Nice to see the communities efforts in the Dandenongs being recognised.

Is there a future for the Villages of the Dandenongs?

 The Dandenongs are a unique and familiar feature of the greater Melbourne landscape. These are traditional lands and waters of the Wurundjeri People, an intrinsic part of the cultural, spiritual and daily life of the Wurundjeri. This is a landscape that is not something separate from the people, it is part of being, and the Traditional Owners tendered these lands for in excess of 40,000 years, until Europeans colonised the area in 1835.

 Since that European arrival, the Dandenongs has been the home of an Australian Prime Minister, various national and state political leaders, some of this nations most influential artists, writers, business leaders, scientists, lawyers, barrister and judges, academics, and many of Australia’s most influential and celebrated musicians. The Dandenongs has always attracted those seeking some level of retreat and solitude from the tumult and clutter of everyday existence. A place of reflection, a place of introspection and sanctuary, a place that has attracted those who seek time alone with their thoughts, dreams and creative muse.

 The Dandenongs was also vital in the founding of Victoria’s horticultural industry and a central contributor to Victoria’s enviable national and international reputation as a place of once beautiful gardens and parks.

 It was ‘the place’ to see and experience brilliant autumnal foliage, and the occasional dump of winter or early spring snow, although in truth, the vagaries of climate change now see the serene tranquillity of a significant snowfall becoming an increasingly rare phenomenon.

 The Dandenongs were a place of summer retreat from the stifling city heat, and the destination of choice for people seeking a romantic day or weekend away or, simply an escape from the hustle and bustle of city life; a place on the very doorstep of Melbourne that seemed a world away.

 But the Dandenongs are at a crossroads today with much of its former historic character lost or under threat. Over many decades the Dandenongs has experienced the wanton destruction of its historic buildings, the purging of the landscape of deciduous tress and the decimation of historic gardens and landscapes. The great Prunus serrulata (flowering cherries) that were once common to avenues, streets and the gardens of the Dandenongs are becoming increasingly rare today. Apathy and planning indifference all play their role in the suburbanisation of this once unique landscape.

 Quaint cottages are regularly demolished and replaced with some form of brick veneer suburban hideousness. Planning controls making it easier to demolish old cottages than restore them and neither the buildings nor the landscapes are afforded proper protection under woefully inadequate heritage conservation and protection controls.

 The Dandenongs today also face whole of government apathy to infrastructure investment and maintenance. This neglect is having a crippling impact on the economy and eroding the amenity of the area.

 Consider these facts for just one moment:

 The Dandenongs sits within a 40km radius of the centre of Melbourne, the fastest growing city in Australia

• The vast majority of the Mt Dandenong’s Villages do not have sewerage services
• Much of it remains dependant on tank water
• In many areas grey water and occasional septic overflow discharge directly into streets
• It has one of the most unreliable electricity networks in the State, and
• In the age of the digital economy, has digital and telecommunications infrastructure that is out-of-date, incomplete and unreliable

 Does any of that really sound like a first world economy to you?

 So on the one-hand heritage buildings and landscapes are being destroyed at an alarming rate, and then there is minimal or no investment in the critical contemporary infrastructure necessary to support modern communities. It is the very definition of a lose/lose situation for the communities of the Dandenongs.

 These failings of policy and strategic planning at all levels of government date back to the 1950’s. Once safe communities now sit in what is internationally recognised as one of the most at risk wildfire locations in the world. We need only look at photographic evidence, paintings, sketches, early journals and correspondence to understand that it was in fact policy and planning that brought that particular wolf to the door of the community.

 For the majority of the later half of the twentieth-century and most of the early part of the twenty-first century, it was illegal for people to mange their properties, as they needed to for fire safety. They were not permitted to remove vegetation unless it was classified as a ‘weed species’ (i.e. anything not native and even then a permit was required if the weed was over a predetermined height). People were also compelled to plant specified species on their properties and close to their homes; species that we now know to be unsafe in high fire risk areas. These planning stipulations were formulated with the very best intent, to do the very best by the environment. But they were ultimately highly irresponsible as they failed to understand, or failed to consider the safety of the community.

 Today that vegetation, including very large trees, is beyond the technical, physical or financial capabilities of most property owners. Where this vegetation is endemic to the Dandenongs, the traditional management practices of the Wurundjeri have either been lost or cannot be applied in a densely populated setting. Traditional Owners describe the resultant landscape as ‘untidy, wild and not looked after’.

 One small band of volunteers in the Dandenongs, the Dandenong Ranges Landscape Strategy Group, have spent the past 6 years lobbying government at all levels to provide funding, scientific and technical support for landholders to enable fire safety works to be undertaken.

 They argue that landowners require access to Scientists and Technical experts in the fields of Fire Risk Management, Environmental Science, Arboriculture and Horticulture, to ensure that their own fuel management works can occur safely and not impact critical ecological links and vital biodiversity. They have been seeking funding for mechanical interventions to remove dangerous trees and to support the Country Fire Authority in the costs they might incur in undertaking fuel reduction burning on private property. They have lobbied for funding to support partnerships with research institutions and the Wurundjeri People to improve the scientific knowledge of Traditional Owner management techniques. Techniques and knowledge viewed as critical if the environment is to once again attain the environmental balance that existed in those areas of natural landscape and National Park originally under traditional owner care. The use of such partnerships also ensures transparency and independence of analysis and reporting and this supports evidence-based policy that will improve conservation and biodiversity outcomes.

The same group produced a strategic framework, based on a tenure blind approach to landscape planning and management, to managing the fire risk in the Dandenongs. That framework underpins the Safer Together: A new approach to reducing the risk of bushfire in Victoria. Ironically, that bureaucracy advises the community group that this document is something the community group should seek to better understand. Apparently the bureaucracy itself has lost the institutional knowledge trail, as it was this very group who were at the genesis of that strategy.

