After more than 30 years as a practising town planner, I confess to some disillusionment with where the industry is heading in Victoria, particularly in Metropolitan Melbourne.
Legislation has changed, and will keep changing, in pursuit of ‘Better decisions made faster’. For some matters, it is certainly faster. But is it better?
I should first acknowledge that Melbourne has consistently been recognised as one of the most liveable cities in the world. We’ve been doing something right. Town planning plays only a part in that achievement, but I do think it is something our industry can be proud of.
I should also acknowledge that, in my experience, processes of review usually result in better outcomes. I say ‘usually’ because I sometimes lament decisions made by various review bodies. But I can think of many circumstances where processes of independent review, informed by consultation, varying opinions and tested evidence, have improved community outcomes for both present and future generations. This is only possible by having third party input and forums for legitimate, inclusive debate on matters that are often complex, multi-faceted and sometimes subjective.
That said, something had to change. The approvals processes and systems of review that served us so well in the past had become too uncertain, too costly and too time consuming. And, dare I say it, too inclusive and too political.
In my opinion an underlying reason is the two levels of planning authority and governance that we have: State government and local government.
In my opinion:
One of the main difficulties with the current system is that both levels are subject to the whims of short-term political cycles, with associated funding. Most people oppose ‘change’ and urban intensification in their backyards. To date, few political leaders, certainly at the local government level, have ever been re-elected on a platform of local change in the interests of the broader metropolitan good.
In fairness, it is perhaps unreasonable to expect local governments to embrace such matters, but the result was often ‘locally focussed’ decision making that did not always serve broader metropolitan needs. Too many things needlessly required permits, too many Council decisions were tainted or influenced by local politics, and it was too easy to oppose matters and challenge decisions through VCAT. And, when matters did reach VCAT, Members’ hands were often tied by a planning framework that had been allowed to become too locally focussed and too heavily weighted towards things like neighbourhood character over broader urban consolidation objectives, though I acknowledge that in some areas this was warranted.
Similarly, I believe State government should be more concerned with State-wide planning issues. Historically, it has been cautious about imposing change on local government areas for the betterment of the broader metropolis for fear of local political backlash.
Only more recently, in light of things like the current housing crisis and associated societal frustrations, has the State government (via the DTP) been more prepared to take on some of local government’s planning powers and facilitate initiatives that address broader community needs such as housing and transport. It is a rare ‘perfect political window’ where the YIMBYs now have more community and political influence than the NIMBYs.
While there is some merit in the increase in State government involvement, it could be argued that the balance has now shifted too far, both in the powers taken and in the reduction of discretion and review. And given that this approach is all subject to politics, it may all be revisited if there is a change in government.
This back-and-forth could have been avoided or eased, at least in Metropolitan Melbourne, had there remained a middle tier of governance.
There used to be a metropolitan planning authority known as the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW). While it was initially responsible for planning for essential utilities like sewerage, drainage and major roads, the MMBW became the de facto, unelected planning authority for Melbourne from around 1944 until 1987.
I still lament not having a dedicated Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) that would transcend local government boundaries for the benefit of the broader metropolis, not be subject to political intervention, and have its own system of governance and funding. This would have enabled the considered and coordinated oversight of metropolitan–scale matters to address various emerging and important community needs such as housing, employment, transport, education and recreation. It would also have enabled these matters to be considered at a metropolitan level, rather than being limited by local government boundaries and short-term political cycles.
But, like always, we have to work with the system currently at play. A correction was certainly required, but has it gone too far?
I have no qualms with providing greater certainty and enabling quicker decision-making, particularly in and around activity centres and other strategic locations. In fact, I support it. My experience with developer clients has been that many of the changes are achieving these worthy objectives. Tick for this. Very little has been built yet, but at least town planning isn’t part of the problem.
Standardised provisions reduce uncertainty and make decision-making easier and quicker. But the new provisions come at a cost: less consideration of actual merits (through tick-a-box, deemed-to-comply provisions) and less consultation, review and independent scrutiny. It concerns me that ‘character’ and good urban design have been reduced to simplistic formulas and complex canopy tree provisions.
So, are we achieving better outcomes? Or will we end up with poorly designed, unattractive low-to-midrise buildings that erode what used to make Melbourne so liveable and renowned?
The truth is, we don’t know yet. Only high-end developments, which are typically of a good design standard, currently stack up commercially and are being constructed. It will only be when other lower-standard developments are being constructed that we will really know whether the current provisions are adequate. Let’s see. Maybe leaving good design to self-regulate through the market will work, but I have my doubts when looking at the walk up flats of the 1960s and 1970s as historical examples.
Some might say ‘who cares?’, and I have some sympathy with that. One of the most important basic human needs is having a place to live in that is affordable, conveniently located, secure and fit for purpose. Given the current housing crisis, we haven’t delivered on that front. But can’t there also be room for some degree of analysis and review to ensure we end up with good community outcomes, even when all the boxes are ticked? Surely this can be done in a manner that doesn’t compromise the worthy goals of certainty and speedy decision-making?
I also believe there is still merit in having genuine consultation and independent review processes for larger strategic matters that will shape the future form and function of places. This includes processes that formulate and apply new planning rules, and certainly complex matters like PSPs and larger structure plans. These are invariably improved when subjected to independent processes of review and informed by consultation, varying opinions and tested evidence. This includes input from local Councils.
I am conscious that my opinions might be seen as tainted by self-interest. It is true that, as a broader industry, we have all benefited from the subjectivity of many planning considerations and the wide–ranging and inclusive nature of consultation and review. I might be on my way out, but I do worry about the future of town planning as a profession if we accept that complex matters can be shoehorned into a one–size–fits–all process. Good town planning, and good decision–making, should be more than this.
I’m not suggesting we undo what has been done. There is a lot of good in the changes that have been made and as mentioned, a correction was required. Rather, my wish is for some targeted adjustments that would enable a more nuanced and sophisticated review of planning proposals to ensure they result in net community benefit for present and future generations.
