Part two

significantly increased. Existing residents’ interests are thus further undermined, which poses questions to the social sustainability and wellbeing that were part of the municipal vision.

• Traffic Report

This report also demonstrates its understanding of the planning scheme in a way that supports the proposed development. Its discussion on the provision of loading zones reflects the consultants’ bias towards developer’s interests. Since the statutory framework does not impose any strict requirements, potential issues on loading zones have not been discussed comprehensively. The report simply rationalises the proposed limited loading zones through utilising the on-street parking, without sufficient regard to the practicality of this solution, which contradicts with its own recognition of the limited on-street parking in this section of Sydney Road. Questions on access for delivery services are thereby raised, which have also been neglected in this report without further examination. As a result of the proposal, the only alternative for these delivery service vans to park is on Wilson street, where service vans might compete with residents and visitors for the civic centre, education facilities and community service in the vicinity, causing great inconveniences. There is also a chance for vans to park in the newly introduced street which the southern boundary of the site faces. However, this street is proposed to prioritise access for cyclists and pedestrians to the residential lobby. Parking and unloading goods here may thus disrupt or block their movement, considering the number of retail premises on the same side. This restrictions on loading thus places intangible requirements on the type of retail goods and commercial premises suitable for the new development. At the same time, potential high rents due to possible gentrification effects brought by both the proposed and the approved higher density development also need to be considered and accommodated by future business owners. The lack of access to loading and delivery services may therefore reduce their utility while undermining the attractiveness and economic potentials of these premises (Campbell et al, 2018).

Arguments for the proposed reduction in parking requirements have also been heavily reliant on the proximity to alternative transport modes. While the reduction in cycling facilities can be justified as the amount is not significant, arguments for reducing car parking provisions remain weakly supported. Suggested by increase in car usage being the largest, compared to other modes of transport (Profile Id, 2016), the broader trend of high car usage and ownership still indicates the need for sufficient parking. Research (Vicente & Reis, 2016) has also found that car preference is not solely dependent on accessibility to public transport, but rather the complex nature of user utility that can be attributed to various other reasons including workplaces, time cost, etc (Ortuzar & Willumsen, 2011). It is thus unlikely to reduce car usage simply through reducing provision of car park, which is assumed in the report. Additionally, the presumption that customers to the proposed retail premises would be mostly localised undermines the potential of Sydney Road activity centre to become a region-wide activity core and its attraction to people from other parts of the metropolitan. Instead of enhancing its future development prospects, it implies that the

proposed development is local-based and disconnected to the regional service network. Hence, the conclusion of no provision for visitors’ car parking appears arbitrary, serving more to achieving economic benefits rather than being strategic.

There are also some inconsistencies between the supporting documents where permit required for the alteration to access to Sydney Road under Clause 52.29 has not been mentioned in the applicant’s planning report.

• Acoustic Report

The negative influence of the proposed development is again overlooked in the acoustic assessment. The report has focused on examining noise impact for future residents without acknowledging the proposal’s off-site noise impact on the adjoining residential uses. The vitality of considering existing residents stems from the increased traffic and street activities as a result of the proposal. Key stakeholders, the nearby residents’ interests are therefore underplayed while attentions are paid to that of the beneficiaries, future residents, as it attempts to convince the council of the proposal’s appealingness.

Outcomes of the proposal

Nevertheless, this does not mean that the proposed development misaligns with the broader objectives. Instead, the proposal facilitates the implementation of both the state and local planning policies while supporting the strategic direction outlined in structure plans, as detailed in section 1 of this report. It actively responds to the envisaged transformation of the area to a higher density centre with mixed functionality, enabling activation and renewal of the activity centre. In its urban context of a growing population and thus increasing needs for housing and employment, the proposed density of use and development promotes more sustainable and efficient use of land. It also enhances urban aesthetics to create a more attractive and appealing environment, which achieves the objectives set out by Section 4 of the Act. The potential threats discussed in the previous section is then overcompensated and outvalued by the positive outcomes.

