SOS Media Release,   27 April 2012
 

Some current media reports suggest that Councils pushing ahead with higher density housing along public transport routes are flouting Coalition Government planning policy.

However, when it won office in 2010 the Baillieu Government did not dump the unpopular Labor policy that encouraged high-density development along transport corridors, despite claims to the contrary by Planning Minister Matthew Guy.

Planning amendment VC75 (gazetted 16th December 2010) was touted by the minister as reversing the most controversial planning changes introduced 3 months earlier by former Minister Madden.  

The Departmental Explanatory Report stated that VC75 "removes reference to locate new housing along tram, train, light rail and bus routes and around train stations from Clause 16.01-3."  

"But that sentence is still there!', said Ian Wood, president of community group Save our Suburbs.  

"Apart from deleting the reference to stations, the only change was to replace the word 'along' with 'on or abutting'".  (*See below)

"Clause 16.01-3 is all about strategic high density development sites. So this clause will continue to encourage large-scale development all along major public transport routes".

"In fact, removing the reference to stations from clauses 16.01-3 and 16.01-2 will make traffic congestion worse – at least if high-density was focused around stations, more of these residents could use trains".

There are also other similar references to intensification in clause 16, all still underpinned by Melbourne 2030.

"So unless the government modifies or removes all these references as the community has demanded, state government planning policy will still encourage carte-blanche high density development all along public transport corridors".

ENDS
     
For more information:  
Ian Wood, President, Save Our Suburbs

* To confirm the wording of Cl.16.01-3, go to <http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/index.html>, select any planning scheme, then choose "16 Housing" from the drop-down menu under "10 State Planning Policy Framework"

– – – – – – –

 

DETAILED EXPLANATION:
 

CHANGES TO CLAUSE 16.01-2   " Location of residential development"   

    

20/09/2010            Amendment VC71 (Madden)

[sections underlined were deleted in the later amendment VC75 by Minister Guy]

16.01-2 Location of residential development

Objective

To locate new housing in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other

strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.

Strategies

– Increase the proportion of housing in Metropolitan Melbourne to be developed within the

established urban area, particularly at activity centres, employment corridors and at other

strategic sites, and reduce the share of new dwellings in greenfield and dispersed

development areas.

– In Metropolitan Melbourne, locate more intense housing development in and around

activity centres, in areas close to train stations and on large redevelopment sites.

– Encourage higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to

activity centres, employment corridors and public transport.

– Ensure an adequate supply of redevelopment opportunities within the established urban

area to reduce the pressure for fringe development.

– Facilitate residential development that is cost-effective in infrastructure provision and use,

energy efficient, incorporates water efficient design principles and encourages public

transport use.

– Identify opportunities for increased residential densities to help consolidate urban areas.

 

Policy guidelines

Planning must consider as relevant:

§ Melbourne 2030 (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2002).

§ Melbourne 2030: A planning update Melbourne @ 5 million (Department of Planning

and Community Development, 2008).

 

 

16/12/2010            Amendment VC75 (Guy)

16.01-2 Location of residential development

Objective

To locate new housing in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other

strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.

Strategies

– Increase the proportion of housing in Metropolitan Melbourne to be developed within the

established urban area, particularly at activity centres, employment corridors and at other

strategic sites, and reduce the share of new dwellings in greenfield and dispersed

development areas.

– Encourage higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to

activity centres, employment corridors and public transport.

– Ensure an adequate supply of redevelopment opportunities within the established urban

area to reduce the pressure for fringe development.

– Facilitate residential development that is cost-effective in infrastructure provision and use,

energy efficient, incorporates water efficient design principles and encourages public

transport use.

– Identify opportunities for increased residential densities to help consolidate urban areas.

 

Policy guidelines

Planning must consider as relevant:

§ Melbourne 2030 (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2002).

– –

 

CHANGES TO CLAUSE 16.01-3     "Strategic redevelopment sites"    

 

20/09/2010            Amendment VC71 [Madden]

[sections underlined were changed or deleted in the later amendment VC75]

16.01-3 Strategic redevelopment sites

Objective

To identify strategic redevelopment sites for large residential development in Metropolitan

Melbourne.

