- Published on
By Greg Johnson
MANY Phillip Islanders are worried about our council’s latest plan for tourism. In a radical move by our council to attract bigger spending “high end” tourists, most rural land on the island would be opened for uses including luxury resorts.
Where is the future for farming in all this, and how will the land and environment be protected?
When the Bass Coast Unlocking Rural Tourism Strategy (BURT) was first aired in 2022 it received plenty of objections. Councillors approved it in March 2023 after advisers’ assurances about environmental protections. However, I doubt that these assurances hold up, or that the strategy is in the best interests of Phillip Island.
MANY Phillip Islanders are worried about our council’s latest plan for tourism. In a radical move by our council to attract bigger spending “high end” tourists, most rural land on the island would be opened for uses including luxury resorts.
Where is the future for farming in all this, and how will the land and environment be protected?
When the Bass Coast Unlocking Rural Tourism Strategy (BURT) was first aired in 2022 it received plenty of objections. Councillors approved it in March 2023 after advisers’ assurances about environmental protections. However, I doubt that these assurances hold up, or that the strategy is in the best interests of Phillip Island.
When Phillip Island resident are consulted about the Island’s future, the most common response is “Don’t allow it to be overdeveloped!” Previous council strategies underlined the importance of retaining the rural farmed landscape. Rather than evaluating these documents, BURT over-rides them, recommending that agricultural use should no longer be prioritised in the farm zone, but operate together with a compatible tourism use, with some Rural Activity and Special Use rezoning for large scale tourist ventures at Newhaven, Ventnor and Kitty Miller Bay.
This raises the prospect of more development outside township boundaries and tourism displacing farming in the long run. BURT’s promised subdivisions and development plans for farmland will inevitably inflate both land values and council property rates, which eventually makes farming unviable.
This raises the prospect of more development outside township boundaries and tourism displacing farming in the long run. BURT’s promised subdivisions and development plans for farmland will inevitably inflate both land values and council property rates, which eventually makes farming unviable.
In land use planning, once new uses for land are approved, those changes become permanent so there is no going back. Our hope is that we can convince the new council to rescind BURT before any planning scheme amendments occur. But with multi millions of dollars at stake and tourism interests having a strong influence, that will require organising and informing residents of Phillip Islanders about what’s at stake.
Public meeting
Call for action on the BURT Strategy. St Phillip’s Parish Hall, 102 Thompson Ave, Cowes, Friday September 20, 7pm. Organised by the Phillip Island Conservation Society. Speakers: Bill Cleeland, Linda Cuttriss, Jeff Floyd.
Call for action on the BURT Strategy. St Phillip’s Parish Hall, 102 Thompson Ave, Cowes, Friday September 20, 7pm. Organised by the Phillip Island Conservation Society. Speakers: Bill Cleeland, Linda Cuttriss, Jeff Floyd.
Aspirations for high-end, high yield visitors, done badly, will extract a cost on the Island’s community and landscape character. Phillip Island is a small Island. Any change in how its open farmland is used will have a disproportionate impact on natural landscape compared with mainland Bass Coast.
It is a serious omission that the BURT plan failed to respect existing land use strategies or give much consideration to farming’s contribution. There is every reason to protect farmland for agriculture and minimise its development. Future generations will need land for local food production with resident farmers ensuring good land management. Farmland acts as a carbon sink in a world running out of mitigation options.
It is a serious omission that the BURT plan failed to respect existing land use strategies or give much consideration to farming’s contribution. There is every reason to protect farmland for agriculture and minimise its development. Future generations will need land for local food production with resident farmers ensuring good land management. Farmland acts as a carbon sink in a world running out of mitigation options.
A Google Earth view of Phillip Island shows farmland plays a crucial role in linking conservation reserves and maintaining green breaks between settlements.
Rural properties are valued as foraging habitat for native species; as protective buffer space around vital bushland and coastal reserves; and as green open breaks between settlements. With Landcare’s wildlife corridors ‘greening’ property boundaries, the resulting rural vistas are a defining feature of the Island’s character and important for tourism.
