New Residential Zones for Victoria discussion paper

The discussion paper by the Department of Planning and Community Development on New Residential Zones suggests that new residential zones are needed to meet the pressure of population growth in Melbourne and regional centres. The paper suggests that these new zones would reflect local planning policies.

• Keep single dwellings in the building permit system as much as possible

• Reduce the need for separate overlay controls

• Enable councils to vary the standard zone requirement to suit the variety of local circumstances

• Streamline the approval of developments that clearly meet the purposes of the zone and meet set criteria.

We support zoning controls that provide a clear linkage back to local structure plans and metropolitan and local housing objectives. We support the continued role of Councils and local communities to have a role in defining local strategies and remaining protagonists in the planning process - including maintaining third party appeal rights. We would support zoning that could provide greater housing yields in developments that met social objectives such as affordable housing, social housing and housing diversity, and provide greater certainty in appropriate locations.

• Planning schemes which are in accord with state planning policies especially Melbourne 2030

• Planning schemes which are approved of and signed off by local council and local communities

• Planning approvals which are consistent with ResCode and local design standards, and

• Planning applications which are subject to fair and appropriate assessment by Local Council and review processes

The clear aim of the new zones proposed in the discussion paper is to increase urban consolidation in the urban areas of Victoria. Urban consolidation can be defined as an increase in population and dwellings in the existing urban form of the city.

1. Government strategy and planning identifies suitable locations for redevelopment. Preferably these should be near public transport locations. Melbourne 2030 identifies over 100 principal and major mixed-use activity centres in the metropolitan area close to public transport. There have also been many brown field sites identified - often former industrial sites - for redevelopment as higher density housing.

2. Urban consolidation can occur through market led redevelopment of existing housing stock or building conversion throughout the city.

3. Consolidation is also about increasing urban densities on the urban fringe.

To enable sustainable high quality urban consolidation demands local and State Government producing good strategic planning and local plans.

In the discussion paper the Substantial Change Zone emphasises flexibility, certainty and the efficient use of the land. It also suggests that developments can be fast tracked and that complying developments can be exempt from notice and review at VCAT. It is not clear in the discussion paper how the Council's local plan or policy fits in to this zone, other than suggesting that zoning can have local variations.

It seems from reading the discussion paper that in future, zoning will drive new developments. For example Substantial Change Zones will include residential land close to services, facilities and public transport. The assumption is that invariably, this land is suitable for more intensive housing. This is an assumption that might not be true in reality and should be the subject of investigation in the local plans.

Assumptions about spare road space and public transport infrastructure needs to be closely examined and not just assumed, open space for higher density dwellers needs to be adequate, conservation, environmental and amenity issues need to be assessed.

For example areas of central Eltham may be close to amenities, but protecting the areas significant tree canopy are an important local planning consideration which would raise concerns of significantly higher housing densities including greater height. In Essendon heritage housing stock also needs to be preserved.

Local plans rather than zoning should be the driver of increased densities and new developments.

We believe that the new residential zones should better reflect local planning policies. They should not simply drive development by allowing urban consolidation as a right of developers. This appears to be the aim of both the Substantial Change Zone and Incremental Change Zone. This suggests that the discussion document is adopting a market orientated planning policy to urban consolidation. This approach may lessen the role of local Government and strengthen the role of individual applicants. Furthermore it could weaken the role of individual neighbours who live in a particular zone who may lose appeal rights.

Furthermore urban consolidation can also conflict with local employment goals when industrial or commercial sites are rezoned. There needs to be a greater sensitivity to local constraints and potentials. Zoning may not provide for this level of sensitivity. Such detailed planning can only be done in structure plans or strategic plans.

A key component of the urban consolidation agenda is to increase housing affordability and increase housing choice. Creating zones which fast track higher density does not necessarily achieve improved affordability or housing choice. In central Melbourne high-rise apartments have resulted in prices higher that the city's average. In other cases we have seen good urban design sacrificed for price savings. Instead of diversity we have seen entire areas redeveloped for students and young singles. In outer areas we have seen urban consolidation sacrifice public transport accessibility for price reductions.

