collie_BLOG

This week Collie attended the VPELA hot topics seminar.  One of the presenters was Mark Dwyer, Deputy President, VCAT.

Mark outlined the new practice notes which were released by VCAT on 15 March 2012, some of which have impacts on the Planning and Environment List and many of which seek to speed up the VCAT process and simplify proceedings.

Mark also provided some interesting statistics, including:

• of the 90,000 cases considered by VCAT each year, only 4,000 are on the Planning and Environment List;
• the median time for consideration of matters on the Planning and Environment List is 23 weeks (although it was acknowledged that early resolution of many simple cases significantly reduces this median time);
• 20 per cent of cases take more than 33 weeks for consideration, while 6 per cent take longer than 41 weeks;
• Section 87a applications (amendments to permits previously issued at the direction of VCAT) now make up 10 per cent of cases on the Planning and Environment List.

It should be acknowledged that the actions of parties to many VCAT cases are often the cause for delays but no doubt funding has a significant impact on time limits.  Nevertheless, it is positive to hear that VCAT is considering ways in which the time to hear cases can be reduced.

The ‘Gateway’ new community development project is now underway in Truganina South with the opening recently of the sales centre on the corner of Sayers Road and Palmers Road.

Sales in the Central Equity Land Corporation project are progressing well, following the issue of the planning permit by Wyndham City Council.

Collie is pleased to be providing town planning, urban design and landscape architecture services on the project.

Contact Mike Collie (mjsc@colliepl.com.au)

The Minister for Planning recently issued a media release that announced the Planning Permit Activity Report for 2010-11. The media release celebrated an increase in planning and development activity and the total number of planning permit decisions, including ‘highlights’ such as:
• 2.5 per cent increase in applications lodged;
• 29.4 per cent increase in the estimated cost of works;
• 9.8 per cent increase in the number of applications where public notice is required;
• 9.9 per cent increase in applications where further information is required;
• 9.2 per cent increase in applications being referred to a referral authority;
• 4.1 per cent increase in average time to make a decision.

It should also be noted that the average time it takes to make a decision is up to 76 days, this is 16 days longer than the prescribed time limit of 60 days (or 26.6 per cent longer than the prescribed time limit). It should also be mentioned that these figures come out at a time when it is taking around 9 months to get a standard hearing at VCAT (the major cases list aside).

We wouldn’t label these figures as ‘highlights’, more like ‘lowlights’! Shoudn’t we be encouraging, where appropriate, a reduction in the need for planning permits to try and make our planning system run more efficiently? Shouldn’t we be trying to make government more accountable for decisions within the prescribed time? We find it no surprise, with the increased number of application referrals and the lengthening wait for a VCAT hearing, that the average time limit for applications is now out to well beyond the prescribed time limit. Without some reform in this area, these time limits will only continue to increase.

The headline in today’s Age ‘Melbourne’s sick suburbs’ is an interesting reminder about the roots of the town planning profession. Oddly however, while early instances of ‘town planning’ focused on separating houses from each other (and from other land uses) in order to avoid the spread of disease, today’s newspaper article highlights the health problems associated with having houses that are too far removed from other uses. In particular, the Age article highlights health issues and problems associated with new houses that are too far removed from key supporting services and facilities, and the resulting reliance that this disconnect creates on cars as a principle mode of transport. (The article also refers to the prevalence of bottle shops in some communities – but that’s another issue altogether!).

In previous blog articles we have highlighted the merits of encouraging higher density residential development in infill locations. One of the key advantages of infill housing is that it’s not dependent on the construction of new parks, hospitals, schools or public transport – rather it can utilise the range of services and facilities that already exist in the area (recognising, of course, that some of those existing services and facilities often need to be upgraded to cope with the additional demand).

But that’s not to say that higher density ‘infill’ housing is the only option or even the best option for meeting housing needs. On the contrary, that new suburbs have a vital role to play in helping meet the demand for extra housing in Melbourne and in ensuring that an appropriate balance and variety of housing options are available. But those new suburbs must be well designed and provided for in terms of sustainable living.

The key challenge with new suburbs is to co-ordinate the timing of all of the components that contribute to a successful new community and to manage the delivery of those various components in an efficient, logical and timely manner. This continues to be a governments / industry wide challenge – for example: governments have a responsibility to ensure that sufficient land is available to allow growth to occur as well as a responsibility to plan and provide for parks, libraries, sports facilities and so on; developers have a responsibility to ensure that land areas are well laid out (that they provide for the right mix of land uses in the right areas) and that the built form is appropriate to the local needs; and, Government has a responsibility to provide key infrastructure including public transport and schools. Communication and coordination between the key players is vital.

