June 2019 Contents

victorian / planningrevue / environmental / law / association / volume 107 June 2019 Contents President 3 The Business Editorial Licence 4 Planning for complete and affordable communities 9 The Minister for Planning 6 A new government delivery model Shadow Minister for Planning 7 for social infrastructure 16 Futures thinking with Jennifer Keesmaat 20 People Richard J Evans Award 26 Fellowship Awards 27 Environmental news and views 33 Expert Evidence 24 Tribunal Talk 35 Places Melbourne airport rail link: applying the Hong Kong model 18 Legal World 37 Car Stackers – do they comply? 39 The Melton ‘front’ 11 YPG 43 Ideas for our metropolis 13 Seminars Local Government’s 5 minutes Commercial 3 Zone: changing the way our city works 40 with the Minister for Planning 15 Climate change litigation and director’s duties 42 Fishermans Bend, from plan to place 29 Cover: Kensington Neighbourhood Healthcare facility UK, delivered in a new government model for social infrastructure. Newsletter editor: VPELA Bernard McNamara PO Box 1291 Camberwell 3124 M: 0418 326 447 www.vpela.org.au E: [email protected] E: [email protected] T: 9699 7025 T: 9813 2801 2 / VPELA Revue June 2019 The President Who, and what, don’t you trust? Tamara Brezzi President, VPELA At a time of elections, we are called upon by the parties and schemes and permits should say nothing, but I do wonder candidates to focus on their campaigns that are usually centred sometimes whether the content needs to be quite so worried around the idea of trust – a plea to the population for a vote in about attempting to predict, rather than guide, the future. the comfort zone. The recent Federal election was no exception: “Vote for me and you’ll get me; vote for Bill Shorten and you’ll The system and its participants could benefit from a step back get Bill Shorten” was a catch phrase for our Prime Minister and a critical analysis about why it is that that permit condition and, (in essence) tells the population that his opponent cannot has been included or what it is that that planning control is really be trusted. trying to say? In the case of planning schemes, the current Smart Planning processes being undertaken by Councils to revise the This need for trust also permeates policy frameworks of the planning schemes throughout the work that we do in planning will present a perfect opportunity to tightly and in the decisions that we make about This need for trust also and clearly express what is sought to be our cities and planning for and within them. achieved without needing to write a ‘crystal permeates throughout ball’ version of the planning scheme. For an industry that is primarily concerned the work that we do with making decisions about the future, in planning and in The theme for VPELA’s conference this it’s necessary for us to place some trust the decisions that we year is “If I could, I would change this….”. I’m in participants to convince ourselves or make about our cities really excited about the theme because it’s facilitative of some big sky thinking – work a decision-maker that ‘It’ll be fine”, or to and planning for and make the necessary leap of faith required to out what you would change, then open within them. implement an ambitious policy or approve a the door to consider the ‘how’. I would put robust development proposal. complexity of the system in the top 5 of my “I would change this” list. There was a It’s often said that it is third party rights that helps ensure Victoria’s time when it was possible to ask and answer a quick question planning system against dreadful planning outcomes. Coupled about planning; but in today’s multi-layered, often duplicitous with the important consultation and mediation processes (built and unclear planning system, there’s no such thing as a quick in now as standard) to the local government and VCAT decision question and quick answer. making processes; it’s easy to see that planning processes and the design of the system work better when there’s a level of trust A re-visiting of the early VPP reports is a timely reminder of why between the participants – a trust by objectors that the system the planning schemes were re-vamped in the 1990’s to streamline will provide an opportunity for their voices to be heard and for controls; to standardise approaches across municipalities, and their amenity to be protected; a trust by decision makers that to make it easy to, at the very least, work out what needs a permit permit holders will build what they’ve been given permission to and what does not. The conference will run on 29 & 30 August do; a trust that applicants will apply for proposals that don’t push 2019 in Lorne. I encourage you to think about what you would boundaries, and a trust by applicants that decision makers will change if you could and to get in touch with us about what’s on make well-reasoned, sound decisions. your list; or better still, attend the conference and participate in the debate in person. Despite this knowledge that an element of trust should make for better decisions, insufficient trust appears to be manifesting Postscript to the March 2019 Revue edition: Thank you to all in a more complex planning system that is increasingly difficult of those members who contacted me after my column about and costly to navigate. It seems to me that there’s a direct mental health in the last edition of the Revue. It was wonderful relationship between the trust afforded between participants to hear that the column had sparked so many workplace and the complexity of planning schemes and permits. The day discussions about the real personal impacts of the multi-layered on which the pendulum of trust swings past neutral into negative and sometimes very difficult and challenging industry within which we work. I look forward to hearing that those discussions territory, there is a loss of a common goal to deliver what the planning scheme calls for and it’s the day on which the complexity are continuing. of planning schemes and permits spirals out of control. Tamara Brezzi is President of VPELA and a Partner at Norton Rose Fulbright Increasingly we could be losing sight of the role of the planning schemes as policy led decision making tools as the participants in planning scheme amendment processes are forced to attempt to predict every possible design scenario that might arise in an area. Similarly, it’s not uncommon to find planning permits with over 100 conditions. It’s certainly not the case that planning VPELA Revue June 2019 / 3 Editorial licence Bernard McNamara, Editor VPELA Revue Director BMDA Advisory The ‘New’ Federal Role in City health services and schools. In some peri-urban regions, the big and Regional development threat is insufficient water supply?? It’s over. A new Federal Government in place for 2, or 2 and a IV’s research pushes the ‘bleedingly obvious’ importance of bit or 3 years (?). But when federal party announcements land use and infrastructure integration. But what have we were getting down to matters such as funding additional car seen? Airport Rail Link? IV says ‘long term’. State Government: parking at selected suburban railway stations, I think that we committed. East-West Link? IV says ‘retain option’ State are missing the things that will matter, long term. So, what Government: No. Suburban Rail Loop? IV: no mention: State major infrastructure can Victoria expect to see being assisted by Government (facing re-election) major announcement and federal funds? commenced planning. Funds towards the North-East Link, Geelong fast rail, promise of So, one must ask if IV is serving a real purpose if the Government funds for the (abandoned) East-West link, major road upgrades in appears to take only limited notice? But wait….. IV has recently Melbourne’s east and south-east, rail upgrade to the Frankston- been asked to investigate solutions for Victoria’s waste stream Baxter line, extra car parking at railway stations, and funds problems. So, maybe IV is useful, when the problems can’t be towards the Melbourne Airport rail link (and Monash rail?) solved by ribbon cutting. Good on a number of items, but not a comprehensive approach, IV asks us to ‘join the conversation’ on the 2020 Infrastructure given the acknowledged key international economic role played Strategy. So, who (besides the State Government), should join by our cities. Will we see (again) a national cities-infrastructure the conversation with its many entrenched groups from industry, building approach from the Feds? In the meantime, the State green groups and ‘save our suburbs’ types? Government is continuing its infrastructure spend. Good to see that bodies (including the RACV) are raising the ‘forgotten’ Metro A friend of mine has an interesting position on who should have 2 project; which is the one that will deliver bigger benefits but a say on long term planning strategies/plans. For his golf club’s relies on the capacity built through Metro 1. 20-year plan, he argues that members over 60 (including himself) should not be permitted to vote, given that it will be the younger Infrastructure Victoria; the curious case of… members who will bear the consequences of the outcome. Recently Infrastructure Victoria released a paper ‘Growing Should we apply this ‘rule’ to IV 2020 and to Plan Melbourne Victoria’s Potential’ - the opportunities and challenges of 2050? What weight of answers would we hear in contrast to the Victoria’s population growth’.

Load more