dictatorship via vested interests

"The proposed “Smart Planning” must not proceed in its current form. The Group does not support fast tracking development, weakening permit or planning triggers or referral requirements, or permit exemptions, or the removal of appeal rights." Inside find Port Campbell Community Group Inc's submission to the Victorian Planning Provisions Discussion Paper.

Port Campbell Community Group Inc. A0051688U
Submission to DELWP’s “Smart Planning” November 2017

In the interests of balancing the present and future interests of all Victorians (g) that “Smart Planning’s” so-called “Key Benefits” must better align with the P&E Act’s Objectives which requires all development (f) to foremost meet (a), (b), (c) and (d):
(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land;
(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;
(c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;
(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value;
(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co‑ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community;
(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);
(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

Community Expertise

Community members and groups are crucial for their local knowledge and expertise which, if listened to, would save the State and public millions of dollars in wasted time and energy considering flawed planning proposals.
The Group has taken part in in many planning consultations – see Appendix A.

Four instances of poor planning decisions are listed below, some current:

The Southern Ocean Beach House
A major motel, retail development and excavation within meters of major caverns on Port Campbell’s fragile limestone headland cliffs.
The University of New South Wales Law Journal published a special edition on ‘Rethinking Climate Change and the Law’. A history of the Port Campbell Southern Ocean Beach House saga is part of this edition. It was launched by the Honourable Justice Brian Preston, Chief Judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court. An important part of the articles is an emphasis on community expertise and involvement in decision-making. See article attached and at: https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/.

The Shipwreck Coast Master Plan
There was extensive community consultation, but it seems the community was not heard. The proposed projected viewing platform at the 12 Apostles appears to be high risk. It is situated above an area where there has been a major recent cliff collapse – image below. Local knowledge, and geotechnical knowledge, would say this is high risk. This is just one of the problems with the Shipwreck Coast Master Plan, because community expertise has been ignored.

12 Apostles Cliff collapse August 2011

Montarosa proposal on Princetown Flood Plain
We must ask why this proposal was permitted by Council, as the risks are obvious. We must also ask why the proposal received a $650,000 federal government grant; State Government appears to have encouraged Corangamite Shire Council to approve the development.

The proposal is an 18 room residential ‘eco’-lodge, 20 cabins elevated on stilts, a restaurant, café, shop, briefing facilities, office, function rooms, 2 swimming pools/day spa, lookout tower, cycling and walking trails, boardwalks, a boat shed and jetty pontoon/boat ramp for pleasure activities. There is an estimated 278 car parks, 5 bus parks, and 480 visitors. Council notes the development will require Crown Land “to create road access and walking tracks”.

The flood plain presents an unacceptable risk to the low-lying development, and the development presents an unacceptable risk to a non-resilient, fragile estuary environment which contains endangered and threatened species including Latham’s Snipe, Australasian Bitten, Southern Brown Bandicoot and Australian Grayling. The site adjoins the Great Otway National Park.

There will be major road and earthworks. Council notes that the 1 km long flood prone access road must be widened and raised to 2.1 metres AHD, but raising the road will create a barrier directing flood waters elsewhere which is unlikely to be resolved by culverts. The single-lane access bridge will need to be upgraded. Council notes: “The site is susceptible to flooding. The proposed buildings are located just outside or on the fringe of the 1% AEP floodplain. The finished floor levels of all buildings will be required to be no lower than 3.5 metres AHD which the application details will be achieved by placing buildings on stumps…”
The Great Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study lists the area as of State significance with a landscape objective: “To protect the valley floor from development” and “Potential Threats: Development on valley floor (unlikely)”, recognising it is unlikely a development would be put on the flood plain. The Victorian Coastal Strategy states to avoid development in low lying areas. Part of the area has an Environmental Significance Overlay “for the protection of watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands”.

There are serious concerns regarding the leeching potential of the sewer and waste water system and potential for catastrophe in floods. The submission recognises the likely presence of acid sulphate soil.

Ten sites were rezoned on the Corangamite Shire coast for large tourism projects. None of these sites have been developed as yet, and none would have these risks.

Decision-makers must take into account the effects of climate change and the precautionary principle: the combined effects of rising seas, storm surge, extreme rainfall events, and flooding. But now the community has withdrawn from VCAT, who is going to make this decision? Council does not have the expertise.

The State government must investigate and insist on an independent Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment and a full and inclusive public Environmental Effects Statement to assess the potential for flooding risk, and risk to the public.

Princetown Flood Plain. X marks site of proposed development with road linkages into and between the sites. Note the road into the area is flooded, and this was solely due to storm surge. A more extreme event would occur with a high rainfall event in conjunction with storm surge.
Original Photo: Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

1 Hennessy Street Port Campbell residential development
The height imposes on the public domain, overlooking a state and nationally significant headland’s walking trail. Any development is required to be a height of the vegetation and fit neighbourhood character. VCAT and Council ignored the community’s concerns and consequently failed to meet planning requirements.

1 Hennessy St does not fit neighbourhood character, nor does it meet the height guides, and it overlooks national and state listed heritage headland and walking trail. View from heritage listed Beacon Steps lookout.