The controls on public participation in the proposed development should also be viewed critically. Despite certain neglection on their interests, the initial intention of Activity Centre Zone is to encourage fast-track development, simplify controls to signal clearer and stronger strategic direction for the centres (Rowley, 2017). This enables guidance from the more qualified and experienced perspectives, the planners, on development trajectories of the area to optimise opportunities and achieve the intended objectives. It also avoids time lags and decisions being overly intervened by the public, who might not have a holistic view or understanding on the area. At the same time, the customisability that allows contextualisation of ACZ controls further facilitates planners to assess planning permit not according to each provision, but rather through weighing costs and benefits of different sets of policies more comprehensively. In the case of this proposal, the ACZ controls and localised precinct guidelines in the schedules helps planners balance the priorities of

pursuing new transformative identities for the centre and the need to protect existing characters. By approving the proposal as a more sustainable option that considers both present and future interests, planning, despite it not being ideal, thereby achieves net community benefits which underpins the overarching objectives in the planning framework (March, 2021).

Implications of findings

The findings highlight the crucial role of planners in local government in implementing strategic and statutory policies based on physical, social, environmental and economic characteristics of localities. As exemplified in planning provisions, such as Clause 18.02 and Clause 52.06, consideration on the nature of locality have been frequently stressed in policy objectives while the Municipal Strategic Statement are mandatory in decision guidelines. Compared to planners in higher tier of state government, local planners are required to tailor the broader development directions and goals into the specific context and adjust to optimise potentials and positive outcomes, which varies from place to place. The dynamic nature of cities also indicates the need for them to identify the changing needs of local community. This then involves balancing conflicting interests among stakeholders. The case of this application raises questions of whether developers’ and even councils’ interests in these developments are prioritised before other stakeholders in activity centres, and whether other stakeholders’ interests, particularly local communities, should be compromised in pursuit of a better image of the suburb and thereby of their governance or company. These might not often be considered by planners from private companies as they may prioritise economic benefits. It is then essential for local planners to consider the wider public benefits, look beyond the positive outcomes and into the potential concerns within the community for more comprehensive assessments and decision-making.

While these beneficiaries sugar-coat the new developments, the actual delivery sometimes remains questionable. In this case, local planners should utilise their power to ensure feasibility of affordable housing which can be prone to under-delivery due to the need to seek profits to compensate the high costs (Sharam et al, 2015). Instead of relying on developers’ voluntary actions on ensuring affordability, as stated in the reports, legally binding agreements should be initiated by planners for better assurance. Effective results in the proposed development will then attract other developers and catalyse similar proposals in other activity centres, which ultimately maximises social welfare and realise values of planning.

Word Count: 1506 (1500+10%) (excluding sub-titles and in-text citations)

References

Bartling, H. (2010). Reinventing the railroad suburb: Community conflict in the new suburbia. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 4(4), 312-322. DOI:10.1108/17506201011086110

Campbell, S., Holguín-Veras, J., Ramirez-Rios, D., González-Calderón, C., Kalahasthi, L., & Wojtowicz, J. (2018). Freight and service parking needs and the role of demand management. European Transport Research Review, 10(2), 1-13. DOI:10.1186/s12544-0180309-5

March, A. (2021). AMENDMENTS, MINISTERIAL INTERVENTION, AND THE RULE OF LAW [PowerPoint Slides]. https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/105136/pages/lecturecontent-2

Ortúzar, J.D.& Willumsen, L.G. (2011). Modelling Transport, 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons. DOI:10.1002/9781119993308.fmatter

Profile Id. (2016). City of Moreland. Retrieved from https://profile.id.com.au/moreland/carownership#:~:text=Analysis%20of%20car%20ownership%20in,influenced%20by%20access% 20to%20transport.

Rowley, S. (2017). The Victorian Planning System: Practice, Problems and Prospects. Melbourne, The Federation Press.

Sharam, A., Bryant, L. E., & Alves, T. (2015). Identifying the financial barriers to deliberative, affordable apartment development in australia. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 8(4), 471-483. DOI:10.1108/IJHMA-10-2014-0041

Vicente, P., & Reis, E. (2016). Profiling public transport users through perceptions about public transport providers and satisfaction with the public transport service. Public Transport, 8(3), 387-403. DOI:10.1007/s12469-016-0141-z