The BURT began life as a technical land use study and environmental protections appear to have been written is as an afterthought. If it had been required to meet the requirements of a full rural tourism strategy, its recommendations might have been moderated to consider other sustainability values and a more balanced set of recommendations might have been the result.
This may explain some of the document’s problems. As it is, we are invited to accept that in a dispute with Council over a tourism application’s suitability for a sensitive site, the Planning Scheme will sort it out, with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal or the Planning Minister as arbiters, remote from the Island. The much-delayed Distinctive Areas Landscape (DAL) project is even suggested as a guarantee against any insensitive proposal, but its recommendations and timeline remain unknown.
Another problem is the lack of council enforcement of planning permit conditions, a chronic issue in local government. This scenario does not inspire confidence that the Island’s farmland will be adequately protected under BURT’s radical changes, given the poor quality of recent approvals by the Minister under existing rules. The best protection for rural land is retaining the current local policies in the Farm Zone which favour agricultural use.
Despite BURT’s dismissive attitude, small-scale ‘farm-stay’ accommodation is a viable form of rural tourism which supplements farm income and supports agriculture. Revenue directly benefits farm operations and circulates in the local economy.
The question of who benefits from ‘high-end’ tourist resorts is less clear. Local ownership is unlikely and consortium control is common. Revenue may support some local jobs but no doubt shareholders would get the lion’s share.
Bass Coast Unlocking Rural Tourism has put the Island at a tipping point. It is not in harmony with other council strategies, cannot substitute for an unbiased tourism strategy appropriate for the Island, and is likely to lead us into risky and contentious planning territory with no way back.
Greg Johnson is president of the Phillip Island Conservation Society.
The BURT began life as a technical land use study and environmental protections appear to have been written is as an afterthought. If it had been required to meet the requirements of a full rural tourism strategy, its recommendations might have been moderated to consider other sustainability values and a more balanced set of recommendations might have been the result.
This may explain some of the document’s problems. As it is, we are invited to accept that in a dispute with Council over a tourism application’s suitability for a sensitive site, the Planning Scheme will sort it out, with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal or the Planning Minister as arbiters, remote from the Island. The much-delayed Distinctive Areas Landscape (DAL) project is even suggested as a guarantee against any insensitive proposal, but its recommendations and timeline remain unknown.
Another problem is the lack of council enforcement of planning permit conditions, a chronic issue in local government. This scenario does not inspire confidence that the Island’s farmland will be adequately protected under BURT’s radical changes, given the poor quality of recent approvals by the Minister under existing rules. The best protection for rural land is retaining the current local policies in the Farm Zone which favour agricultural use.
Despite BURT’s dismissive attitude, small-scale ‘farm-stay’ accommodation is a viable form of rural tourism which supplements farm income and supports agriculture. Revenue directly benefits farm operations and circulates in the local economy.
The question of who benefits from ‘high-end’ tourist resorts is less clear. Local ownership is unlikely and consortium control is common. Revenue may support some local jobs but no doubt shareholders would get the lion’s share.
Bass Coast Unlocking Rural Tourism has put the Island at a tipping point. It is not in harmony with other council strategies, cannot substitute for an unbiased tourism strategy appropriate for the Island, and is likely to lead us into risky and contentious planning territory with no way back.
Greg Johnson is president of the Phillip Island Conservation Society.
Comments are closed.
The petition is accessed at https://chng.it/9vvvRjBkJW
I hope it helps your cause, for the signatories to the petition are on your side.
Tourists don’t just come see the penguins, they want a whole rural and coastal experience. Forget condominiums, we need sensitive tourism development, not only on the coast but also near the rail trails, the Western Port Woodlands and other nature based walks, with events and experiences in and around the small towns and rural localities. Bass Coast is known for our many unique nature experiences.
Don’t kill any of the Geese who lay tourism golden eggs and that includes our farms and small towns
Glenda Minty candidate Western Port Ward
auhtorized by G Minty POBox60 Wonthaggi