Consultants

The only ones winning at the moment appear to be consultants who may conduct consultation but do not seem to listen to expert community advice. It is costing rate payers and tax payers billions.

Better Education for Planning Officers

The latest Corangamite Shire Amendment (C45) 2017 – changes to the MSS – demonstrated that planners do not understand the difference between Objectives and Strategies. Planning was advised by the Panel to rewrite them. The Panel members also noted the amendment could become irrelevant if Smart Planning proceeds. A lot of time and money had been spent on a document which could be irrelevant. Not smart planning.

VCAT

There needs to be a full review of VCAT’s inconsistencies and poor performances in decision-making which undermine the planning process.

Summary

For the benefit of Victoria there must not be weakened permit or planning triggers or referral requirements, or permit exemptions, or the removal of appeal rights.
Without real community input, the government will make many more mistakes which will cost the State billions.
Marion Manifold
Secretary on behalf of
Port Campbell Community Group Inc. A0051688U

APPENDIX A

• Shifts in Victorian climate law and policy and the planning system: Intersected views from the field and academy. Brad Jessup and Marion Manifold. UNSW publications, 2016
• Commonwealth Government’s Draft Referral Guidelines for the Southern Brown Bandicoot and the EPBC Act, 2015
• Western Regional Coastal Plan Draft, 2015 – provided submission and photos
• Corangamite Shire Draft Environment & Sustainability Strategy 2014-2019
• Victorian National Parks Association with Bioregional Profile Coastal Paper, 2014
• Amendment C36 for Heritage Overlay on Port Campbell headland, 2014. (Planning panel recommended this be implemented).
• Shipwreck Coast Master Plan, 2013-2015
• The Arts Bridge: Bridging Art, Community and the Coastal Environment, Regional Arts Victoria, 2013
• Drafted the South West Threatened Species Recovery Program which aims to provide a plan of action to recover threatened species in South West Victoria including liaising with Parks Victoria, Landcare, Conservation Ecology Centre Cape Otway and the Otway Community Conservation Network, 2013.
• Victorian Coastal Strategy Draft, 2013
• Port of Port Campbell Safety & Environment Management Plan, 2013
• Parliamentary Inquiry into Heritage Tourism and Ecotourism in Victoria, 2013
• Co-ordinated the Environment Defenders Office to assist writing and present a submission on Amendment C30 which has resulted in improved environmental outcomes, 2013.
• Corangamite Shire’s Port Campbell and Coast Amendment C28, 2013
• Corangamite Shire’s Port Campbell and Coast Amendment C29, 2012.
• The effectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities’ protection in Australia, 2012
• Plan to rehabilitate the remnant Great Ocean Road on Port Campbell headland to increase habitat for endangered species including Southern Brown Bandicoot, 2014
• Port Campbell Headland Management and Landscape Plan including Biodiversity Action Plan, 2012
• Port Campbell Headland Walking Track – Coastcare and Council Submission, 2013
• DSE Review of Land Stability at Sturgess Point, Port Campbell, 2011
• EPBC Act 1999 Draft Referral Guidelines for Southern Brown Bandicoot (eastern), Isoodon obesulus obesulus, 2011
• Review of Victorian Planning Provisions and Planning Scheme, 2011
• National Trust ‘State’ listing for the Port Campbell headland, 2008
• Parliamentary Inquiry into Use and Development of Public Land, Port Campbell Headland, 2008
• Heritage Victoria – Port Campbell Headland submission, 2008
• Victorian Coastal Strategy Draft, 2008
• Corangamite Shire Environmental Strategy, 2007
• VCAT submissions including organising expert witness reports 2003-2011
• Federal Government – Meeting the Challenge of Coastal Growth. Discussion Paper, May 2006
• Corangamite Shire’s Port Campbell and Coast Amendment C13, 2002
• Wannon Water / Parks Victoria panel to consider sewage options for the 12 Apostles
• Marion Manifold. High-risk coastal resort on flood plain. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. September. 2017.
• Marion Manifold. The Port Campbell Coast: Paradise Lost. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. June 2014. Pp.12-13.
• Marion Manifold. Port Campbell: Developments on a Fragile Coast. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. December 2014. Pp.18-19.
• Marion Manifold. Port Campbell headland still at risk. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. September 2009. P.23.
• Marion Manifold. At risk – Port Campbell headland and national park. Park Watch. Victorian National Parks Association. March 2009. Pp.12-13

"Labor is developing what is meant to be the most fundamental restructure of the Victorian planning system since the 1996 introduction of the Victoria Planning Provisions, the new Smart Planning program. [...] A simpler, more efficient and certain planning scheme is long overdue, but Smart Planning is not the way to provide it. This is a $25 million program managed through the Smart Planning program Rules team. If the system is simply to implement five minor changes, along with online access, then the program is a massive waste of money. Alternatively, if future stages are to radically change the system, then the government is hiding its intentions, locking out community groups from the process, and intends to present the public with a fait accompli." (Professor Michael Buxton*)

Labor is developing what is meant to be the most fundamental restructure of the Victorian planning system since the 1996 introduction of the Victoria Planning Provisions, the new Smart Planning program.

