Planning expert Michael Buxton told The Age in February that he is frustrated with the Victorian government on its planning amendments. Government assurances that heritage protections won’t change are false, he said and the government’s message was “deceptive”. “The new zone’s density purposes are inconsistent with and will override the heritage protection measures in the heritage overlay.” He expands on those views and the recent events in this article.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
Next Tuesday, 14 May, the Victorian parliament will decide the future of Melbourne and its regional cities. This will be one of the parliament’s most consequential decisions but has been almost ignored by Australia’s media.
This one decision will decide the way millions of people live well into this century. It is a rare opportunity for a parliament to express its power over the type and scale of urban development, given that responsibility for planning strategy and decision making was long ago transferred to the premier and planning minister.
But on 14 April, the Legislative Council established a select committee to inquire into three planning amendments. These amendments are intended to transform much of Melbourne’s middle ring and established suburbs into high rise and medium rise apartment precincts and allow medium density development without the need for permits across all the residential areas of the city.
The government proposes to transform the built form of much of the established city, obliterating about 50,000 heritage buildings [and houses] in the short to medium term and ultimately transforming the lives of residents. This city rebuilding project was decided in secret by the government in consultation with key property industry groups and consultants without the proper participation of the citizens it will affect. It represents the capture of government by powerful property interests.
This committee will report to the Legislative Council by 13 May after hearing submissions and three days of hearings. The council then will consider the report and decide whether to revoke, amend or approve the amendments.
The Victorian government vigorously opposed the committee’s establishment, calling it “a sham”. However, every other key interest group has taken it seriously, forwarding 200 submissions in just a few weeks.
This city rebuilding project was decided in secret by the government in consultation with key property industry groups and consultants without the proper participation of the citizens it will affect
Peak property, housing and planning groups, special interest groups, local government and other community and interested parties have sent their most senior representatives to hearings. The state planning agency sent its two most senior planning executives to justify the planning amendments.
The amendments are three of 13 imposed on the Victorian community in recent years using a standard model. Firstly, they were developed in secret by the government in collaboration with peak property groups and special interest groups. Secondly, contrary to accepted practice, they were not publicly exhibited, denying the right of public submission and independent review.
And thirdly, they either remove or substantially curtail the accepted rights of residents and other third parties of notification, objection and appeal.
The select committee’s deliberations serve two functions, to review and report to the council on the amendments, and to provide an opportunity for factual evidence to be presented and for the public consultation denied by the government.
At the select committee hearings, property interests and other development proponents supported the government narrative that a “housing crisis” justified such a radical transformation of a city.
Tens of thousands of approvals remain unacted upon and 8000 dwellings remained unsold
But community, research groups and local government demonstrated that the planning system was continuing to approve housing projects well beyond the construction capacity of the development industry or the financial capacity of a large number of potential purchasers.
Key building industry figures have supported this claim. Tens of thousands of approvals remain unacted upon and 8000 dwellings remained unsold.
These groups argued to the committee that a participatory model, in contrast to the government’s autocratic model, could meet housing needs without destroying the valued characteristics of the existing city. This would involve calculating housing capacity and deciding what could be built where through collaboration between industry, residents and local government.
If this is all unnecessary because ‘tens of thousands of approvals remain unacted on’ then why do you think passing these changes will lead to a flood of demolition? You can’t have it both ways.
probably not acted upon so as to keep up the “homeless crisis” as an excuse to redevelop as was stated in the article …..”At the select committee hearings, property interests and other development proponents supported the government narrative that a “housing crisis” justified such a radical transformation of a city.”