The 'as of right' provisions will allow for larger developments which do not necessarily lead to greater affordability. For example the risk for areas close to the coast with high land values, such as Parkdale is that redevelopment will not be driven by affordability or choice but profit. Gradually the traditional residential pattern of Parkdale and Mordialloc will be replaced and less well off people squeezed out.

Furthermore these new zones could reduce the planning role of local Government. They could also reduce the rights of local communities to object or to voice community concerns. New residential zones should not sacrifice community involvement, or disregard local issues including environmental and amenity concerns. Communities must be able to participate in or influence the debates about the future of their suburb and city.

We believe the right to object and appeal the issuing of a planning permit is fundamental to our system of planning. If there is concern about the length of time that appeals take then we suggest a number of improvements to the system:

1. Clarify and improve Rescode to properly deal with the things that people don't like and are often the subject of appeals.
   

Define the things that developments have to do more clearly under Rescode in order to get a permit. This will reduce confusion for developers and some of the unnecessary conflicts between developers and residents

2. Produce a form for objections that outlines the legitimate planning grounds on which people can object to a development. Too often council time is taken up with dealing with issues that are not planning issues.

3. Define more clearly what starts and stops the clock on the 60 days in which the Council has to make a decision.

Most of the time, the clock is stopped because architects submit half baked plans that don't meet town planning requirements. Have the department develop for council a checklist of what is required for a planning permit application to be considered by the council.

4. Make it clearer to objectors appealing to VCAT the planning grounds on which they can object to a development.

Whilst there is value in letting residents have their day in Court, a legitimate ground of objection cannot just be that they just don't like a development. These grounds are invariable dismissed by VCAT, but only after a hearing that may take 1 to 1.5 days.

The discussion paper Making Local Policy Stronger correctly identifies that there is a disconnection between state and local planning policies and the distribution and type of residential zones. However we do not believe that the proposal for the new zones (as outlined in the discussion paper) adequately reconciles this disconnect.

State and local planning policies demonstrate that planning is not just about housing densities. Land use planning serves wider social, economic and environmental purposes. Historically land use planning has been used to improve public health by segregating industrial from residential land use, it has involved advancing the local aesthetic through improved urban design, it has sought to exclude heavy traffic from residential areas, it has encouraged local economic activity, it has protected historical buildings, it has sought the protection of local amenity and so on.

Good planning policy has been at the heart of Melbourne's reputation as one of the Worlds most liveable cities and as we look to solutions for our housing problems we need to ensure that liveability is firmly entwined with sustainable planning policies.

Increasing the ability of developers to build high density by right does not necessarily provide for good urban planning. In the discussion paper the only constraint on a new development in the Substantial Change Zone seems to be that it meets ResCode and local design standards.

ResCode and local design standards are discretionary in nature. They often use qualitative measures and use general language. In contrast, zoning is prescriptive, stating what you can and can't build. Zoning fails to assess the potentials or constraints of a given area. In a conflict about a development outcome, prescriptive zoning will generally win over descriptive codes and standards.

We also believe that the purpose of Substantial Change Zone and Incremental Change Zones emphasises consolidation but fails to emphasize affordability, liveability or diversity. If development is to be promoted there should be an affordability dividend for local communities. Urban consolidation should not simply be about housing yield, somehow dismissing the public policy aims of affordability, liveability and diversity of housing stock.

Unfortunately there is a real risk that the zones, as proposed, will create further resistance to urban consolidation, in areas of Melbourne undergoing substantial urban redevelopment. These new zones, if not implemented in accordance with strong community backing, and local council planning policies and schemes may alienate local communities and local government that have been successfully negotiating and implementing urban consolidation projects.

In areas that have resisted redevelopment, these proposed zones will provide further fuel to their resistance. These areas will continue to use heritage controls, resident opposition and council protectionist policies to limit new developments. They will have the added argument of taking away their rights as local communities to impact on local development.

There are advantages of incorporating diverse residential zoning in planning schemes. However they should assist the implementation of local plans and not just drive denser development.

A further concern for residents is that many councils have not upgraded planning schemes which leave residents under constant threat from large scale developments which are inappropriate. Melbourne 2030 clearly identifies areas for greater intensity of housing options, and there needs to be a clear protection for residents outside these areas.