Strategies

Identify strategic redevelopment sites that are:

§ In and around Central Activities Districts.

§ In or within easy walking distance of Principal or Major Activity Centres.

§ In or beside Neighbourhood Activity Centres that are served by public transport.

§ Along tram, train, light rail and bus routes that are part of the Principal Public Transport

Network and close to employment corridors, Central Activities Districts, Principal or

Major Activity Centres and around train stations.

§ In or near major modal public transport interchanges that are not in Principal or Major

Activity Centres.

§ Able to provide 10 or more dwelling units, close to activity centres and well served by

public transport.

 

Policy guidelines

Planning must consider as relevant:

§ Melbourne 2030 (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2002).

§ Melbourne 2030: A planning update Melbourne @ 5 million (Department of Planning

and Community Development, 2008).

 

 

16/12/2010            Amendment VC75  [Guy]

16.01-3 Strategic redevelopment sites

Objective

To identify strategic redevelopment sites for large residential development in Metropolitan

Melbourne.

Strategies

Identify strategic redevelopment sites that are:

§ In and around Central Activities Districts.

§ In or within easy walking distance of Principal or Major Activity Centres.

§ In or beside Neighbourhood Activity Centres that are served by public transport.

§ On or abutting tram, train, light rail and bus routes that are part of the Principal Public

Transport Network and close to employment corridors, Central Activities Districts,

Principal or Major Activity Centres.

§ In or near major modal public transport interchanges that are not in Principal or Major

Activity Centres.

§ Able to provide 10 or more dwelling units, close to activity centres and well served by

public transport.

 

Policy guidelines

Planning must consider as relevant:

§ Melbourne 2030 (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2002).

– – –

 

AMENDMENT VC75:   EXPLANATORY REPORT BY DPCD

(DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)

 

What the amendment does

The amendment amends Clause 16 – Housing of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) by removing Melbourne @ 5 Million policies relating to intensive housing development along public transport corridors and around train stations from the clause.

In particular, the amendment removes reference to locate, in Metropolitan Melbourne, more intense housing development in an around activity centres, in areas close to train stations and on large redevelopment sites from Clause 16.01-2 and to locate new housing along tram, train, light rail and bus routes and around train stations from Clause 16.01-3.

The amendment also removes Melbourne 2030: A planning update Melbourne @ 5 Million (DPCD 2008) as a document listed under Policy guidelines in Clause 16.

————————————-

 

Note: while the key part of Clause 16.01-2 was deleted by VC75 (unlike the sentence referred to in 16.01-3), the very next point of 16.01-2 covers similar issues and still remains part of the clause:

Deleted sentence:

– In Metropolitan Melbourne, locate more intense housing development in and around

activity centres, in areas close to train stations and on large redevelopment sites.

Retained sentence:

– Encourage higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to

activity centres, employment corridors and public transport.

 

SOS MEDIA RELEASE       23 December 2010  

Planning regulations to facilitate high-density development along major public transport routes seem to have have been retained, despite recent Coalition promises to abolish them.  

State planning amendment VC75 looked set to reverse the most controversial planning changes introduced in September by former Planning Minister Justin Madden.  

The departmental Explanatory Report for Amendment VC75, which was gazetted on 16th December, states that the amendment removes reference to locate new housing along tram, train, light rail and bus routes and around train stations from Clause 16.01-3.  

"But that’s very misleading because that sentence hasn’t been removed.  Apart from deleting the reference to stations, the only change has been to replace the word ‘along’ with ‘on or abutting’", said Ian Wood, president of community planning group Save our Suburbs.  

"Clause 16.01-3 is all about strategic high density development sites, so this clause will continue to allow large-scale development all along major public transport routes unless the state government reviews Amendment VC75."   

Ian Wood
President, Save Our Suburbs

 ——————————

NOTES:  from DPCD Planning Amendments Online:

http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/planningschemes/changingtheplanningscheme/amendmentsonline  

VC75 – Clause 16 "Housing", State Planning Policy Framework:  
Changes to 16.01-3 introduced 16.12.10 compared to those gazetted 20.9.10:  

16.01-3 Strategic redevelopment sites

 CHANGED FROM:
Identify strategic redevelopment sites that are:
§  Along tram, train, light rail and bus routes that are part of the Principal Public Transport Network and close to employment corridors, Central Activities Districts, Principal or Major Activity Centres and around train stations.

