Bad plans proposed for bike paths in Melbourne's inner west. (see Age article below)
If you're concerned get onto:
Maribyrnong Bicycle Users Group:
[email hidden]
Maribyrnong Council:
infowest.maribyrnong.vic.gov.auinfowest.maribyrnong.vic.gov.auOpen ↗
Request for service & feedback form
[email hidden]
Bicycle Victoria:
bv.com.aubv.com.auOpen ↗
[email hidden]
Port of Melbourne Corporation:
portofmelbourne.comportofmelbourne.comOpen ↗
Contact PoMC
portofmelbourne.comcontactOpen ↗
[email hidden]
Anger at port plan to close off waterfront
By Clay Lucas May 15, 2005
theage.com.au1116024408514.htmlOpen ↗
Related: The area under consideration
Walkers and bike riders could be locked out of a key section of Melbourne's waterfront if a push for the State Government to seize greater control of Melbourne's ports goes ahead. In February, the Port of Melbourne Corporation began circulating a draft plan for the waterfront. The draft Port Environs Plan calls on the Government to take the unprecedented step of cutting at least one local council out of a say in the port's future. This week, Maribyrnong Council lashed out at the plan, branding it a "land grab".
"This is expansion of the port at all costs," acting Mayor Gerard White said. "We're disgusted by it." The council has attracted arts groups and the travel publisher Lonely Planet to the Maribyrnong riverfront, and wants to promote it as a recreation and business centre. But the Port of Melbourne's plans would ruin the council's hopes, Cr White said. "Bike paths and walking paths along the riverfront opposite Coode Island will be abolished under this plan," he said.
The buffer zone plan served the needs of chemical storage companies and heavy industry. "We've been told ever since the 1991 fires that Coode Island is safe," Cr White said. "So if it's so safe, why do we need these buffer zones?" The report proposes removing planning controls from the council (which controls the western side of the Maribyrnong River) and giving them to Planning Minister Rob Hulls.
It also points to future conflict with the other councils - Port Phillip, Melbourne and Hobsons Bay - if the port expands as a result of the controversial $545 million Port Phillip Bay dredging. Kristin McCourtie, organiser of the Fight For Footscray group, said the scheme was nothing short of a chemical industry wish list. "How is it that this industry has the capability to have their wishes drafted and tabled by the Government when we can't even get our phone calls returned?" she said.
The Port of Melbourne stressed that the plan was a preliminary draft, but it expected a final plan by the end of this year. Mr Hulls said further consultation was needed before any plan was finalised. But the state Labor MP for Footscray, Bruce Mildenhall, said he was now torn between pressure from his local community and industry demands. Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association chief Michael Catchpole said the Port of Melbourne plan would prevent incompatible development along the Maribyrnong and elsewhere. "The Government has stated it very simply," he said. "The plan is there to protect the viability and future operations of Australia's largest container and general cargo port."