Download the released policy
In the same way as they released M2030 ie without public review of the final draft and timed so its downsides wouldn’t become obvious before the election, the ALP has at the last minute released a planning policy that is just window dressing. It can be simply summed up as no significant change from how things are now – NOT what residents want to hear!

In summary, the policy

• Ignores the fundamental problems with Melbourne 2030.
• Does too little too late to help councils with planning issues.
• Ignores the need for reform of VCAT
• Is full of statements that simply aren’t true.

If the State Government were serious about improving the planning system there are a number of things they could do – which are all not included in this election policy –

• Allow prescriptive planning policies for basic local controls like Rescode amenity standards and development overlays, and ensure they can’t be overridden by VCAT and state policies like Melbourne 2030.
• Change the role of VCAT to that of overseeing council planning processes, not acting as another planning authority.
• Withdraw Melbourne 2030 until all the fundamental requirements it is based on have been properly defined and funded, and until councils have had time to develop proper controls for areas of higher-density development.

In more detail, we go tho through some of the items raised in the policy (the policy is in italics) –

The Minister for Planning, Rob Hulls, says Labor will further strengthen its partnerships with local government across the state by providing more resources for strategic planning and by streamlining planning processes.

SOS Comment:

An improvement, but support for strategic planning (particularly for activity centers) should have been adequately provided for PRIOR to the introduction of M2030 in October 2002! Given there are many activity centers of different sizes in each municipality and that structure planning for major centers takes 1-2 years EACH, this funding announcement is about SEVEN YEARS TOO LATE, as well as INADEQUATE!! The quickest way to streamline the planning process is to make it less complicated by allowing councils to put prescriptive controls into structure plans and planning schemes which will simplify and speed up most planning permit assessments, and protect their municipalities as well!

We have made the hard decisions and put in place a framework to manage growth responsibly, deliver services and infrastructure to communities, protect the environment and safeguard neighbourhood amenity.

SOS Comment:

Labor has allowed for growth without strong integrated controls. Instead, there are “guidelines” wide open to discretion, especially when permit decisions involve VCAT and conflicts between state and local planning controls. Growth is being fostered on an ad hoc basis without prior planning and provision for upgraded infrastructure, including utilities and mass transit (especially for outer suburban development).

Involve the community in the first, five-yearly review of Melbourne 2030.

SOS Comment:
Like the community was involved in the initial formulation of M2030? Three years of extensive community consultation ignored in favour of the Departments’ own planning preferences! No options or alternative futures discussed, identified or evaluated! Most of the final M2030 policy on activity centres and freeways was even opposite to the technical consultants’ recommendations and the final policy was released without further public review! There is no point in having a review if it has limited scope, and if the community input is going to be ignored.

Implement all recommendations in the Cutting Red Tape in Planning report to make the system cheaper, faster and user-friendly.

SOS Comment:

A lot of these recommendations simply cut corners by removing some categories of development from requiring a planning permit altogether! SOS believes ALL substantial proposals need a permit because they impact neighbourhood character and should also be subject to environmental design requirements such as passive solar design (building and window orientation to minimize energy consumption) and water recycling. Removing permit requirements for very minor proposals like sheds would be appropriate if what is permitted is clearly and unambiguously defined, which is not the case at the moment.
As outlined above, what would make the system cheaper, faster and more user-friendly (as opposed to just developer-friendly) is for councils to be able to include mandatory controls in planning schemes to foster appropriate development in appropriate locations, with VCAT exercising an oversight role to ensure correct council processes and policies are followed, instead of acting as a second overriding planning authority.

Establish an Accessible Housing Program to increase the supply of accessible housing and help older people and those with a disability to live in their homes.

SOS Comment:

The recently announced policy is completely inadequate – with only one in five apartments having to meet accessibility standards.

Spend $3 million over two years on expert teams to support councils to plan for key activity centres that attract investment and jobs.
Invest $1.6 Million over four years into community history grants to help community organisations our history through books, exhibitions, cataloguing, heritage trails and other initiatives.

SOS Comment:

While preserving our city’s history is important – especially since current State Government planning policies are destroying it – why does actually preserving and protecting our city and its livability get only twice as much, ie $3m? This is completely inadequate given the demand on council resources.

