The Victorian Legislative Council has produced a scathing report on the state’s approach to planning policy in a review of proposed changes to the Victorian Planning Provisions.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
Three amendments in question relate to provisions for high rise apartments in up to 50 activity centres, introduction of new zones and an overlay that are exempt from third party notice and review rights and, expanded “deemed to comply” provisions.
The chair of the committee, David Ettershank, raised concerns about removal of consideration of flood risks from the planning process, reduction of environmentally sustainable development standards and excessive removal of existing trees.
Of deeper concern was the inadequate consultation with communities and councils and a failure to take concerns into consideration.
It found the minister had “inappropriately exempted herself from the expected consultation” and her department had not provided materials and models that would allow an assessment of whether the amendments would achieve their goals.
David Ettershank raised concerns about removal of consideration of flood risks from the planning process, reduction of environmentally sustainable development standards and excessive removal of existing trees.
The government and its officials had argued the planning changes were necessary to increase the supply of housing in Victoria.
However, the committee found there was little convincing evidence advanced that the planning changes “will guarantee additional housing” and no substantive evidence that the government’s plan would “provide additional affordable housing”.
It found that in its rush to introduce the amendments, the minister had ignored the advice of its own Standing Committee on Activity Centres in relation to the protection of heritage values.
The government had also failed to implement recommendations of the Victorian Auditor-General in both 2008 and 2017 to create performance and continuous improvement mechanisms for the Victorian Planning Provisions.
This the committee argued, had contributed, in part, to the problems with the planning system that the amendments were trying to resolve.
The committee called on the government to rethink the planning amendments “to ensure good planning outcomes”.
Minority reports by the Greens and Liberals, as would be expected, ramped up criticism of the Labor government. The Greens pointing to evidence the planning changes would “not increase market-rate housing, let alone affordable housing”.
Liberals focused on failures of governance highlighting the government’s failure to provide key materials to the inquiry and the minister’s failure to appear as well as allegations the Premier’s Private Office attempted to influence witnesses.
They also noted that the strongest proponents of planning reform, who claimed it would be an answer to the housing crisis, were unable to support their claims. The best Grattan Institute’s Brendan Coates could offer was that it was an “experiment”.
In their submission, Grattan Institute argued: “These reforms have the potential to unlock hundreds of thousands of extra homes in the coming decades …”. Yet when challenged in hearings, Coates had little evidence to support that claim.
Coates’ evidence, and that of others who make bold claims about planning and housing, contrasted with a recent presentation by Fatou Kiné Dieye at Melbourne Design School on the solving housing crisis in Rwanda.
Unlike Coates and others who would like to experiment based on one case study in Auckland, Kiné Dieye took the audience through a systematic approach to identifying construction supply chain bottlenecks and identifying inclusive resilient solutions.
Even where apartments are already available, they are not being bought; where planning is already approved, construction is not happening and, where land is owned by government the same officials spruiking planning reform can’t get building started.
While the Rwanda approach to scaling up sustainable, affordable housing is no more transferable to Australia than Auckland, the underlying methodology shows a desire to build a deeper understanding of the problem as a basis for collaborative action.
The shortcomings of the planning argument are illustrated in several ways. We are dealing with a market failure where the costs of housing exceed the ability of customers to pay. Where more apartments is not the solution the market is seeking.
Even where apartments are already available, they are not being bought; where planning is already approved, construction is not happening and, where land is owned by government the same officials spruiking planning reform can’t get building started.
The Victorian government has three major sites ready where construction could get underway and homes built – Fitzroy’s Gas Works, North Melbourne’s Arden Street and Fisherman’s Bend – but nothing is happening.
Homes Victoria walked away from the Gas Works. The government has since engaged private developers and dropped a commitment to social housing. The recent Victorian budget offered little indication that Arden Street or Fisherman’s Bend were imminent.
Disappointingly, there is little indication of a government wanting to understand the problems and develop innovative solutions to unblock the supply chain as occurred in the post-war housing boom.
Instead, there is public and media focus on a solution that seeks to take value from one set of residents and reallocate that value through planning changes while offering a free hand to the very industry that is failing to deliver for younger Australians.
