Wednesday, 26 August 2026

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:47): I move:

That the petition be taken into consideration.

Right at the start I would like to acknowledge Cr Caroline White from the local area, who has come to represent her constituents, and I thank her for her tremendous advocacy. I also want to acknowledge Kevin Poulter, president of Save Kingswood, and all those who are watching online and here today, because this is about their home, their castle and where they live and about a completely inappropriate development that is taking place on a golf course that is ruining lives and will continue to ruin the lives of 10,000 people in the Dingley Village area.

It is an absolute disgrace, an appalling situation that we find ourselves in that here in this state a planning minister can actually go ahead and decide that they are going to build not 100, not 200 but now I think it is up to 932-plus homes on a golf course that floods. It is known for its flooding and it is known for its protected species, and yet here we find ourselves in a situation where they want to develop a huge amount of houses, with one road in, one road out, no public transport or limited public transport and no ability for an emergency services vehicle to even get to some of the roads in this particular development. Not only would we not have emergency services vehicles in the area, but we would not be able to get rubbish trucks to pick up the rubbish on some of the roads. I have seen the development plans. I have seen the whole map of it. It is appalling; it is atrocious.

Let me start with how this all started, because this is a petition that has been done by the people – and I thank them – of Dingley Village and the local area, who are fighting so hard and have continued to fight to have an appropriate development, if any development at all, on this particular golf course. In fact they would have preferred that there was no development. This government made promises about building houses, and it decided that it was going to build something like 80,000 houses. Well, we know it has fallen short of that. But this particular area is not suitable for this additional housing that they want to build.

Let me take you through some of the issues on this particular petition, because we know that the government decided that they were going to have a standing advisory committee, which made about a hundred recommendations. And which one did the government decide to seize on? They seized on just one recommendation: that you could build something on the golf course, not nearly a thousand homes with nearly 3000 residents – no schools, no train station, no businesses, nowhere for these people to go, just houses. It is outrageous. And why? It is all about greed. This government is all about greed, it is all about taking other people’s money and just using it and allowing people to have whatever they want. One has to ask questions.

Let us look at concern number one: floods. It is a well-known flood-prone area. There are no flood control measures that have been implemented, with billions of litres of water that have not been accounted for by the hydrology and regular large floods that take place in the wet season. When Melbourne Water was asked for engineering information to confirm its approval of flood controls, a senior person from Melbourne Water said, ‘It’s not up to us, it’s up to the government.’ That does not sound like an analysis of data.

Concern number two: lack of infrastructure. As I have mentioned, there are no services, not even a secondary school, to support an additional 3000 residents – not a primary school. Not enough services or shops for today’s residents exist as it is, yet we are going to build nearly a thousand more homes and have another 3000 residents. The lanes of the proposed development are very, very narrow, so what is going to happen when there is a fire or someone needs an ambulance? How are they going to get down some of those lanes? Rubbish trucks will not be able to pick up rubbish. This is just a disgrace. It is a poor planning decision. We are going to find that the Satterley people, who have actually purchased this – and this is all about big dollars here – made a development in Perth that has such poor water pressure that it takes 40 minutes to fill a bath. This could be an issue for residents that buy in this area.

Concern number three: wildlife. The golf course is home to many endangered and protected species of wildlife, including the grey-headed flying fox colony. I have only got 10 seconds left, but there is a planning process that was not followed, and I will take it up in my summary. The minister’s response is absolutely pathetic.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:52): I rise to make a contribution on behalf of the government in regard to the petition brought by Mrs Hermans in regard to the Kingswood golf course redevelopment. I want to start my remarks by saying I thank Mrs Hermans for bringing this important petition to the Council today. At the outset I just want to say the government does not oppose this petition, but I do want to take the opportunity to go through, I guess, some of the timelines that I have been advised exist around this petition. As I said, I do want to begin by acknowledging the petition tabled today and the continuing campaign about the future of the site. I recognise that this community has lived alongside the Kingswood golf course for many, many decades and I understand that any change of this nature would generate real concern. Any change can be disconcerting, and so I do not dismiss it at all, and it is important to acknowledge it. But I do want to take my time today to talk through the history of this site. It has been a long history, and the process has also been long. It is a thorough and detailed process at every stage.

