Libs never dumped Labor policy for high density along transport routes

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.

Webb Dock – Serious gap in Infrastructure Planning in Victoria

SOS MEDIA RELEASE, 24 April 2012

By Ann Birrell, SOS Vice-President

Commenting on Minster Napthine’s announcement re proposal to expand Webb Dock, Vice President of Save Our Suburbs, Ann Birrell said:

“It is nonsense for Minister Napthine to say ‘there will be no negative impact on local residents or traffic’. “An extra 2,000 trucks per day on inner city streets must have negative impacts.

“This is Stage one of a two stage Port Plan which involves the transport through inner city suburbs of up to 8 million additional containers on 3 million trucks each year by 2035. “These trucks will travel through Garden City and Port Melbourne and then through inner city Melbourne, Footscray, South Melbourne and Bayside.

“Comments from the Port of Melbourne, at last years planning hearing, that ‘‘transport is vexed issue’’ and ‘’congestion is an operational matter for Council’’ are not nearly good enough. The EPA, the Port Phillip Council have all called for ‘assessment of the full range of impacts’. These include amenity, health and environmental impacts.

“The decision for this huge new port development should not be made before the full range of impacts have been assessed, costed and provided for.

“Infrastructure must be in place before large development plans such as this are implemented.

“Social and environmental impacts should be considered before, and as part of the decision on new development, not after the decision has been made.

“There is a serious gap in infrastructure planning in Victoria.

“Complex, long term decisions are not being fully considered in a well informed way.

“This announcement demonstrates that in freight transport, as in public transport, there is no long term vision for the sustainable development of our city.

Further comment, contact Ann Birrell 0419 550 538

Port of Melbourne:

‘there is little prospect that port related traffic will have a significant impact on Garden City’ p113; ‘traffic congestion issues are an operational matter for Council rather than issues that can be addressed through the statutory planning framework.’

P116. Ports and Environs Advisory Committee Paper http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/34376/Ports_and_E…

EPA:

The PoMC must be specific about the full range of likely impacts … air quality, water run off, light spill and noise emissions … tangible standards and solutions … regularly reported and monitored … responsibility for ensuring the standards are … met clearly defined … Internationally there is a growing body of evidence that air pollution arising from port activities can significantly impact on the health of surrounding communities … These findings should inform any decisions about defining the Port Environs in Victoria

EPA submission July 2010 pp 2,1 to PoMC Hearing http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/panelsandcommittees/current/ports-an…

CIty of Port Phillip:

“Assess all of the environmental risks that are posed by the ports. Go beyond the current amenity focus of the discussion paper, to consider the impacts on human health and overall environmental quality1”

CoPP submission to PoMC Hearing http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/panelsandcommittees/current/ports-and-environs-advisory-committee

Victoria’s planning mess: how we got there and how we get out of it – Professor Michael Buxton

Link – Prof. Buxton talk – 41 minute video

Link – Questions & Answer session – 41 minute video

Transcript of Prof.Buxton talk (pdf – 12p)

The links above take you to an address by Dr Michael Buxton, Associate Professor of Environment and Planning at RMIT University. He spoke at Save Our Suburbs’ AGM on November 20th, 2011, analysing Victoria’s planning malaise and possible solutions. His presentation was followed by a question and answer session.

Professor Buxton has held senior positions in government planning and environmental agencies, been a Victorian local councillor and Mayor, and is a former lecturer at Monash University. His research at RMIT has focussed mainly on issues relating to urban consolidation and the urban growth boundary. He is also a frequent media commentator on planning issues.

We are very grateful for his contribution, which clarifies the ongoing debate over how Melbourne’s town planning system should function.

DVD copies of Professor Buxton’s talk and the Q & A session are available now – contact us HERE by email to inquire about ordering one ($5)

Notice of 2011 SOS Annual General Meeting

Leave a reply

Save Our Suburbs Inc (Vic) will hold its 2011 AGM on
Sunday 20th November 2011 at 2:30pm at
The Alma Club
I Wilks St Caulfield North 3161 (Melways 58 J9)

Followed at 3pm by
GUEST SPEAKER
Associate Professor Michael Buxton, RMIT

Dr Michael Buxton is Professor of Environment and Planning at RMIT University. He has held senior positions in government planning and environmental agencies, been a Victorian local councillor and
Mayor, and is a former lecturer at Monash University.