What the councils need is not a team of experts – they need the power to include mandatory controls in their planning schemes to control inappropriate development.

Our approach stands in stark contrast to the Liberal Party’s policies to scrap the current system, which will lead to planning chaos, uncertainty and conflict. Residents, councils and developers will be left without clear guidelines on what is and is not appropriate in any given neighbourhood, and the result will be ad hoc development and untramelled urban sprawl.

SOS Comment:

The opposite is true. Scrapping M2030 (clause 12) or any other state planning policy still leaves the rest of the VPPs and local policies in place, and ministerial directives can be used to tidy up any loose ends. Communities already have clear “guidelines” under each planning scheme (all with too much generality and scope for flexible exercise of discretion), including Rescode. The only conflict and uncertainty would be for greedy developers no longer able to cite urban consolidation under M2030 to justify open slather development. In fact, there would be LESS conflict if M2030 was withdrawn because there would no longer be as much tension between state and local planning policies.

This is Ted Baillieu’s vision for Melbourne : families stuck in far-flung estates without proper services or infrastructure, and developers allowed to concrete over open spaces and run riot in established suburbs.

SOS Comment:

This scenario is close to what M2030 is providing for us already! There are increasing numbers of housing estates in outer suburbia where people will have to pay escalating petrol prices to commute because the State Government has failed to ensure the provision of transport infrastructure for future growth.

$10.5 billion to provide transport and road infrastructure across Melbourne .

SOS Comment:

Still roads, roads, roads! Where’s the serious metro-wide integrated Public Transport upgrade referred to in M2030 that would show a serious commitment to planned growth?

Directing development towards activity centres with services, infrastructure and transport so families do not have to use a litre of petrol to buy a litre of milk.

SOS Comment:

Good idea – but it simply not happening.. This was supposed to be policy for the last 4 years under M2030! What about a legally binding set of criteria for activity centers? That’s what higher density development under M2030 is supposed to be based on, not ad hoc acceptance of existing retail shopping centers!

Giving councils the power to protect neighbourhood amenity through character controls over residential streets, neighbourhoods and shopping centres.

SOS Comment:

Another good idea, but the OPPOSITE of what is currently happening. The only way councils can protect neighbourhood amenity is through the power of MANDATORY controls.

Speeding up planning approvals by exempting and streamlining permits for a broad range of works such as cubby houses, pergolas and tree pruning.

SOS Comment:

This is just tinkering at the edges of the planning mess – these are not the major contentious issues that cause all the angst and delays with council planners and VCAT.

By contrast, making Rescode standards mandatory would in one stroke simplify and speed up a large proportion of planning application assessments by removing the exercise of discretion, at the same time as protecting basic amenity standards.

On the 30 of August the Minister released his "cutting red tape in planning" report, which is the result (so far) of the round table and working group on the issue (or you can download the report from us)

For a history of this issue, see our previous write up, and our original comments from when this project was announced.

In summary, what the paper proposes is tweaking around the edges of the major problems with the planning system – indeed it makes some things worse by removing items from the planning system. It has also missed a good opportunity to address key issues.

In addition, while some of the headings look quite good -and we would agree with the sentiments, the action items listed won’t actually achieve the headings goal.

The major sections of the report are –

1. Introduce a code assess track
   If done right (!) we agree code asses is a good idea. However, at the same time we must tighten up the ‘merit’ process, so that it is harder to get bad developments through.
   
2. Expand e-planning capability
   While all the services mentioned are a good idea, key services are missing, and the time frame are extended for what should be a comparatively small simple system (50,000 planning applications a year are insignificant for modern computer systems).
   
3. Refine Referrals
   Seems fine, but is not a major problem for many applications.
   
4. Align notification and review with impact
   Notifications are an area that need substantial reform – but in the OPPOSITE direction implied by this section ie the major problem currently is not enough notification, not too much!
   
5. Promote efficient decision-making
   Investigating delegation models, or Councilors abdicating their planning decisions, does NOT promote better decision-making!
   
6. Reduce amendment timeframes & documentation
   Does not address the underlying problems, including the time taken by the Department and the Minister.
   