For the first time, the government has issued a tender for significant private sector involvement in the development of this program. A private consulting company has been given the significant role in developing what is meant to be further privatisation of the planning system.

Nobody knows what the precise instructions to this firm are because few public criteria were provided. However enough is known to provide a broad outline of government intentions. Criteria include the need to reduce regulation and regulatory costs by simplifying planning rules particularly through code assessment, lowering the level of permit triggers, increasing ‘as-of-right’ approvals and reducing local variation. The result will be a new model planning scheme which includes a new structure for the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and new content including revised zones, overlays and particular provisions.

The new system is being promoted on the need to ‘simplify and modernise Victoria’s planning rules’, reduce complexity and increase efficiency. The rhetoric of ‘cutting red tape’ and ‘reform’ are used to sell an increasingly deregulated system.

Stages in the process

There are two main elements to the process:

• The Rules and Policy stream which is making changes to the regulatory content and structure of the VPP;
• The Systems Stream which will make substantial changes to online planning information including a single point of entry to information, an online lodgement system for permits and planning scheme amendments, the content of planning schemes, and interactive state-wide maps. At this stage, this component will not include a single online centralised portal for all planning applications.

Under the Rules and Policy stream, the government envisages four stages in the process.

Stage 1 was the addition of further categories to VicSmart focusing on residential zones

Stage 2 will comprise a first package of further changes to VicSmart, and allegedly minor changes to the VPPs..

Stage 3 is intended to include a major restructure of the VPP and implemented in mid-2018.

Stage 4 will ‘further reshape the planning system’ in even more fundamental ways. under a program titled Transform.

Consultation

The property industry is an enthusiastic advocate for Smart Planning. The Property Council, for example, stated that the new system “is exactly what the doctor ordered…to cut red tape…and accelerate decision making”.

However, community groups have been locked out of the entire Smart Planning process.

Property and professional groups are represented on the technical reference and advisory groups for the program but not residents. The following groups are represented on the advisory group:

• Municipal Association of Victoria
• Australian Institute of Architects
• Building Designers Association of Victoria
• Housing Industry Association
• Master Builders Association of Victoria
• Planning Institute of Australia
• Property Council of Australia
• Urban Development Institute of Australia
• Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association.

No members of relevant community groups of the public are represented on either the technical or the advisory group.

A Smart Planning presentation to industry organised by the Planning Institute on 31 October, proposed the following reasons for the exclusion of the public from consultation:

• Members of the public are incapable of understanding strategic planning
• Members of the public might initially object to changes to planning systems or specific developments but invariably ultimately accept them
• The large number of past reports into planning make further public consultation unnecessary.

A survey was released into potential VPP changes with a completion date of 10 July. Professionals made up most of the 688 respondents.

A discussion paper into broad proposals for Stage 1 changes was released on 16 October along with an online questionnaire with responses required by 24 November.

Stage 1 changes to VicSmart were introduced without the opportunity for public consultation in mid 2017.

Stage 2 changes will be presented to the minister and, if necessary, cabinet for approval in December for immediate adoption. This means that changes to the planning system will be immediately implemented without making the content of changes publicly available prior to adoption. The public will be presented with a fait accompli.

Stage 3 and 4 changes are expected to proceed in the same way as stage 2.

VicSmart changes

The government introduced a dual track approval system into Victorian planning with the enactment of the Planning and Environment Amendment (VicSmart Planning Assessment) Act in September 2012. Clauses 90–95 inserted into the VPP implement the VicSmart system. The Act establishes a different approval procedure for a separate class of applications but does not define this class or specify these applications. These are listed in clause 92 and initially comprised relatively minor and uncontroversial applications for various zones including subdivision to align a common boundary; construction of a fence, carport or garage; and construction of buildings and works of less than $50,000 in value not within 30 metres of a residential zone.

Clause 91 sets out the process for VicSmart applications. Applications must be processed within 10 business days and are exempt from notice, decision guidelines and review rights, policies or other provisions, although applicants may appeal a decision by the responsible authority; the responsible authority cannot request further information; authorities cannot act as referral authorities for comment on an application; environmental impacts cannot be considered; and councillors are excluded from decisions.

The government justified the introduction of a separate track by the need for a streamlined permit process aimed at ‘straightforward, low impact development proposals’, intended to ‘reduce frustration and unnecessary red tape for families wanting to make simple improvements to their homes’ and reduce ‘unnecessary delays and costs in Victoria's planning system’. However, the failure of the legislation to list the class of applications and conferring on the minister the power to develop and alter the list without further reference to parliament has allowed the progressive extension of the system by expanding the classes of applications. The then Shadow Minister for Planning, Brian Tee, commented in the parliamentary debate on the VicSmart Bill that ‘we all know that this legislation is much broader in its scope; the sky is the limit’.

The 2017 changes to VicSmart were introduced through Amendment VC137. This allowed extensions to dwellings in residential zones without a permit, and doubled the class of applications for buildings and works in a range of zones to $100,000.

