Melbourne is a wonderful city, but is it really a genuinely ‘liveable’ city if an ever-growing proportion of our community cannot afford to buy or rent a dwelling?
It is one of our industry’s most fundamental failures that, in terms of the basic necessities of life, being able to afford a place to live is becoming more and more difficult for a growing proportion of our community.
I acknowledge town planning is not the only panacea to what is a very complex issue. However, facilitating ‘supply’ in appropriate locations is something we can influence, and it does make a difference.
A lot has recently been said and written about impending town planning measures to address the current housing crisis. I look forward to any proactive measures that will assist in identifying and freeing up land for housing, creating certainty, improving approvals timelines, and taking the ‘politics’ out of decision-making.
However, I would like to explore the question of whether, when undertaking the ‘net community benefit’ balancing act, we are placing too much emphasis on matters such as neighbourhood character and heritage, and not enough emphasis on ensuring the community can afford a place to live.
I acknowledge character and heritage are two important components of liveability that should be celebrated and enjoyed ‒ this is what sets Melbourne apart. While there is no point in robbing Peter to pay Pauline, it is equally important to ensure our house prices aren’t prohibitively high – if not for ourselves, then for future generations?
In areas which are obvious candidates for urban consolidation and renewal, is the weight of planning policy (often historically drafted and/or not independently scrutinised) too heavily weighted in favour of maintaining the status quo based on matters such as neighbourhood character and heritage?
We often lament local government decision making and are sometimes disappointed by VCAT rulings. But – in most cases, are they just responding to the planning scheme provisions are they presently exist?
Case in point ‒ and with a view to being provocative – in the example below, should the Heritage Overlay be restricted to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone areas only and away from the main road abuttals? Should local neighbourhood character policy be adjusted to make a distinction between properties sleeving main roads and Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN), and / or in or near Activity Centres, compared to the hinterland areas beyond?
Activity Centres
It sounds like a common sense proposal, but think again. In the above example, the Heritage Overlay applied to properties abutting a main road / the PPTN (in the General Residential Zone, which has been adjusted to allow 4-storey development) relegates the site from a ‘substantial change area’ (without the Heritage Overlay) to a ‘minimal change area’ (with the Heritage Overlay). As a consequence, community expectations are created, the matter ends up before VCAT, and VCAT has to adjudicate a tricky matter where some planning provisions recommend putting one foot on the brake, and others recommend putting one foot on the accelerator.
I’m not a heritage expert, but given (in this case) the desire is to protect a precinct characterised by Victorian and Federation buildings, wouldn’t there be enough examples of these in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone areas to ensure the community has an enduring appreciation of this era of development? Maybe, with the exception of individually significant buildings, and again using the above example, should the Heritage Overlay be repealed from land in the General Residential Zone abutting a main road / the PPTN?
Is it a reasonable community compromise to accept this outcome, and the resultant loss of heritage stock and changes to the character and amenity of the locale, in order to enable the provision of new housing in highly desirable and appropriate location?
In a perfect world, zones, overlays and policies would all be in perfect alignment. They usually are not, however, and it would be an immense job to achieve this alignment. On one view it is not realistic to expect that this alignment will happen – certainly not in the short term, and not without a lot of political courage.
Do we have the time to wait and hope that planning schemes will be amended to ensure urban consolidation is given more weight in decision-making in appropriate locations (e.g. in or near activity centres or abutting main roads that form part of the PPTN)? Or, is the problem of housing affordability now so dire that we should consider adjusting our planning schemes immediately to ensure urban consolidation objectives and outcomes are given a leg-up?
Clause 71.02-3 contains the following clause (with my emphasis):
The Planning Policy Framework operates together with the remainder of the scheme to deliver integrated decision making. Planning and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of planning policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations. However, in bushfire affected areas, planning and responsible authorities must prioritise the protection of human life over all other policy considerations.
This is totally understandable. After all, what’s the point in planning for our communities if we don’t prioritise the protection of human life over all other relevant considerations (noting I believe this should be a general principle, and not just restricted to bushfire areas).
Yet, is the housing crisis now so serious and crippling that planning policy should also be adjusted to prioritise urban consolidation in certain locations?
Could this clause also be used to achieve other important community needs, such as housing supply and affordability in logical locations?
Consider this potential ‘quick fix’ alternative:
The Planning Policy Framework operates together with the remainder of the scheme to deliver integrated decision making. Planning and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of planning policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations. However:
Yes, the above fix is a piecemeal approach. And yes, there are important logistical issues as well – what does ‘around’ an activity centre or train station mean? Within 200m or 400m?
However, using Clause 71.02-3 in a manner like this (effectively, as a policy ‘trump card’) may be an appropriate and relatively straightforward way to address common tensions in planning schemes and provide an immediate ‘fix’ that may assist decision-makers and developers, and ultimately the broader community, in responding to the present housing crisis.
The current housing affordability situation has got to a point where we, as a profession, need to look at all sorts of ways to increase the supply and diversity of housing in logical locations. Maybe we need to recalibrate what is more important to us as a community – at least in a targeted fashion. The above suggestion would be just one small part of an overall response, but it sends a clear message and just may make a difference.