7. Remove unnecessary matters
   This is NOT the way to ‘streamline’ the planning process! It causes more problems than it solves! See our previous comments.
   
8. Review targeted VPP provisions
   Given many of these provisions – ie car parking – are simply not working, they need to be reviewed. However, the focus of the review should be to improve outcomes, not make the process easier for developers!
   
9. Make State Policy more relevant to local decision-making
   This needs to be addressed in a number of ways – including improving the status of local policies and their relation to state policies. These issues are not properly addressed in the recommendations either here or in part 10.
   
10. Make local planning policy stronger
    While the heading looks good, none of the listed actions will strengthen local policies! Indeed the preamble implies it is a local council problem that these local policies are not effective, where in reality it is the State planning policies and VCAT that are making them close to useless!
    
11. Develop skills
    While we are all for developing planning skills, it would be much better to improve the planning system and make it easier to use (ie more mandatory planning provisions etc). If planning was done properly ie like the Vancouver model of specific planning requirements, the need for ‘skilled’ staff would be greatly reduced.
    
12. Share resources
    The key problem here is not that there aren’t enough planners, but that the current system is too discretionary and resource intensive. This is not addressed by the recommendations.
    
13. Improve enforcement capacity
    Enforcement is currently a major problem, with many developments just retrospectively applying for permits. The recommended actions don’t address any of the significant issues.
    
14. The Planning and Environment Act 1987
    Yes, this is 20 years old and needs to be reviewed.
    
15. Update planning fees
    Yes, this needs to be reviewed, mainly in the upward direction for large developments!

Our original Submission

Today (1/5/2006) the Liberal Party (Vic) released their Planning Policy. Download it!

SOS Analysis

Overall, we are impressed with key core parts of the policy, particularly the commitment to appoint a statutory, independent, Board of Review to completely review Melbourne 2030.

Starting with the high level summary, with the italics being our comments –
Key features of the policy include:

What’s SOS doing raising issues about the VEC? The VEC is responsible for both State and Local elections, and it’s conduct and support (or in some cases, lack of support) for open democracy directly impacts many issues to do with the politics of planning.

In particular, if they

1. refuse to provide contact details for candidates that can actually be used to contact candidates.
2. Won’t allow open access to election data, so that results can be checked and analysed
3. Limit public access to candidate statements.
4. Hide information that can be used by the public for making political choices.

you have to wonder what’s going on.

Unfortunately, they are doing all those things! As a result, we sent them a letter (download here, it has been edited to remove staff names and email addresses for privacy reasons).

The response we got wasn’t very good (get a copy here), and confirmed our impressions that the VEC was not interested in supporting open and transparent democracy.

On the 13/10/2005 the Planning Minister Rob Hulls has announced review of “pissant permits” (see The Age article). Or did he? At the SOS Planning Forum on the 13/11/2005 we asked to become involved in the Process – after phone calls and emails requesting to be involved where ignored.

At the Forum the Minister stated that it was a bit rough to complain as he had only announced it a day before! Given the Age article had all the details correct, and had directly quoted him, a MONTH before, you do have to wonder.

What is this “streamlining” about and why is it being addressed?

Theoretically, it is about removing the requirement to get a permit for ‘small’ things and ‘unclogging’ your local council.

However, in practice, getting permits for small things isn’t a big overhead, and they aren’t the reason your local council is clogged.

The real reason that councils are buckling under the weight of development applications is the out-of-date nature of the planning system and the need for the Department to constantly update and “improve” it. That has led to increasingly complex guidelines, more steps that can be appealed to VCAT, and more and more need for the exercise of discretion.

In other words, it’s just getting more and more uncertain and more time consuming, which all parties are increasingly complaining about, including developers!

But rather than effectively addressing these issues by improving certainty and making the system more prescriptive and faster (ie, without so much discretion for each individual case), , the Minister wants a simplistic solution like just removing the need for “small project” permits. But planning permits are the only way to include key amenity issues like neighbourhood character requirements that are so important to our quality of life but which the bureaucrats find hard to quantify.

This review is also consider issues such as how planning permits are advertised.This does need review, but in the opposite direction to what is being considered hear ie they should be far more stringent!

See our Submission