The issues and problems that the Age article highlights aren’t the result of poor urban design – rather, they are the result of poor planning in its broadest sense; of infrastructure delivery not keeping pace with housing development. The real message here is that to create truly happy and healthy new communities there needs to be better communication and coordination between all of the businesses, organisations and agencies that have a role to play.

The team at Collie would like to congratulate Sophie Jordan for winning the ‘2012 Rising Star Scholarship’. Sophie was awarded the scholarship for her essay ‘Woman and Home: An Investigation into Equitable Forms of Housing’.

Sophie is currently working at Collie as part of a formal work placement while she completes the final year of her planning course at RMIT.

Well done Sophie!!

The Minister for Planning, Matthew Guy, was the guest speaker at the UDIA monthly luncheon on 2 March.

The Minister spoke about the need to provide further growth and development opportunities in Victoria by continuing to reform the planning system. He referred to the recent relaxation of rules for bulky goods retailers as an example of how changing the Victorian Planning Provisions can stimulate new economic development and jobs (For more information about the ‘bulky goods announcement’ see our blog article dated 20 January).

The Minister also mentioned a number of possible future changes to the planning system, including:
• introducing timeframes to key stages of the planning scheme amendment process;
• extending the provisions and application of the ‘Small Lot Housing Code’ to metropolitan areas (theY currently only apply in growth areas);
• introducing ‘code assessments’ in relation to other aspects of the planning system such as simple subdivisions;
• reviewing and updating the zone provisions (including in relation to non-residential zones);
• encouraging Councils to limit the number of ‘conditions’ attached to Section 2 land uses.

We look forward to finding out more details about these changes over the coming months.

Enquiries to Aran Barker (awb@colliepl.com.au).

The Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association (VPELA) held an interesting seminar on 28 February regarding “the key ingredients to building sustainable growth area communities”. A panel of speakers led by Jane-Frances Kelly from the Grattan Institute and Brian Haratsis from MacroPlan engaged in lively debate.

The Grattan Institute is certainly establishing itself as a leading urban research organization in Melbourne and readers should keep a look out for its latest release in March regarding cities and social connection.

Brian Haratsis was, as usual, thought provoking. He argued that our growth areas are “over-planned, over-regulated and have under-delivered”. Probably a fairly accurate summary. He called for a more polycentric approach to development and the need to plan more for jobs and activity centres with genuine mixed uses. He noted that current planning for growth areas is caught up in urban design and residential development, whereas true sustainability requires a more enterprise based approach focusing on the ‘primacy of employment’.

Kelvin Walsh from Hume City Council reminded us that it was local government that generally inherited the end results – good and bad. He noted that green fields were not a ‘blank canvas’ and that development needed to respect the natural and historical context so as to create unique places for future communities to live.

Tony Johnson from Villawood Properties provided a developers perspective. He was particularly concerned about the time it took for a precinct structure plan (PSP) to materialize. Is such a process itself sustainable? Do the results justify the time and cost? How flexible will the plan be to change? These are all valid questions and the PSP process needs to be monitored to ensure that it is continually improved.

Steve Dunn from the Growth Areas Authority battled hard to defend his organization, but the role of co-coordinating so many government interests is clearly not an easy one. Without a whole of government approach to urban development the implementation of any plan will be difficult to achieve.

All speakers noted that it was usually the implementation of the plan that was the key ingredient that was missing. Whilst infrastructure such as roads, public transport, schools, community services and so on are often planned for growth areas, the public sector investment required to deliver the infrastructure generally lags well behind.

So the ultimate question then becomes – who pays? Perhaps that’s a topic for another seminar.

Collie has provided 3 Point Motors with town planning services over a number of years. Previously, Collie obtained planning permits for 3 Point Motors to undertake a commercial and used car dealership on Heidelberg Road, Fairfield as well as a planning permit for the redevelopment of the dealership at Heidelberg Road, Alphington (which has now been fully constructed).

More recently, Collie has been involved in obtaining an amended planning permit to facilitate the refurbishment of the 3 Point Motors dealership on Denmark Street, Kew.

The original planning permit for the dealership was issued in 1996 and included a condition prohibiting vehicle servicing to be carried out on the site. As a result, after sales vehicle servicing and repairs, identified as an integral part of the dealership operations, had to be undertaken off-site.