Refreshments will be served after the meeting

At this AGM, SOS will

– Confirm the minutes of the last preceding annual general meeting;

– Receive Committee reports on SOS transactions for the last financial year.

– Consider the statement submitted by the Association under section 30(3) of the Act.

– Elect officers of the Association and the ordinary members of the Committee (NB: At this AGM, the Vice-President, Secretary and four ordinary committee members will be elected. SOS members financial until 30 June 2011 or later are eligible to vote)

Proxies: If you are a financial member unable to attend the AGM and wish another financial member to act on your behalf at the meeting, please complete the Proxy form (download here) and return it to the Secretary at the address below by 3pm, Thursday Nov 17th, 2011.

Nominations for the committee must:

(a) be made in writing by a current financial member, signed by two other financial members of the Association and accompanied by the written consent of the candidate (which may be endorsed on the form of nomination); and
(b) be delivered to the Secretary of the Association not less than seven days before the date fixed for the holding of the annual general meeting (ie before the 13th of November, 2011).

A nomination form can be downloaded here, but any format is acceptable as long as it contains the required information. Any candidate statements will be posted unedited on the SOS web site (email well beforehand to sos@sos.asn.au).

Candidates should send nominations directly to:
The Secretary,
Save our Suburbs
PO Box 739, Richmond 3121

‘The Triangle Wars’ in cinemas – from Thursday Oct.6

Leave a reply

This stunning tribute to successful community action in St Kilda to save iconic land and property from over-development is now on limited public release at the Carlton Nova and 5 other cinemas in VIctoria, as well as Hobart and Narooma (see details below – runs 90min, rated M).

Please encourage friends and family to come to the first few screenings. It's important to get people there early – otherwise the season will be cut short. With good word of mouth in Melbourne, the film will travel to cinemas around Australia, so please spread the word!

Nova, Carlton – www.cinemanova.com.au

The Classic, Elsternwick – www.classiccinemas.com.au

The Cameo, Belgrave – www.cameocinemas.com.au

Peninsula Cinema, Rosebud – www.peninsulacinemas.com.au

Peninsula Cinema, Sorrento – www.peninsulacinemas.com.au

Theatre Royal, Castlemaine – www.theatreroyal.info

State Cinema, Hobart – www.statecinema.com.au

Narooma Cinema, Narooma – www.narooma.org.au/naroomacinemas.html

Check out this review of the film!

Update – Ministerial Advisory Committee Review of Planning in Victoria

Leave a reply

Many organisations, individuals and groups have made submissions to the Review, and some (including SOS) were invited to discuss their issues with the committee in person. Our submission (click here) was a summary of our overall concerns and we are doing a follow-up submission after being encouraged to do so at our meeting with the committee in September.

While the 6-member committee are undoubtably experts in their field (mostly with extensive background in the development industry and/or the planning department), they clearly only represent one aspect of a multi-faceted debate.

Where are the independent experts in traffic and public transport, strategic planning, urban design, environmental sustainability, health and sociology? Where is the deliberative community consultation process so that feedback from informed residents can be incorporated into the new City Plan?

Are we planning for a complex city that can meet the sustainability challenges of peak oil, climate change, population and energy and water conservation; or are our planners just focussed on a simplistic numbers game of providing enough boxes for increasing numbers of people to "live" in?

However, since the Premier's department is actually preparing the overall strategic plan for Melbourne rather than just the planning minister (see Age article), perhaps there is still hope that a sustainable plan with vision will eventuate….

To find out more about "deliberative community consultation", click here

EDO Planning Workshops for permit objectors: 2013

Leave a reply

VCAT Planning & Environment Appeals Workshops

– for planning permit objectors involved in VCAT appeals.

The EDO VCAT planning appeals workshop runs for two hours and is designed to assist objectors to participate constructively and effectively in VCAT proceedings.

For more information or to discuss a workshop for your group, contact EDO Victoria (03) 8341 3100 or edovic@edo.org.au

Upcoming Workshops – Carlton – 60L Green Building

Thursday 31 January 2013
Tuesday 26 February 2013
Wednesday 27 March 2013

Attendees are given practical, legally-focused information about VCAT proceedings and hearings along with plenty of opportunity and encouragement for questions and discussion.

The program is flexible and topics can be tailored to meet the needs and interests of workshop attendees.

Topics include:

an overview of the Victorian Planning and Environment Law System, the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and Victorian Planning Schemes.
information about decision makers, third party rights, and appeals in the Victorian planning arena.
a detailed look at the review body, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT”).