The redevelopment of the site has been underway for over a decade, including years of assessment, consultation and revisions. Decisions have been made carefully and not overnight. In August 2019 the government established the golf course redevelopment standing advisory committee specifically so that proposals like this one could be tested by independent experts, and that committee did not rubber-stamp anything. In March 2022 the report to the then minister recommended that further work be undertaken on the water-sensitive urban design aspects of the plan. Those recommendations then shaped what came next. When that amendment was approved in August 2023, it came with a development plan overlay, meaning the developer still had to come back with a detailed plan that met those requirements before a single permit could be granted. The draft development plan then went to public consultation from March to April 2025, and 1287 submissions were received, which included a detailed submission from Kingston City Council. Community input has been invited throughout the process and has informed the final development plan. The department required real changes in response to this, and that resulted in the updated ecological assessments, the revised lot interfaces with existing homes, more detail on housing types, updated stormwater and drainage design and design guidelines that lock in a title restriction on future lots as well.

The revised plan incorporating that feedback was then approved in October 2025 under department delegation after further assessment. Then, in regard to the VCAT matter, Kingston council lodged its application outside the 28-day statutory window set by the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and VCAT, an independent tribunal, found the application was lodged late and dismissed it on that basis. This is a matter in regard to the council meeting a statutory deadline. It is not anyone denying their rights. The law sets a clear timeframe so that projects and the people waiting on them are not left in indefinite limbo. Those timeframes apply equally to anyone.

The site will deliver approximately 941 homes, a mix of detached dwellings and townhouses, across 15 stages, with 20 per cent of the site set aside as open space and 10 per cent affordable housing. This is exactly the kind of underutilised, well-located land Victoria needs to unlock if we are serious about giving young Victorians and growing families a realistic path to homes and home ownership. The planning system has to balance genuine community concern against the reality that Victoria needs more homes to ensure individuals and families can continue to afford to rent and buy in the places they want to live. The subdivision permit, which is now before the department, is being assessed with the same rigour: stormwater management, open space, lot layout and vegetation in consultation with Melbourne Water, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, South East Water, Transport Victoria, United Energy and Kingston council.

I recognise this community would have preferred a different outcome, and I do not begrudge anyone who has participated in this and who has fought hard for this either. That is exactly what bringing a petition to be tabled in this place is for. But after years of independent advisory review, two rounds of public consultation, a revised plan responding directly to community and council feedback, the process has been designed for this step.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:57): I would like to start by thanking Mrs Hermans for sponsoring this petition and the petitioners who signed it, and I would also like to recognise Cr White, who is here today in the gallery. This has been a longstanding concern for the citizens in this area. I have spoken to many constituents who are concerned about this development. As was pointed out by Ms Terpstra, there was a standing advisory committee set up, but unfortunately it appears that many of the recommendations that were put forward by the standing advisory committee were not adhered to in the eventual announcement. Before consulting with the community the government already announced how many lots they would have on this site.

One of the main concerns which residents have – I have actually spoken to a hydrology expert about some of the concerns around flooding – is that this site is well known to be a flooding hazard. I think residents would be right to be concerned about this, considering that we have seen other disasters. Many would be familiar with the disaster that happened in Flemington when concerns by hydrology engineers were not adhered to. We saw what happened then, and I think citizens in the area are very right to be concerned that we might have flooding issues considering the history of this site, notwithstanding there are other issues around wildlife, flora and fauna, in the area.

The fact of the matter is this: in setting up this standing advisory committee, having thousands of submissions by residents and then going ahead and effectively ignoring many of these, you can see why people who live nearby are upset about this. The government needs to go back to the community and look at the recommendations of the standing advisory committee and take their concerns into account, because what is being proposed by the government has been rejected by at least 2000 people who have signed this petition. They are concerned about this.

Some of the issues around the dates of submissions – Ms Terpstra mentioned that the deadline was missed by the council. I have got concerns about what went on with that as well. Suffice to say the community is not happy with what is going on here and what has been put forward by the government. The government needs to go back to the community and look at these standing advisory committee recommendations, because there are serious concerns about the number of people that may be housed on this area, the local infrastructure and, most of all, the potential flooding concerns, which I and many people do not feel have been adequately addressed.

 Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (18:00): I rise to speak on this petition, which strongly opposes Labor’s policy of rezoning the beautiful open space of a suburban golf course and allowing developers to pave over the green fairway to build an inappropriate housing development. The petition under debate is about the proposal for Kingswood golf course, which is well along the path of redevelopment. The course has already been rezoned, and the Minister for Planning said on 19 August that a planning permit application to subdivide the land was under consideration. The petitioners are deeply concerned that the outcome of the planning permit is a foregone conclusion and that Labor decided to allow at least 800 lots on the site before they ever consulted with the affected locals. Residents of Dingley Village have been working hard to prevent this inappropriate redevelopment from going ahead and hold the government accountable to the findings of the Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee. However, Victorians have lost all faith in Labor’s planning process. The government has a track record of ignoring communities, bypassing councils and giving preferential fast-track treatment to big developers.