These VicSmart changes have helped double VicSmart applications to 8 per cent. Further Stage 1 changes are expected to increase them to 14 per cent, ultimately rising possibly to one third of all applications. The 2016 budget estimates states that the Smart Planning program “will enable an extension to the VicSmart process, including the targeted removal of permit requirements in commercial and industrial zones, allowing faster approval times for certain development proposals….[its] proportion of planning permit applications will increase over time as reforms aimed at streamlining the planning system take hold”. It is likely that this process will reduce or remove existing rights to notice and appeal against classes of medium and high rise developments.

Stage 2 changes

Vicsmart will be integrated into particularly provisions and overlay schedules and other provisions. At present, VicSmart operates as a separate section at the end of planning schemes. Its integration into other provisions will entrench it structurally, providing codified assessments, uses and developments exempt from permits and applications exempt from notice or review. This integration will make further increases to VicSmart applications inevitable. A list of five new classes of applications is proposed at present.

Local and State planning policy will be integrated. Since local policy cannot contradict State policy, this will probably weaken local policy.

Streamlined assessment pathways will be provided by amending specific provisions to add building and works exemptions, reduce permitted applications by increasing ‘as-of-right’ uses and developments, and reduce the number of prohibited uses.

Drafting and procedural changes will be made.

Stage 3 and 4 changes

The discussion paper does not outline these. However, it is clear from the October 2017 discussion paper, Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions, and other Smart Planning material, that radical changes to the planning system are envisaged under stages 3 and 4.

A revealing indicator of the government’s approach is the reference to the Leading Practice Model for Development Assessment prepared by the Development Assessment Forum in 2005. This influential model prepared by a body composed primarily of development and professional groups has been progressively implemented by all State governments to deregulate planning systems. The paper also refers to the use of code assessment and exemptions in New South Wales and Queensland systems. These are the most deregulated in Australia. Yet the government’s overall aim for Smart Planning is to “make Victoria’s planning system the most efficient and responsive in Australia”.

The government provides little detail of how radically the Stage 3 and 4 changes will further deregulate the planning system. However, the documentation provides a sense of what is envisaged. A progressive process of change is envisaged through “successive VPP and planning scheme amendments”. The program “seeks to deliver long term, transformative changes to the planning system”. The discussion paper proposes code assessment for multiple dwellings in defined locations, increasing code assessment to remove “entirely from the need for assessment” more applications, and applying VicSmart to complex applications. The Transform process would “further reshape the planning system” for the next 30 years.

Some proposed more detailed amendments to provisions include:

• Exempt single dwellings on lots above 300 square metres.
• Increase exempt uses in commercial and mixed use zones
• Make office an exempt use in the Industrial 3 zone.
• Increase exempt commercial uses in the Farming zone.
• Review the need for permits under all overlays and liberalise Floodway and Land Subject to Inundation overlays.
• Exempt car parking requirements in nominated zones
• Exempt premises in commercial zones from planning permits for licenced and gambling premises
• Further deregulate the Heritage Overlay by removing the need for permits for dry stone walls.
• Remove clause 57 providing greater control over uses and developments in green wedge land.
• Remove the powers of referral authorities
• Review the role of Section 173 agreements and decision guidelines.

Omissions

A simpler, more efficient and certain planning scheme is long overdue, but Smart Planning is not the way to provide it. This is a $25 million program managed through the Smart Planning program Rules team. If the system is simply to implement five minor changes, along with online access, then the program is a massive waste of money. Alternatively, if future stages are to radically change the system, then the government is hiding its intentions, locking out community groups from the process, and intends to present the public with a fait accompli.

The Smart Planning process addresses none of the major problems associated with the VPPs. These problems all arise from the lack of effective regulation, not the need for further deregulation. In particular

• The recent deregulation of the residential zones should be reversed
• Height controls should be added to the commercial and mixed use zones to protect historic strip and local retail centres
• The extensive out-of-centre development allowed in commercial zones, which allows further unfair competition with traditional centres and entrenches car based centres, should be controlled.
• The few prohibited uses in commercial and mixed use zones should be expanded
• Greater heritage protection should be provided to historic industrial areas to require building reuse not demolition.
• The former rural zones should be reinstated
• Commercial uses should be prohibited in Green Wedge zones and all uses not listed in section 2 prohibited.
• Vague and contradictory decision guidelines and objectives should be rewritten in a clear, regulatory manner.
• The widespread inadequate application of standard provisions to land by local councils should be addressed to better match provisions to local conditions and need.

* About Michael Buxton

Michael Buxton is Professor of Environment and Planning at RMIT University and former head of the RMIT planning program. He spent 12 years in senior management in planning and environmental agencies in the Victorian Government and has written widely on urban form, peri-urban development and environmental policy.

This is dismantling planning schemes, removing impediments to what developers want, and allowing development on developers’ terms. What is happening under “Smart Planning” has no relationship to either of those words. Read it and weep – or get angry, and loud. This is essentially about making a single planning scheme for Victoria, controlled by the State government (and whoever may have its ear). You are having YOUR planning scheme stolen from you.

We have all been through the Elaine Carbine’s “Making Local Policy Stronger” farce 10 years ago, when all that happened was significant loss of local policy. Local policy, particularly “old” policy (i.e. something that says what it means and has teeth – like our Statement of Planning Policy No. 8) is intended to be weeded out to fit into the new format. This single planning scheme will comprise primarily State policy, which as we have all lately seen, can be changed by a stroke of the Minister’s pen.