Printable EDO flier (PDF, 118KB)

Baillieu to review whole planning regime! Make a submission now!

Leave a reply

The Minister for Planning has established an Advisory Committee to review the entire planning system in Victoria. The Committee is seeking public comment. They want to know:
1. What’s good about the system?
2. What works well and what doesn't?
3. What are the ways to fix the problems and improve the system?
4. How can the planning system be more effective and efficient?
5. How can the planning system be made easier to access and understand?
6. Is the present planning system right for Victoria?
7. Are the respective roles of the State and Local Government in the planning system still appropriate?

You only have a short time to comment! Submissions are due by 31 August 2011.

For details click here

We’d like a copy for the SOS website, since the Department has made no commitment to put them up on its website…..

SOS Comment:

The Minister’s new Planning Advisory Committee won't include the hoped-for wide range of experts from industry, academia, planning and environmental bodies and the social sciences.

Instead, it will consist of just half a dozen experts with a strong background in the planning bureaucracy and the development industry to give an "industry perspective" to the government on the biggest overhaul of the planning system in Victoria for almost two decades.

The Committee will be headed by Geoff Underwood, executive director of developer lobby group the Urban Development Institute of Australia (Victoria) for 14 years and a previous director of development facilitation within the Victorian planning bureaucracy.

Despite its small and biased composition, the Committee is charged with a huge task: “to provide advice on ways of improving the planning system including the legislative base, the structure of planning schemes including the structure of state and local policy provisions, as well as regulations under the Planning and Environment Act 1987”

Yet this small Committee will only have a few months (until the end of November) to make preliminary recommendations on changes to the entire planning regime!

The time allowed for public consultation is also far too short – “the committee must allow submitters at least 28 days to make a submission and provide an opportunity for municipalities to make a presentation to the Committee at least on a regional basis”.

The process also lacks transparency – submissions to the Committee must be available for public inspection only until the Committee’s report is finished when they will be handed over to DPCD. But there is no requirement for any submissions to be published on the DPCD website, despite the fact that in this electronic age, the Net is the only feasible method of public access to this documentation.

Just window dressing? It’s certainly an inadequate and biased process, with even less “consultation” than under former Minister Madden.

Instead, Premier Baillieu should be following the examples of cities that have developed successful City Master Plans with wide community and bipartisan political support – see The Grattan Report, October 2010: “Cities – Who Decides?”

The report investigated urban planning decision-making in eight of the world’s most successful cities. In each case, significant and ongoing public consultation was vital. Cities investigated included Vancouver, Toronto, Chicago and Copenhagen – chosen because they shared important characteristics with Australian cities.

If consultation shortcuts need to be taken due to time constraints, then the government should at least incorporate the community feedback from the Melbourne 2030 public consultation process into the intended new planning regime, and add input from independent academic, environmental and social experts.

In the interim, until the new planning regime is ready, most planning controls should simply be made mandatory to provide certainty and better planning outcomes.

New VCAT Practice Note on amended plans – ok, but more reform needed

The new VCAT Practice Note on amended plans that comes into effect on July 11 is an improvement but ignores one huge fundamental flaw.

The mere existence of the opportunity to amend plans guarantees that speculative developers will continue to lodge ambit claims with councils They know if there’s too much opposition, they can always scale back plans at the last minute at VCAT to partly meet council and objector concerns.

But if developers just had to stick with their initial plans, it’s highly likely that they’d make the effort to lodge compliant plans at the outset.

Result: quicker, fairer, more efficient, cheaper for taxpayers and ratepayers, more certainty for all parties in the whole planning process – and better planning outcomes! (but no speculative windfall profits for private developers).

SOS Comment to VCAT on the draft Practice Note for amended plans (May 2011)

Download the new Practice Note for Amended Plans (effective from 11.7.11)

Improving Access to Council Planning File documents – Dept. Practice Note

Leave a reply

This Planning Department Practice Note explains what planning application documents residents are entitled to see and get copies of (at cost) from their council. Unfortunately, some councils don't follow the spirit of the Prac Note, let alone the letter, but it does at least let you know what you're entitled to ask for.

Due to possible copyright issues with some documents incorporated in planning schemes (eg, references like the ANZ Parking Standards), the Dept. has temporarily withdrawn this Prac Note for minor changes. However, this won't effect access to the documents you'd normally find in a planning file and you can download the Prac Note by clicking on the pdf link below.

DPCD Prac Note on Access to File Documents