Kingswood is not the only golf course Labor has in its sights. The Carroll government is planning to do the same thing in Wodonga, and another notorious attempt to rezone a golf course and convert it into housing exists in that community. In June I tabled two batches of a petition totalling 8314 signatures of Wodonga locals and Victorian golfers who told the Labor government loud and clear: ‘Keep your hands off Wodonga golf course.’ These local families, junior golfers, walkers, retirees and club members are adamant that they do not want to see the travesty of the Kingswood golf course redevelopment repeated in Wodonga. Wodonga golf course is a valued sporting asset that provides recreational, social and health benefits to a wide cross-section of the community. Nearly 45,000 rounds were played in the last 12 months, which convincingly demonstrates that this is not underutilised land. This is simply not an appropriate site for the unlocking strategic sites program. It is not vacant land, and it has not been sitting empty for years. It is not unused; it is very much used, with 45,000 rounds of golf being played there a year. It is busy every single weekend with golfers enjoying the outdoors, improving their handicap and socialising with friends. This vital outdoor space is unique in Wodonga. Once it is rezoned and paved over it will be gone forever and it cannot be replaced.

The PRESIDENT: Ms Lovell, I believe you should be relevant to this petition –

Wendy LOVELL: It is an agreement we had.

The PRESIDENT: I do not know if there is any, but in fact 2000 people signed this petition and it was listed for a debate.

Wendy LOVELL: I spoke about this petition first, President. I am talking about a comparable petition in Wodonga.

The PRESIDENT: You put your point around a comparison with a similar situation, but I urge you to get back to talking about this particular area of land.

Wendy LOVELL: What we are seeing in both Kingswood and Wodonga is this government just paving over public open green space to put up housing. These golf courses are not underutilised. They are not vacant land. They are vital outdoor green spaces that communities value and want. This is not a campaign against new housing. Victoria needs more homes and, fortunately, the Wodonga council has identified a 30-year pipeline of land supply for future housing. While there are substantial alternative land sites to build new houses on, there is nowhere else for a new golf course in Wodonga. This is a campaign to protect and save a vital community recreational space that cannot be replaced in the Kingswood community, and likewise in the Wodonga community.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (18:05): I rise to speak on this petition, and I just want to take the opportunity to put a number of concerns about this development on the record that have been raised with our Greens candidates in that area, including our candidate for Clarinda Conor Boyd-Eedle, our Mordialloc candidate Alex Breskin and South-Eastern Metropolitan Region candidate Matthew Kirwan. These concerns relate to the impact on local ecology and preservation of green space, the lack of genuinely affordable housing in this development and the lack of supporting critical infrastructure.

With respect to the impact on ecology and green space, the final plans for the development of the Kingswood golf club in Dingley Village do little to preserve the trees and biodiversity of the site, nor do they respond to resident and council concerns regarding flood controls. By not considering canopy cover loss and flooding risk, this is not a climate-resilient development. Further, despite the golf club being adjacent to the south-east green wedge, the opportunity to reclaim land for the south-east green wedge lost as part of the Suburban Rail Loop stabling yards, known as the Delta site, has not been taken advantage of by the state government. After initial improvements to the development plan done after listening to residents, the new development plan has reversed those changes and created a development that has insufficient and often quite impractical narrow strips of open space with too many canopy trees lost.

Regarding affordable housing, there are arguments that this is desperately needed housing in a housing crisis, and we hear that a lot from this government. However, up-market townhouses will not help the housing affordability crisis. Only 10 per cent of the development is planned to be affordable housing, with the nature of that affordable housing to be resolved at the planning permit stage – that is, left to the never-never. This is unacceptable. It is an unacceptable percentage of affordable housing in a suburb where only 11 per cent of housing stock is currently being sold as affordable. It is one of the least affordable suburbs in the City of Kingston, and that is before we consider – and I will not get into this now – the definition of ‘affordable housing’ in the Planning and Environment Act 1987, which too often is not actually affordable for anyone on a regular income at all. What is actually needed is more public housing. According to the latest census, the City of Kingston had less than the Melbourne average of social housing, including public housing. The suburb of Dingley Village has zero. So unless there is a plan to ensure a meaningful proportion of public and genuinely affordable housing, the argument that this will help with the housing crisis rings completely hollow.

Then we look at supporting infrastructure, and what becomes obvious is that Dingley Primary School is in desperate need of investment to provide the facilities needed for an influx of students. Further consideration needs to be given to traffic management along Centre Dandenong Road to deal with the impact of the development of traffic flow through Dingley Village to and from both Dingley and Kingswood primary schools.