There is also substantial cost to councils involved. To get to where so-called “Smart Planning” is intending to take us, planning schemes will have to be re-written, and if your council is currently doing a planning scheme review, they will have to start again.

Other niceties include:

• Moving the peri-urban areas from “Regional Victoria” to “Urban Growth”,
• Moving “Open Space” to “Community Infrastructure”,
• Deleting Municipal Strategic Statements [MSS], and “simplifying” what used to be in them.
• The whole section on Metropolitan Melbourne is deleted, with some parts transferred to other State policies, meaning these are now applied across the State instead of just metro Melbourne.
• Local policies will also have to be justified by identifying in the policy (“Policy Context”) the local issue that triggered the policy.
• There won’t be a policy-neutral translation of existing policy to this new format, local policies will have to be changed or deleted to fit with the format.

Local policies will have to fit in with State policy themes. If you’ve got some other issue locally – too bad. Can’t have a policy.

Watch out as well for a second attempt to introduce that idiotic “verbs matrix” that surfaced circa 2013/14 which restricts the use of verbs with which policy statements can begin, and dictates verbs that can be used.

All along the way, VicSmart infiltrates every part of the State Planning Policy Framework, together with “streamlining” permit triggers (i.e. primarily to remove them).

The whole thing is “user” (read developer) driven, and Professor Buxton’s information exposing who is making these decisions, confirms why the public has been shut out of the so-called “Smart Planning” processes.

A new Departmental unit to “vet” local policy is to be set up – ‘policy police’?

They haven’t even shown us what they are intending to do.

From our perspective, we are asking if it’s time to say the government’s promise to protect Macedon Ranges is a broken one. It can’t be protected with all of this going down, and Green Wedges are also under direct attack.

AND FINALLY, THIS IS THE ONLY TIME YOU WILL BE CONSULTED. FROM HERE THIS RUBBISH GOES STRAIGHT INTO PLANNING SCHEMES – AFTER IT HAS BEEN THROUGH THE ‘REFERENCE’ GROUPS.

Some additional specific issues for change include:
• Removing permit triggers for houses on lots between 300 and 500 sqm and use the building code to assess instead of planning system.
• Making more commercial uses to not need a permit in the Mixed Use zone
• Making motor repair shop and convenience shop as-of-right in the Industrial 1 zone.
• Making takeaway food premises, indoor recreation facilities and motor repair premises as-of-right in the Industrial 3 zone.
• Replacing the Urban Floodway Zone.
• Automatically rezoning land in the Urban Growth Zone when a precinct structure plan is approved, instead of requiring a planning scheme amendment to change the zones.
• Reviewing the use of Environmental Significance Overlay to identify ‘buffers’
• Increasing permit exemptions for single dwellings in Environmental Significant and Significant Landscape Overlays
• More permit exemptions in Heritage Overlays for ‘minor buildings and works’
• Review whether the Neighbourhood Character Overlay should be deleted.
• Review merging all current flood controls (Urban Floodway Zone, Floodway Overlay and Land Subject To Inundation Overlay) into a single control
• Increase permit exemptions in the Land Subject To Inundation Overlay
• Increased use of VicSmart where the Special Building Overlay is the only permit trigger for an application
• Amalgamate all Airport Environs Overlays with the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay -
• Car Parking – provide car parking exemptions in selected zoned (commercial, mixed use and industrial) sor section 1 uses in existing buildings
• Consider making all car parking applications (Clause 52.06) exempt from notice requirements in all circumstances.
• Review (again) all separation distances (Clause 52.10) for uses with amenity impacts.
• Review requirements for service stations.
• Review provisions for car washes to ensure they reflect current practices and “modern” car wash designs, including crossover dimensions
• Review removing liquor licensing from the planning scheme, and no permit in Commercial 1 and 2 zones.
• Review the role of the planning scheme in gaming applications.
• Review permit triggers in the Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1 or Public Acquisition Overlay
• Review removing the particular provision for post boxes and dry stone walls.
• Clause 57 Green Wedges – assess whether would be more “transparent” if deleted and requirements (and restrictions?) transferred to zones.
• Consolidation of planning scheme General Provisions – this means moving them all to one place at the back of the scheme (where they are now). The change is to have a single set of application requirements, and a single set of decision guidelines – a generic version to apply in all circumstances instead of being tailored to the specific issue or requirements they apply to.
• Reviewing referral requirements (currently determining or recommending) and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens.
• All planning scheme DEFINITIONS – review. Be less prescriptive by removing ‘overly specific’ terms.

These thoughts come from Christine, of MRRA.

"The MEG Committee expresses its anger at the entire lack of contact between DELWP and residents’ groups such as ours. DELWP’s actions re the Discussion Paper seek to exclude residents from being informed of the proposed changes and from taking part in the decision-making process about the area in which we live." ..."VicSmart must not be broadened. It is quite clear that there is enough of the ‘fast tracking’ for so-called ‘simple’ planning applications. The Discussion Paper indicates that “the sky’s the limit.” When VicSmart was introduced the then Opposition (now the Government) vigorously opposed it saying that it really meant “the sky’s the limit” with regard to fast-tracking Planning Applications and this was to be deplored. The same Party (now in Government) has put aside such quibbles and enthusiastically adopted fast-tracking of applications and the Discussion Paper is mere tokenism."