The amended planning permit, issued by Boroondara City Council in early 2012, allows for vehicle servicing to occur on the site and includes the provision of a workshop within the building, along with additional customer car parking and valet service.

In addition, the amended planning permit allows for a refurbishment of the dealership inside and out. The facade of the building will be altered to respond to internal design standards required for all Mercedes Benz dealerships and will generally improve the appearance of the building. New signage will add to the facelift that the building will receive.

Along with the provision of vehicle servicing bays in the building, the display floor and staff and customer amenities will also be improved. All in all, the refurbishment of 3 Point Kew will provide a much improved dealership for customers and staff alike.

3 Point Motors, Heidelberg Road, Alphington

Jay Hollerich from Collie recently presented expert planning evidence to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in relation to the development of a single dwelling at Beach Road, Hampton (the development site).

Collie became involved with the project with the matter already being considered by VCAT following determination by the Bayside City Council that the proposal was prohibited under the terms of Schedule 1 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO1).

Collie was then involved in organising the team to present the matter to VCAT, including subsequent discussions regarding amendments to the proposed design to ensure that the proposal was permissible under the DDO1. Amended plans were distributed in early December 2011, in advance of the hearing in January 2012.

Beach Road, Hampton

The proposal represented a high quality architectural outcome for the site, albeit acknowledging that the proposed dwelling was large in scale and contemporary in appearance. Beach Road is synonymous with large, modern dwellings. Despite this, the neighbourhood character statement for the area does not acknowledge this characteristic of Beach Road and the development site and immediately adjacent properties are occupied by more modest, older building stock that are expected to be redeveloped in the future.

The VCAT case was run successfully on the basis that the development site and immediately adjacent properties presented opportunities for future redevelopment commensurate with the value of land and with other development elsewhere along Beach Road.

Following his review of the proposal, the VCAT member concluded that the dwelling “will be an attractive, well designed building that will have an interesting built form, generally consistent with the decision guidelines of the overlay that require it to be in keeping with the character of the area”.

We are pleased that a planning permit has been issued for the dwelling (subject to conditions) at the direction of VCAT and look forward to following construction on this interesting project.

Beach Road, Hampton

A recent media release by the Minister for Planning Matthew Guy identified opportunities to expand the Melbourne central business district (CBD) through the construction of high rise development beyond the Hoddle Grid, Docklands and Southbank.

The Minister identified opportunities for high rise development to include Fishermans Bend, E-Gate on its western edge, St Kilda Road in the south and towards Melbourne University on the northern side. He stated that “many people are concerned about high rise towers dominating quiet suburban streets, so we need to ask if high rise should be primarily concentrated in the inner city to take growth pressure off Melbourne’s existing suburbs”.

Media reports often associate achieving ‘higher density’ residential development with the construction of towers and tall buildings, such as those featured in Docklands, as the only way to relieve growth pressures on the urban fringe and to protect the existing suburbs. What is often overlooked as an alternative to the proliferation of towers within the inner city is ‘higher density’ development between three and six or eight storeys in height in appropriate locations including in inner suburbs and the areas noted in the press release.

Docklands, Victoria, Australia

There are many successful and popular cities around the world (particularly in Europe) that support high population densities without large numbers of very tall buildings. One such example is Malmo in Sweden which we wrote about in an earlier blog. Mike and Jenny Collie visited Malmo last year and were impressed with the ‘human scale’ that has been achieved by restricting building heights to avoid tall towers. Malmo ‘new town’ nevertheless, has a density which is about eight times higher than typical Australian urban areas.

A recent report titled ‘Transforming Australian Cities,’ (City of Melbourne 2010) explored practical issues and opportunities around increasing residential densities in Australia. The report contends that “no new building needs to be higher than 6-8 storeys to achieve high density compact cities in the future”. The report estimates that by building development between 4 and 8 storeys “it will be possible to accommodate an additional 2.4 million people on a mere 6 per cent of potential redevelopment sites dotted along Melbourne bus and tram routes’.

Recognising and understanding that ‘high density’ does not necessarily mean ‘tower’ will lead to more constructive discussion about the need for higher densities and will provide a better decision making basis for future planning of Melbourne.

We acknowledge that high rise towers have a role in providing diversity of housing choice, and as landmark features, but they are not the panacea to urban growth.

Malmo, Sweden