Posted 24/9/06
7th September 06
2030 is about increasing in a sensible way for natural growth and migration.
There is an economic benefit to urban consolidation.
There is a 25 year supply of development land on the fringe, but want to reduce fringe development to 28% of total and rest in Activity Centres.
There are a number of centres Footscray, Frankston, Dandenong, already taken over by the Minister of Planning, plus 2 more not yet taken over and Vic Urban will develop the whole of these areas.
There is need for 23,000 dwellings per year.
He claimed that M2030 does not set down what has to happen in Activity Centres.
He claimed that M2030 had community input before it was brought in and it protects what the community want protected.
He claimed that M2030 provides people with choices in an aging society.
He claimed that Melbourne is not a very dense city eg East Melbourne is low density and there is ample scope for development and Melbourne is not going to be like Hong Kong.
About one third of the houses being built are dual occupancy – all over Melbourne.
People downsizing prefer a unit rather than a 5 story building and young families like to set up a new house on the frontier.
In 2005 the government rezoned a large area for development outside its own growth boundary.
The reason the price of land has increased is because the developers paid too high in the scramble to get land when the growth boundaries were introduced.
It is cheaper to develop here than in Sydney.
M2030 may succeed a little bit and it is this little bit that is so worrying, for example, it will succeed in Boroondara, and Bayside etc where it is already over congested.
And no one gives up their cars - all flats need 2 car spaces even in inner city.
The deal to control infill has not been honoured – that was the promise with introducing Activity Centres. When infill takes place, all vegetation goes. This is a fundamental change all across Melbourne.
Vancouver is not unlike Melbourne and the demands are the same.
Vancouver has taken over world’s No. 1 "Liveability" rating from Melbourne.
In Vancouver, they have and are planning properly. They have divided areas into large squares which provide for sustainability.
He criticized Activity Centres and talked about architectural and physical incompatibility. He said there is a lot in M2030 that is not specific and it lacks design standards. Just putting up high rise anywhere is wrong.
He said in Vancouver, they keep developers and architects on a tight leash.
There are new areas being established on the fringes of Vancouver along carefully planned sustainability design principles. He spelt out 7 principles which were very impressive. They will accommodate an extra 2 million by 2056 in a sustainable way.
He said it was a big mistake to have towers dropped into nice low level residential areas. Along arterial roads, they have 4 story buildings popping up which are much cheaper than towers. Vancouver do not support towers except in downtown (the city) and waterfront – (our docklands)
He said good design should show a ‘friendly face’ to the street, and towers do not have a friendly face.
You need:
Shade by trees
Jobs close to home
Access to parks
Cheaper, smarter infrastructure
In Vancouver they move very slowly and have lots of time to have community participation in planning.
At Question Time
Margot C spoke strongly saying she has been involved with planning since the 70’s and had been a strong opponent of Kennett and Maclellan good design and had high hopes of improvement under the Bracks Government but is now full of disappointment and believes the planning process and outcomes are the worst that Melbourne has had to face.
The concern has spread beyond Melbourne to outer areas like the Macedon Ranges, the Peninsula, Point Lonsdale and more, and a survey in the form of our petition has shown this widespread concern and people from over 300 suburbs and towns have signed the petition and criticized DSE for not listening to the people. It is all developer-driven and they have virtually a free reign.
Margot asked the question of Lyndsay Neilson about what was the criteria for nominating activity centres and pointed out that there are over 900 across Melbourne, Principal, Major, and Neighbourhood, and this gives the developers a free hand to do whatever they like. This was not answered.
She said a big concern is the growing practise of the Minister to declare areas to be a “Site of State Significance” thus sidelining residents.
Mary D told Lyndsay Neilson that VCAT ignores M2030’s Principle 5 which is about protection of communities and instead make decisions following Principle 1 ‘A more compact city’. She also said that when she first got involved with Camberwell Station 3 years ago, nobody had even heard of M2030 and now the more people know about it, right across Melbourne, the less they like it.
She also maintained, from her position as a committee member for the Camberwell Junction Structure Plan, that the consultants told them very strongly that unless they followed the government line the government would not approve the Structure Plan, so this talk about community consultation is nothing but window dressing.
Every following question expressed criticism and concerns about the implementation of M2030 and the whole planning process.
Rosemary W of the Green Wedges Coalition supported the concept of M2030 because it is good for green wedges however, the problem is that both Planning Ministers who have been involved with M2030 have promised they will protect what people love about their neighbourhood but the bureaucrats and VCAT don’t care at all about what people love.
We have heard how good planning can be from Patrick Condon with tree lined boulevards, things that would not be allowed here by Vic Roads.
Her question to Lyndsay Neilson was - How are you in DSE going to get Government agencies to work together to really protect what we love. There should be some sort of mechanism to make sure the protection works the way it is supposed to .
Then Hilary P of Frankston spoke and told that the Council were voting against rezoning a large residential area of central Frankston of 200 established houses near facilities and the vote was scheduled for the Monday night meeting. On the Friday before, Minister Hulls suddenly announced that he was taking it over and rezoning it for a bulk goods area. The residents of the area are being pressured into moving and the whole will be bulldozed. This is against even M2030 which talks about residential where there is transport.
In discussions afterwards with residents who were present, Warren W of Doncaster, who became a Councillor because of planning, said that from his perspective in real estate these high rise flats have a very limited market and quoted Kevin O’Connor from Melbourne University who has confirmed most people’s opinion that there is no demand for high rise in outer suburbs.
They will work in Docklands and the City only.
One of the major issues is the price, flats in high rise are more expensive than the surrounding houses on blocks with gardens, and basement parking is extremely expensive.
Looking at the Vancouver web site, the photographs of four storey buildings look more friendly and have character. He concluded that we could still do something similar here as in Vancouver, the challenge is to admit the mistakes of the past and listen to and apply commonsense.