Submission re …Reforming the Victorian Planning Provisions…November 2017

The MEG Committee expresses its anger at the entire lack of contact between DELWP and residents’ groups such as ours. DELWP’s actions re the Discussion Paper seek to exclude residents from being informed of the proposed changes and from taking part in the decision-making process about the area in which we live.

Community groups have been locked out of the entire Smart (so-called) Planning process and we are informed that this is because we (the people) are….

(1) incapable of understanding strategic planning
(2) likely to object initially to change and subsequently accept it…(as if there is ever a
choice!)
(3) further public consultation is unnecessary.

In other words, DEWLP and its Minister view the community with contempt!

MEG is left breathless at the sheer arrogance of this Government.

MEG has taken part in a number of Strategic Planning issues. We have attended Information Sessions and Consultation Sessions. We have lodged written submissions to Council and to Planning Panels Victoria re a number of Planning Scheme Amendments . We have made oral submissions to Panel on a number of occasions.

We have NEVER stopped our opposition to a particular Panel decision which allowed “no height limits” in one section of the area covered by Amendment C173 … a decision which has resulted in construction of an 18 storey development with 322 apartments bang up against single storey houses. The sheer ignorance and stupidity of that Panel decision makes us wonder if that particular Panel “was capable of understanding strategic planning.”

It would seem that “strategic planning” actually means State Government and those it employs “going where the dollars are.”

The Discussion Paper sets out to remove any impediments to the ambitious schemes of developers though considering the decision cited above we wonder if there has ever been any real Impediments. In Stonnington it has long been ‘development on developers’ terms.’

The Discussion Paper proposes ‘getting more development more easily.’ Given the evidence of our own eyes we wonder just how easy can it get? Clearly DELWP’s purpose is to achieve more and more development at the expense of all environmental and health issues.

The Discussion Paper suggests the ways and means to accelerate development.

(1) Broaden VicSmart
(2) Use Code Assess
(3) Removal of what developers call ‘barriers’ to their plans…(residents call
them’ safeguards’ though they do not save us from much.)

VicSmart must not be broadened. It is quite clear that there is enough of the ‘fast tracking’ for so-called ‘simple’ planning applications. The Discussion Paper indicates that “the sky’s the limit.” When VicSmart was introduced the then Opposition (now the Government) vigorously opposed it saying that it really meant “the sky’s the limit” with regard to fast-tracking Planning Applications and this was to be deplored. The same Party (now in Government) has put aside such quibbles and enthusiastically adopted fast-tracking of applications and the Discussion Paper is mere tokenism.

Some of the suggestions DELWP makes for expediting development are:-

…using the building code to assess an application instead of ResCode on lots between 300 &
500sq.m. (N.B. there are no amenity issues considered in the Building Code.)

Mixed Use Zones to have more commercial uses that do not need a Permit.

…more permit exemptions in Heritage Overlays for ‘minor’ works….whatever that means.

review the existence of Neighbour Character Overlays.

car parking….provide exemptions in selected zones

consider making all car parking applications exempt from notice requirements.

no environmental impacts to be considered.

The list is endless. “The sky’s the limit,” said the Government when in Opposition.

To introduce ‘Code Assess’ to the mix would sound the death knell for our suburbs as we know them. (Remember when Victoria was called ‘The Garden State?’) Please note that the correct term for ‘Code Assess’ is ‘Free Reign for Developers.’ Code Assess is a system in which the applicant assesses his/her application, ticks the boxes and pronounces “full steam ahead.” There is no resident input and residents’ groups such as MEG vigorously oppose it.

The Property Council is apparently delighted with the proposals from DELWP. We are told that such a system “will cut red tape and accelerate decision-making.” As they are well-represented on the Advisory Council (and residents’ groups are not represented at all) of course they are delighted with the fact that DELWP has done exactly what developers’ representatives advised …i.e. the impediments to development are to be removed. It follows that with this ‘top down implementation’ any consideration of residential amenity at local level is to be forever consigned to the archives.

The impact of the proposals on Councils will be significant. Stonnington’s entire Planning Scheme will have to be re-written just as a Review of the Planning Scheme has commenced. This will have to be restarted … and to what purpose? Whatever we want in our Planning Scheme will be over-ridden by the revised VPPS. As Local Policy cannot now contradict State Policy our Local Policy might as well not exist under proposals in the Discussion Paper so any re-writing or requests from Council for residents’ views will be mere tokenism.

There is, of course, no indication of additional resources from State Government for all the additional work. The ratepayers will be forced to pay even though we were not to be consulted by DELWP …. and we have to wonder if that was a Ministerial direction!

MEG is grateful for the ever-active grapevine in our network that permits us to discover at least SOME Government scheming.

The entire Discussion Paper is, in essence, a dismantling of all Planning Schemes in Victoria.
What is proposed under “Smart Planning” is neither ‘smart’ nor is it ‘planning.’

It proposes “getting more development more easily” and in doing so silencing the voice of residents while residents propose “getting planning in a regulated way.”