 CHANGED TO:
Identify strategic redevelopment sites that are:
§  On or abutting tram, train, light rail and bus routes that are part of the Principal Public Transport Network and close to employment corridors, Central Activities Districts, Principal or Major Activity Centres.  

 REMOVED AS REFERENCE DOCUMENT:
Melbourne 2030: A planning update Melbourne @ 5 million (DPCD, 2008)     

AMENDMENT VC75 – EXPLANATORY REPORT
What the amendment does
The amendment amends Clause 16 – Housing of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) by removing Melbourne @ 5 Million policies relating to intensive housing development along public transport corridors and around train stations from the clause.
In particular, the amendment removes reference to locate, in Metropolitan Melbourne, more intense housing development in an around activity centres, in areas close to train stations and on large redevelopment sites from Clause 16.01-2 and to locate new housing along  tram, train, light rail and bus routes and around train stations from Clause 16.01-3.
The amendment also removes Melbourne 2030: A planning update Melbourne @ 5 Million (DPCD 2008) as a document listed under Policy guidelines in Clause 16. 

Labor promised to reintroduce more planning prescription, greater local council control and more resident participation in decisions.  But the government is attempting the most radical change in Victoria’s planning history by shifting planning power from local councils to developers and the state. This is more fundamental than the deregulation imposed by the former Kennett government….

READ THE FULL ARTICLE by Prof. Michael Buxton:  

 

SOS MEDIA RELEASE
23 November 2010 

Greens top SOS planning survey
 
Residents’ lobby group Save Our Suburbs has welcomed the Greens commitment to
introduce more prescription, transparency and certainty into Melbourne’s planning
regime, along with a greater role for councils and communities in planning decisions.
 
The Greens and the Liberals were the only parties to respond to a survey conducted
by Save Our Suburbs which sought a response from each of the three major parties
to their Position Statement on town planning issues.  Planning Minister Justin Madden
failed to respond.  [For detailed responses see <SOS Newsletter #28 Nov.10 >]

SOS President Ian Wood said that the Greens response would meet the concerns of
Melbourne residents that their views on planning matters were not being heard.
 
“However, the Greens aren’t likely to be in a position to directly implement their
policies. But with more seats in the Upper House and possibly the Lower House, we’ll
expect them to at least ensure a lot more transparency and accountability, no matter
who gets elected next weekend”, he said.
 
While SOS also applauded the Liberals’ support for a new planning policy for
Melbourne, the group is concerned at the Liberals’ lack of commitment to curbing
urban sprawl or to more democratic reform of planning and local government
legislation.
 
“Based on the Liberals’ response to our survey, they wouldn’t be making planning
controls mandatory or funding a fully-integrated metro-wide public transport system.
But neither would Labor, based on it’s last few years in office.  The community has
been sidelined on planning issues and even councils have largely been ignored”, Mr
Wood stated.
 
“And right after the election we’ll face a combination of new changes to the planning
act removing council controls over large high-density development sites along public
transport routes. The proposed changes will hand private developers and the Minister
even more power to decide planning matters”.
 
Ian Wood
President, Save Our Suburbs
 
For more information:  Ian Wood – 0424 104 274
SOS Newsletter #28, Election Edition:  <http://www.sos.asn.au/node/12>
(inc. SOS Position Statement & full responses of Greens & Liberals)
 

SOS MEDIA RELEASE  16 November 2010 
 
The decision of the Coalition to preference the Greens last in all Victorian lower house
electorates confirms that the real differences between Liberal and Labor are so small
that either major party would prefer the other in opposition if they won government.

Ian Wood, president of community planning group Save our Suburbs, pointed out that
Labor preferencing the Greens ahead of the Coalition was irrelevant.
 
“There’s no lower house seat where the Greens could benefit from that. Labor is also
preferencing the Country Alliance ahead of the Greens in the Upper House", he said
 
"What’s at risk in this election is nothing short of democracy in planning for the
sustainable future of Melbourne.  We desperately need what neither major party has
committed to – an ongoing community consultation process to incorporate community
feedback for a City Plan run by an independent planning authority”. 
 
