nothing. How much is enough?