 Largely as a consequence of the initial and follow-up work of the volunteer group, working with Victoria’s then Fire Services Commissioner, Craig Lapsley, over $42m has been invested in additional bushfire mitigation works on public land by the former Baillieu/Napthine and current Andrews State Governments, and the current Federal Government. Those funds have to date been spent on on-ground works within parks and on the internal costs of the bureaucracies leading the planning effort for those on-park works.

 The parks themselves constitute just 24% of the Dandenongs landscape, the remaining 76% is privately owned or managed by local government or other authorities and they have no access to that funding. That is what the Dandenong Ranges Landscape Strategy Group is seeking to change, and that is proving very challenging.

The Federal Government provided $2.4m in funding for fuel reduction grants as part of their 2013 electoral commitments. Shortly after their election success, the federal bureaucracy became involved, and not unsurprisingly, that funding became subject to caveats.

 The funding was being provided through the Federal Department of Environment and managed locally by the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority. The $2.4m became $2.04m after administration charges were removed. The nature of grants through the Department of Environment also substantially skewed the criteria for grants to weed eradication rather than fuel reduction. While such a weed program was not unwelcomed by the group, it did mean that the bushfire risk focus was significantly diminished. Weeds like Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore maple) and Hedera helix (English ivy) became a major focus, and this was justified as removing ‘potential fuel loads’, but it is doubtful that anyone would seriously argue that those species represent high fire risks.

 Today the Dandenong Ranges Landscape Strategy Group is considering its future. Arguably one of the most successful community based, volunteer led groups in Victoria, a group that has leveraged funding and support across government and across political parties, is being thwarted by a bureaucracy that is reluctant to accede any authority or provide financial support to the community.

 Reducing the fire risk is just one of the many struggles faced by the Dandenongs communities, but it is emblematic of a public service culture that ultimately appears to find the community as something of an annoyance. There are an awful lot of ‘consultative meetings’ but little tangible action or investment.

Peter Brennan, Chair of the Dandenong Ranges Landscape Strategy Group provides an example of this in a meeting he held with a former Minister for Tourism in Victoria. He spoke to the Minister about the impact of the Shire of Yarra Ranges economic strategy. That strategy noted that the national census had identified the per capita income of residents of the Dandenongs was higher than that of the rest of the Shire. The Shire decided that that simply wouldn’t do and their economic strategy redirected public and private investment away from the Dandenongs and into the suburban parts of the Shire and the Yarra Valley.  

 Dr Brennan expressed his concerns to the then Minister, on the impact and appropriateness of such interference and manipulation of the market mechanisms. He spoke of the potential consequences of such a withdrawal of infrastructure investment and decline in maintenance budgets, of how such a strategy might impact local employment, reduce residential amenity and negatively impact the economies of the ridge top Villages. The Minister later announced $240k for new tourism signs in the Dandenongs.

Was that really the most sophisticated response? New signs?

 Today the Dandenongs is suffering both economically and socially. The consequential decline in the desirability of the Dandenongs as a residential location has kept property prices largely flat while the spread of suburbia now affords relatively cheap rental opportunities on the mountain for people working in the suburban areas off the mountain. There has as a consequence been a significant growth in rental properties, creating a more transient population.

The desirability of the Dandenongs as a residential location has also been compromised by the feverish promotion of the extreme fire dangers of the area and, the poor condition and maintenance of infrastructure across the mountain.

The Shire’s original economic strategy, in combination with the lack of investment and maintenance by other public authorities continues to weigh down and degrade the Dandenongs. The new Shire Yarra Ranges Economic Strategy 2012-2022 mentions the Dandenongs just twice, and then only as a tourism area. None of the key villages warrants a mention and there is not a single initiative relating to the economies for the Dandenongs. It is in fact very difficult to determine if the Shire of Yarra Ranges is even aware that the Villages of the Dandenongs are in the Shire. The Villages businesses bemoan the decline in the visitor economy, there are still a lot of people coming on some weekends, but they are less and less inclined to spend and the ‘peak’ days are very rare indeed.

 The roads of the Dandenongs are increasingly more likely to attract hoon drivers and motorcyclists seeking the invigoration of the fast winding roads than those seeking a romantic or peaceful retreat from the cities hustle and bustle. Speed demons who harass and intimidate drivers who have the temerity to drive at speed limits, or career through the roads at night to ensure that all of those families trying to sleep are aware that they have loud, fast cars and motorbikes, very loud sound systems and the financial means to replace burnt out tyres. Bicycle riders are an increasing visitor segment to the Villages, but excepting for a few who stop on weekends for a coffee, most use the roads for training purposes and contribute little but further traffic congestion to the local communities

For the older families of the Dandenongs it is all very sad really. At a point when this nation finally achieves the cultural maturity to appreciate and honour the profound and intricate relationship that Traditional Owners have with their ancestral lands, the planning and administrative arms of government and the general populace have developed an almost pathological will to destroy the heritage elements of post European arrival; a strange cultural mindset that seems to believe that both cannot exist within the same epoch.

 That is the thing with unique places; their uniqueness and individuality often only become evident after they have been lost. Planners, designers and government, too often confuse sameness for equitability, efficiency with mediocrity and, power with competence. In a period where so much is done to promote diversity, it is ironic that so much of the planning and public administration effort is targeted at uniformity.

 It might be worth Melbournians taking a trip to the Villages of the Dandenongs in the near future, because unless there is an epiphany, some aesthetic awakening to the terrible circumstances of that wonderful landscape; it will be lost.