Victoria’s Housing Statement, released in September 2023, set a target of 800,000 homes to be delivered by 2034. Industry rumblings have queried whether any substantial actions have occurred in the last year to achieve the lofty targets. One of the initiatives nominated 10 activity centres to accommodate an additional 60,000 homes by 2051. Some of the nominated activity centres, such as Frankston and Preston, had relatively advanced Council-led structure planning already under way at the time of the announcement.
In line with a commitment that the structure planning would be finalised by the end of 2024, draft activity centre plans for the 10 nominated centres have been released for consultation. The plans for these 10 centres foreshadow a model which the State Government envisages it can roll out across other activity centres to streamline the structure planning/amendment pathway in the future, which will ostensibly manage expectations about built form and interface issues to theoretically enable quicker delivery of housing. It also flags the need for a simplified infrastructure funding mechanism which has regard to the activity centre plans.
The ten centres include North Essendon, Niddrie (Keilor Road) ‒ these two centres have been combined as part of the structure planning process ‒ Broadmeadows, Epping, Preston (High Street), Ringwood, Camberwell Junction, Chadstone, Frankston, and Moorabbin. The activity centres all have different dwelling provision requirements (i.e. Broadmeadows requires 3,000 to 4,500 dwellings by 2051, while Camberwell requires 7,500 to 10,100 dwellings).
The plans (available here) nominate activity centre cores (traditional commercial cores), plus walkable catchments extending 800 metres from the non-residential areas of the core where increased housing density is also anticipated. While increased density around activity centres sounds obvious and is theoretically a ‘longstanding state policy’, in reality it has not always materialised (hello, old friend Neighbourhood Residential Zone). The activity centre program seeks to provide clearer direction on the level of growth needed in these locations, which typically encompasses ‘walkable’ land within 800 metres of non-residential areas of activity centres.
The extent of the catchment area is nicely demonstrated here with Camberwell Junction:
The activity centre plans expressly acknowledge that the […] preferred planning tool for the catchments is to be confirmed. It is not proposed to remove heritage overlays through new provisions. The Camberwell Junction plan clearly demonstrates most of the catchment area is within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone AND heavily impacted by the Heritage Overlay. Is it really feasible that 3 to 6 storeys will be achievable in this area?
In reviewing some of the draft activity centre plans, we note:
On first review, the draft plans appear to be highly focussed on built form outcomes with less consideration of other issues than would typically be addressed in a traditional activity centre structure plan.
For example, there is little discussion of the public realm initiatives, streetscape and access improvements or open space provision required to support significant growth, other than a general acknowledgment that these will be required. The plans reference the exploration of options for a new simplified and standardised infrastructure funding approach, but there is no spatial analysis or guidance as to where these investments will be needed or should be directed.
The boundaries are also more widely drawn than is often the case for traditional structure plans, with the inclusion of the 800-metre catchment area around each core in which significant intensification of up to 6 storeys is foreshadowed. In many cases, new planning controls will be needed to facilitate this kind of change where current NRZ or GRZ zoning limits height to 2 or 3 storeys.
Whilst this is a well-founded initiative, it is also unclear how much the catchment areas are being relied upon to contribute towards the overall target of 60,000 new homes, and what assumptions have been made about potential site consolidation, which is likely to be required to enable apartments towards the higher end of the 3 to 6 storey range.
In terms of process, the actual mechanism to give effect to the activity centre plans (rezoning/introduction of an overlay) is still being resolved. The activity centre plans will be listed as background documents in Clause 72.08 of the planning schemes.
We commend the Victorian Planning Authority for delivering the draft activity centre plans for comment and the expected timeframes for delivery of the project. It’s encouraging to see some tangible outcomes giving effect to the Housing Statement.
We have assumed that the building envelopes have been derived following detailed modelling of the various constraints. The setback, deep soil planting and overshadowing measures nominated for some centres will limit what can be developed and, in some places, modest building heights for activity centres will further stymy development/impact the ability to realise the dwelling numbers required. However, it appears that there is an expectation for more heavy lifting in the surrounding catchments (which will then potentially need to deal with Heritage Overlays and neighbourhood character constraints).
It is imperative that people assess how the proposed controls may impact existing landholdings or projects within each of these centres and provide feedback via the Engage Victoria website.
Ratio Consultants can assist with the provision of due diligence planning advice on the draft plans and have in-house urban design capability to model potential built form outcomes and scenarios for individual sites and precincts.
