Originally published as an editorial under a joint by line with Tim Westcott and Gida Di Vincenzo in Planning News 34, no. 6 (July 2008): 4.
It is a busy time in planning. The government’s announcement last month of new “Development Assessment Committees” (DACs) to make planning decisions in Melbourne 2030’s Principal Activity Centres (and other – as yet unspecified – sites of metropolitan significance) is just one aspect of a fast-changing planning environment. It occurs alongside the potentially game-changing review of the residential zones; the introduction of the Urban Growth Zone; the fallout from the Eddington Report; and with the still-mysterious review of the Act looming on the horizon.
In this context, it’s a shame that the kerfuffle over the proposed DACs largely overshadowed one of the most important recent attempts to pause and take stock. The report of the Melbourne 2030 Audit Expert Group (AEG) was released simultaneously with the government’s response to it, and it was overshadowed by the story of the DACs and their implicit threat to the role of local government. This is unfortunate, as the AEG report is a solid, well-considered stock take of where we now stand. It mounts a spirited defence of the core ideas of Melbourne 2030, but is also admirably clear in spelling out how its implementation has fallen short.
The report notes underperformance in several key areas: insufficient progress in directing growth from the fringe to activity centres; lack of significant residential or mixed use development near activity centres; and insufficient commitment to public transport infrastructure. Of course, these are failings that cut to the core of what Melbourne 2030 is all about. The AEG argue that while some latitude can be given at this point, there is a need to reverse these trends over the next five years. Given the magnitude of changes to the city’s development required, and the timeframes involved in strategic planning and infrastructure provision, that amounts to a call for very urgent action.
What to make, then, of the government’s headline response, the establishment of DACs? A common response has been to withhold judgement, noting that it is currently difficult to be sure what to make of the DAC process until we have more information about how it will work. While understandable, such a non-response doesn’t get us very far. For our own part, having been critical only last month of the lack of progress in implementation of activity centre planning, it would be churlish not to welcome, in-principle, the effort to kick-start the development process in these areas. When the current system struggles to deliver a development approval for a no-brainer like the Camberwell Station carpark – an optimally located site that is unencumbered by significant buildings, amply separated from residential properties, and adjoining multi-storey office development – then the case for a circuit breaker becomes compelling.
It is crucial that the queries about the DACs are resolved as quickly as possible; not just because the Melbourne 2030 implementation can’t wait, but also to allay fears of what the new model involves. The announcement of the committees hot on the heels of the auditor-general’s report on the performance of the system, while presumably coincidental, gave the impression of a local government sector being “softened up” for a dilution of its role: many in the local government sector will be wary that the DACs represent the first tentative step to a wider shift of planning powers to a system of expert panels resembling the South Australian model. However, even if this were the case, the key question is whether that is a good thing. The DACs will be a chance to find out.
It is interesting, however, that the government did not pursue the option of vesting the power with the Minister, who could act on the advice of an expert committee along the lines of the DACs. Planning For All of Melbourne, the government’s response to the audit group’s report, notes the successful trial of such a model in Dandenong and Footscray, but doesn’t advocate widening this approach because it “still relies on the Minister ‘taking over’ the responsibility from the Council.” But Councils’ loss of responsibility is a given in either model: the question is who it is surrendered to. Given the AEG’s strong view that there needs to be clearer responsibility for M2030’s implementation, the choice to create yet another sphere of control is perplexing. Did the government not want the responsibility? Was it feared decision-making might bog down at DPCD as it now does at Councils? There are advantages to decision-makers being at arm’s length from government, but it does also raise the spectre of the committees inheriting VCAT’s traditional role as the scapegoat for unpopular Melbourne 2030-related decisions.
Another key feature of the AEG report was its call for substantial increases in funding for public transport in growth areas. This sensible recommendation, of course, comes as the government ponders the implications of the Eddington report. It remains puzzling that the government, having just prepared the 2004 Linking Melbourne and 2006 Meeting Our Transport Challenges documents, would outsource a policy study of one transport axis in isolation: that the study then recommended the most extravagant transport infrastructure expenditure in the state’s history has already given it a severe case of infrastructure indigestion. Add further improvements in growth areas and the government is starting to look at quite a shopping list. Further investment is long overdue, but like any cash-strapped shopper, the government needs to ask if Sir Rod’s luxury items aren’t going to blow the budget for the meat and potatoes.
None of the above comments are statements of PIA policy on these matters, and in this context it is perhaps apt to close by emphasising the dual role of Planning News. The magazine will always serve a role in reporting the Institute’s formal views, and the processes for members to contribute to them (as with Knowles Tivendale’s article about the Eddington Report last month). However, it is also vital that at the same time we provide a forum for viewpoints quite apart from PIA’s formal ones. A fast-moving and diverse policy environment necessitates a fast-moving and diverse discussion. The next twelve months is likely to fundamentally change our planning framework: wide debate is vital for the health not just of the profession, but of the city itself.
The AEG report can be downloaded here.