The residents’ way is “smart planning.” The Government’s way is a massive free kick to the development industry.

Ann Reid (MEG Convenor)
C/- 14 Chanak Street,
Malvern East Vic 3145
Phone/Fax 9572 3205
Email [email protected]
Web http://www.chezsamuel.com/meghome.php

We need stronger not weaker planning controls at the level of local government and more community involvement. We need to empower local government and communities by ensuring that projects other than minor modifications to existing properties are scrutinized by council in consultation with the community. It might be more time consuming and cumbersome however it will be well worth the additional effort if we can avoid a planning disaster while at the same time achieving better planning outcomes. To achieve a good result, we need to give Councils the right to veto or modify a proposed development application and in the case of a disputed application that cannot be resolved at the level of local government, I would like to recommend that we replace VCAT by appointing a democratically elected community jury with the power to veto or modify a project. Overpopulation, planning and overdevelopment and building safe, attractive and cohesive communities will be the over-riding themes in the upcoming election campaign. Any further action in relation to the proposed changes should be deferred until we elect a new government in 2018 to allow the people to decide whether or not they support further deregulation and privatisation of the planning process and the removal of appeal rights. (A. Walker, Ashburton Residents Action Group)

23 November 2017

In confidence and without prejudice

Submission – Smart Planning Initiative

Attention: Smart Planning Team

Introduction

I am a ratepayer and a local resident and I have major concerns that unwelcome and unwanted high-rise, high-density over-development poses an existential threat to our city and suburbs, living standards and quality of life.

The community must be given a greater say as to how their suburbs will be allowed to develop and this will translate into better planning outcomes and happier communities. Ratepayers elect councillors to represent them at the local government level and our councillors must be allowed to do their job.

We need tougher restrictions and more community input to help preserve Melbourne’s ranking as one of the most liveable cities in the world as this is under threat.

Neighbourhood Residential Zones

The neighbourhood residential zones were originally introduced by the Baillieu/Napthine government to protect our suburbs from the ravages of inappropriate over-development. These changes were welcomed by local ratepayers.

The height and density limits were designed to give local residents and investors, certainty and protection and ensured that those seeking to push the boundaries could no longer appeal to VCAT to achieve the planning outcomes that they desired for non-compliant projects. Since then there has been some pushback and the Andrews government has already removed mandatory height limits and replaced them with discretionary height limits in certain areas making the sky the limit. We cannot afford to further weaken the controls governing neighbourhood residential zones and mandatory height limits need to be reinstated as soon as possible.

Stage 1, 2, 3 and 4

I can understand the arguments in favour of simplifying the planning rules to allow minor modifications to properties such as erecting a fence, garden shed, carport, adding a small extension to a house or a bay window without a permit, however, when it comes to larger projects, we need stronger regulations, adequate scrutiny by local government and stronger appeal rights for local residents who value the liveability of their suburbs.

For the reasons stated above, I disagree strongly with the smart planning initiative (stages 1, 2, 3 and 4) as I believe it will open the door to a proliferation of unwelcome and unwanted overdevelopment projects in many of our suburbs and that local government and the community will be disenfranchised and excluded from the planning process. That is not acceptable by any measure. I also take offence at the statement that members of the public are incapable of understanding strategic planning. The public who are living with the consequences of unsustainable population growth and over-development understand the implications of strategic planning better than anyone.

Simplifying the planning process to allow larger projects to proceed without adequate scrutiny by local government is inherently dangerous as it would open the door to over-development, poor quality projects and we would run the risk of creating the slum precincts of the future with all the associated problems.

Conclusion

We need stronger not weaker planning controls at the level of local government and more community involvement. We need to empower local government and communities by ensuring that projects other than minor modifications to existing properties are scrutinized by council in consultation with the community. It might be more time consuming and cumbersome however it will be well worth the additional effort if we can avoid a planning disaster while at the same time achieving better planning outcomes.

To achieve a good result, we need to give Councils the right to veto or modify a proposed development application and in the case of a disputed application that cannot be resolved at the level of local government, I would like to recommend that we replace VCAT by appointing a democratically elected community jury with the power to veto or modify a project.

2018 Election

Overpopulation, planning and overdevelopment and building safe, attractive and cohesive communities will be the over-riding themes in the upcoming election campaign. Any further action in relation to the proposed changes should be deferred until we elect a new government in 2018 to allow the people to decide whether or not they support further deregulation and privatisation of the planning process and the removal of appeal rights.

A. Walker
Committee Member
Ashburton Residents Action Group
PO Box 45
Ashburton Vic 3147.

[Address for submissions. ]The discussion paper fails to acknowledge fundamental truths about our modern society and how we live. The built environment profoundly affects residents, visitors, and indeed other species every day. As such, as in other disciplines, it is incumbent upon government to exercise the “Precautionary Principle” in how it plans for Victoria’s future. A fundamental part of proper planning is to acknowledge the importance of local input and longstanding local knowledge of an area. From the discussion paper on “Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions” residents have been excluded from the both the technical and advisory groups to the “Smart Planning” process. Long standing and hard fought for citizens’ rights, previously accepted and adopted into our Planning provisions have been swept away. What is proposed is government and developers operating as a combined growth machine pitted against the residents without residents even being given a seat at the table as a minority voice. Where has our democracy gone? [Candobetter.net editor: For a history of how this has come about in Victoria, check out our 'bad laws' section.]