“As part of that the city is crying out for a metro-wide fully integrated public transport
system, not more freeways”.
 
"But the liberals would rather hand four or more marginal inner city seats to Labor
and risk re-electing a Labor government than see any more Greens or independents
elected which might result in a more accountable parliament", Mr Wood said.

Ian Wood
President, Save Our Suburbs
 
For more information:  0424 104 274

Save
 Our 
Suburbs 
and 
Citizens 
for 
a 
Liveable 
Melbourne rated 
the 
candidates 
in 
the
 
electorate 
of 
Essendon 
in 
response 
to 
a
 questionnaire 
which 
focused 
on 
changes 
to 
planning 

legislation 
and 
the
 democratic 
rights
 of 
councils 
and
 residents 
to 
have 
their 
views 

incorporated 
into 
new 
planning
 policies 
and
 laws.




Responses
 were 
rated 
in 
conjunction 
with
 Professor 
Michael 
Buxton, 
RMIT. 


See 
links 
below 
for 
the 
questionnaire, 
our 
Media
 Release,
 and
 the 
response 
from 
the 
Greens

candidate 
(Rose
 Iser), 
the 
only
 candidate 
who
 bothered 
to 
answer 
the 
questionnaire. 


Note: 

the 

ALP
 candidate 
is 
the Minister 
for 
Planning, 
Justin
 Madden, 
who
 is 
seeking
 
to 
move 
from 
the 
Upper 
House 
to 
the 
Lower 
House
 seat 
of 
Essendon.



Other 
candidates:



‐
 We 
did 
receive 
a 
late 
reply 
from
 Planning 
Minister 
Madden 
which 

promoted
 "Labor
 
planning 
achievements" 
but 
did
 not 
answer 
the 
questionnaire
 
‐ 
Independent 
Paul 
Giuliano 
merely 
referred 
us 
to 
a 
planning 
statement 
on 
his 
website

‐
 no 
response 
at 
all 
was
 received 
from 
the 
Liberal 
Party


Links:

SOS/CALM 
Media 
Release
 
 
 
 
 
 
 










Questionnaire
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 










Greens
response
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 








Madden 
letter 
p1 
& 
p2


Save Our Suburbs believes that more accountable and transparent planning controls
are needed to manage sustainable urban growth, provide effective transport
solutions and maintain residential amenity.  Instead, planning in Victoria is being
increasingly deregulated.  [see SOS Newsletter #28 Nov.10 & SOS newsletter #27 Oct.10]
 
In response to this crisis in planning and to the coming State Election, SOS compiled
a Position Statement on Planning and sought responses from the 3 major political
parties.  Read the 2 replies we got (from the Greens & Liberals – links below)

We received no response from ALP Planning Minister Justin Madden; a detailed
response from the Green Party MP Greg Barber; and a belated response from
Liberal shadow Planning Minister Matthew Guy (see links below).
 
(We did receive a late reply from Planning Minister Madden to a separate
questionnaire sent to all four Essendon electorate candidates by SOS and CALM
(Citizens for A Livable Melbourne) – see  www.sos.asn.au/node/184

SOS Position Statement – 2010 Victorian Election
Response from Greg Barber (Australian Greens Victoria)
Response from Matthew Guy (Liberal Shadow Planning Minister)

 

ALP state government MPs and senior staff in the planning department discussed the initial strategy to refuse the Windsor re-development, the Age revealed today.  When the infamous leaked email first became public, the Premier and the Minister swore that the fake public consultation plan was just the concoction of a junior advisor. It’s a tragedy for democracy when neither the government nor the department can be trusted to deal fairly, transparently and accountably with the community.

AGEPOLL:   Should Madden be sacked?  (CLOSED APRIL 30):                                                   YES – 92%;  NO – 8%.   Total votes: 4707.
www.theage.com.au/polls/victoria/should-madden-go/20100427-tpo5.html

See the full Age article here:                                                                                   www.theage.com.au/victoria/labor-backed-windsor-sham-20100427-tq34.html