This petition should really be seen as a prompt to the state government to actually listen to residents and to create medium-density development that makes a genuine impact to the affordable housing crisis, that preserves biodiversity and that provides adequate and usable open space, as well as being climate-resilient, particularly in relation to flood impacts and canopy cover.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:08): I rise to speak in support of Mrs Hermans’ petition today. The fact is we live in a democracy, and what really irritates people is when the government who are put there to serve the people ride roughshod over their rights and completely ignore their wishes. I will actually just start with a quote from the Herald Sun from 2014, and I would be interested to see if Mrs Hermans actually read this one. It was just sent to me. It says:

THE Labor party has weighed into the row over the future of Kingswood Golf Course.

Shadow Planning Minister Brian Tee said he will “rigorously scrutinise” any future decision Kingston Council makes about the Dingley site.

It goes on:

Mr Tee accused the council of having a “very troubling” attitude to green wedge and public open space issues …

He said:

This golf course has been at the heart of Dingley Village for decades …

I’m putting Council on notice – any application to rezone it as residential will want to be absolutely compelling because, if Labor is elected, I will be running an independent process and a very sceptical eye over it.

Isn’t that interesting? That is what Labor said in 2014. They said, ‘Not under our watch. Under a Labor government, there is absolutely no way that this golf course will be rezoned and houses will be put on it.’ Well, fast-forward a little way and here we are with almost 900 houses to be built on this area, against the wishes of the community. That is just staggering to me.

I also want to point out that there has been a very troubling pattern when it comes to planning decisions under this Labor state government. I will give you a few. In Wonthaggi a couple of years ago there was a retrospective audit overlay put on hundreds of houses, where with the stroke of a pen from the Minister for Planning, those people, the individual property owners, lost essentially all of their property rights. All of a sudden they went from building their dream homes to being in a situation where, because of a decision made by this government, they were not even allowed to dig a hole in their own yard without having soil testing that could cost upwards of $10,000. Well, we said that was not acceptable. The government kept saying, ‘Nothing to do with us – we’ve got no control over it.’ It turned out once we clicked over 2000 signatures, which allowed that exact issue to be debated in this place, that that day the government got rid of that decision. It was not because the individual property owners were losing their right – that did not actually upset Labor at all – it was because all of a sudden it was going to be highlighted that they were completely working against the will of the people that put them there.

There is a similar thing happening at the moment in Lang Lang, where essentially overnight some residents realised that the government had made a change, all of a sudden, that any house within Lang Lang was not allowed to object if quarries were going to be extended. They were not even allowed to object. That is the problem that people are having here. I am going to read some quotes from the Kingston council about what they think about this process. This is from one of their media releases:

The City of Kingston and the Dingley Village community are angered and deeply disappointed by the State Government’s decision – quietly announced late on Friday afternoon –

that is what they said –

to approve the controversial development of the former Kingswood Golf Course.

Then this bit, I believe, is important:

This decision has been made despite overwhelming community opposition, clear environmental risks, and warnings from the Government’s own advisory processes that the site is highly constrained by flood risk and critical environmental values.

There are some other things that are interesting about this:

Cr White said the announcement being made late on a Friday only added to community outrage.

Sneaking out a decision of this magnitude is completely disregarding the community’s wishes. I commend Mrs Hermans’s motion to the house.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:13): From the outset I would like to thank everyone who has made contributions today, my colleagues Renee Heath and Wendy Lovell, David Limbrick from the Libertarians, Sarah Mansfield from the Greens and also Sonja Terpstra from the Labor Party.

I have to take issue, though, on the consultation. An original plan for Kingston had 8000 objections, and that was a much smaller planning thing. I have to say too that Kingston council has not been given the opportunity, as was one of the recommendations by the advisory council, to be the ones that oversee and make the final decisions. They have 100 objections, and Cr White has been fighting very hard standing with her community. With 8000 signatures once, and over 2000 for this petition alone, I am telling you these people have been fighting very, very hard. The council and the councillors have had monitors put on them while they are trying to fight this particular issue. They are being silenced and are having heavy-handed treatment from this Labor government. Do not have the Labor government saying that they are going to be standing with the people, listening to the people and consulting the people and that they have done this properly. They simply have not.

They have let everybody down, and why? Well, once upon a time, a developer called AustralianSuper, a $400 billion company, gave up this site after 13 years of objections and sold it, sadly, for $200 million. And now I find out today it is not 936 dwellings, it is 942. That is an increase in dwellings. That is simply not going to work. It was not going to work with 800; it is certainly not going to work with 942. What is this Labor government doing to local people, to the environment and to the livability of our suburbs? It is failing the Victorian people. It does not deserve to be in government. Only a Liberal–National government will be able to save this development and have the right and proper infrastructure put in place to allow the people to be able to continue their lives. We need to get rid of this government, and we need to get rid of it in November.

Motion agreed to.