The Victorian Planning Provisions Discussion Paper - Submission for Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch

The discussion paper fails to acknowledge fundamental truths about our modern society and how we live.

The built environment profoundly affects residents, visitors, and indeed other species every day. As such, as in other disciplines, it is incumbent upon government to exercise the “Precautionary Principle” in how it plans for Victoria’s future. A fundamental part of proper planning is to acknowledge the importance of local input and longstanding local knowledge of an area. From the discussion paper on “Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions” residents have been excluded from the both the technical and advisory groups to the “Smart Planning” process. Long standing and hard fought for citizens’ rights, previously accepted and adopted into our Planning provisions have been swept away. What is proposed is government and developers operating as a combined growth machine pitted against the residents without residents even being given a seat at the table as a minority voice. Where has our democracy gone?

We note the following property and professional groups are represented on the Advisory group

· Municipal Association of Victoria
· Australian Institute of Architects
· Building Designers Association of Victoria
· Housing Industry Association
· Master Builders Association of Victoria
· Planning Institute of Australia
· Property Council of Australia
· Urban Development Institute of Australia

Most of these Industry groups and associated organisations benefit directly or indirectly from the growth trajectory adopted by the current government, and the proposed changes further strengthen the influence of these vested interests. As residents, the largest and most diverse group to be impacted by proposed changes have been excluded, this cannot be described as an objective group to “strategically” plan for Victoria and Melbourne’s future.

A Smart Planning presentation to industry organised by the Planning Institute on 31 October, proposed the following reasons for the exclusion of the public from consultation:

· Members of the public are incapable of understanding strategic planning.

· Members of the public might initially object to changes to planning systems or specific developments but invariably ultimately accept them

· The large number of past reports into planning make further public consultation unnecessary.”

We address these three claims below.

1. This egregious slur on residents is outrageous. We question the need for the public be required to “understand strategic planning” in order not to have their environment eroded. However we also observe that many residents are extremely well informed about planning issues, especially as applied to their own areas, and the technicalities and imperatives involved. Indeed, we suggest that well informed residents probably number into the tens or hundreds of thousands of people – multiples more than the hand full of planners and other vested interest entities involved in the introduction of these proposed changes.

2. This claim is not supported with empirical evidence. Whilst it may be true that some members of the public might eventually accept changes to the planning scheme or local projects, this does not prove that they “invariably accept” those changes. Indeed, what you call “invariable acceptance” may actually be exhausted and dispirited resignation. Members of the public have other jobs – they are doctors, nurses, teachers, small business owners , retailers, physiotherapists , dentists- working long hours at their jobs with their own various areas of expertise. Why should they have their rights to peacefully enjoy where they live taken away without even being heard?

3. Whilst previous planning scheme iterations have usually included substantial public consultation, this should not mean that all of a sudden consultation can stop. Public opinion is not static, nor is the demographics and changing needs of various communities. As society changes and matures it is the government's job to ensure that measures to protect resident’s amenity, safety and peace continue to be effective. To do otherwise is an abrogation of this responsibility. The discussion paper gives the sense of urgency because of the scale and volume of change envisaged for Victoria which is of course driven by population growth welcomed and lobbied for by the development industry. This augers very badly for all Victorians. Government is riding roughshod over the people of Victoria who in 2014 handed them the responsibly of governing the state. With safeguards in place and a more normal rate of growth (rather than the turbo charged population growth that Melbourne in particular has experienced over recent years) residents should be able to trust local and state authorities to make changes largely in the interests of residents. It should not be necessary for residents to have to spend their time and energy on trying to maintain their quality of life. But, as things stand with no input from residents they will be certain to get exactly what they don’t want.

In summary:

Planning should be no different to other modern disciplines, where logic and reason is used to predict outcomes and develop strategies. However, in this discussion paper government has abandoned reason and logic and has instead embraced an ill informed and primitive view that infinite growth on a finite planet is possible and indeed even desirable (for those few ill informed, short sighted and primitive thinkers). Our planet, and by extension all national and local systems, are part of the “closed system” on planet Earth where water, soil, rare earth and other mineral resources are finite. The local and regional planning targeted in this discussion paper is fundamentally reliant on these finite resources. Building, transport, telecommunications, food production, power supply etc., indeed all of modern society’s activities, rely on systems which rely on these finite resources. It is therefore incumbent upon government to adopt a planning model which acknowledges that Earth’s resources are finite and so too must growth be finite. Your discussion paper ignores fundamental truths which is to all our detriments.

So, rather than members of the public being incapable of understanding strategic planning, we suggest that it is government, its planners and other vested interests responsible for the proposals outlined in this discussion paper, who are demonstrating a lack of strategic thinking and planning.

This discussion paper heralds massive changes to the built environment and massive population increases over which residents will have no control. The more change that is anticipated , the more say residents need to have. It is not the other way around as envisaged by this discussion paper.

Jill Quirk
Secretary, Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch
P.O. Box 556 Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122