VPELA Revue (June 2022)

revue

Cover: Isobell Vescovi, Senior Planner, UPco – Urban Planning Collective. Young Professional Award recipient 2022.

Newsletter editor: Bernard McNamara

M: 0418 326 447

E: bernard.mcnamara@bmda.com.au

T: 9699 7025

VPELA

PO Box 1291 Camberwell 3124 www.vpela.org.au

E: admin@vpela.org.au

T: 9813 2801

The President

Mark Sheppard, Principal, kinetica

Okay, first things first: Don’t adjust your glasses – the photo above isn’t a mistake. If you haven’t already heard – Where have you been? – Tamara Brezzi has stepped down as President of VPELA, and yours truly has been elected her successor. I am honoured, humbled (and, if I’m honest, a little daunted) to be given the opportunity to lead this celebrated association. As a passionate Melbourne Demons supporter, it seems appropriate that the reins of the Association have returned to the oldest club at the dawn of a new dynasty (the lid is well and truly off!), while Tamara’s Cats begin a long, slow decline … But more on Tamara later.

I’m delighted that our Young Professionals Group has taken charge of this edition. Big thanks to Jack Chiodo for coordinating while Bernard McNamara enjoys a well-earned rest.

COVID lessons

Planning is fundamentally about change. Envisioning positive change, responding to social, environmental and economic changes, and managing the effects of change. However, when seeking certainty, there is a tendency to slide into the comfort zone of a ‘predict and provide’ mindset, resulting in static visions and rigid plans. If the last two years have taught us anything, it’s that the world is highly unpredictable, with the ability to render rigid plans obsolete in moments.

The pandemic has also reminded us how adaptable we are. How can planning build on this realisation to facilitate (rather than foreclose) continuous adaptation?

The change of Federal government promises a stronger focus on cities in Canberra. Among other things, Labor pledged the creation of an Australian Cities and Suburbs unit and a new National Urban Policy framework. Of course, this is also a State election year, and we wait to see what commitments are made in relation to planning and the delivery of homes and other infrastructure. The combination of a new government and forthcoming election campaign presents a rare window of opportunity to explore the creation of a more protean planning and infrastructure delivery system.

The theme of this year’s VPELA Conference is Reflect, Reconnect & Renew – optimism in the age of uncertainty. What better forum is there than this for us to reflect on the nature of change, (reconnect with each other!) and contemplate whether our strategic planning and regulatory processes need renewal to better enable rapid innovation in response to our constantly evolving world? Make sure you’ve blocked off 1-2 September in your calendar!

Speaking of change, later this year, the VPELA Board will be undertaking a review of our purpose and activities in this new world of online, hybrid and in-person gatherings. To help us understand members’ needs, we will be conducting a survey.

Please look out for that and give us your thoughts to help us better serve you.

What’s been happening?

The highlight of VPELA’s activities since the March Revue was undoubtedly our ‘Dream Destination’ Gala Dinner on 6 May. With almost a full house, this was testament yet again to the camaraderie of our industry, and the important role VPELA plays in bringing people together across its various sectors and disciplines. I’m sure you’ll enjoy the photos later in this edition!

I congratulate the thoroughly worthy recipients of our awards announced at the dinner: Tamara Brezzi – Richard J Evans Award, Frank Butera and Jane Sharp – Fellowships, and Isobell Vescovi – Young Professional.

April also saw the first instalment of our new ‘Legends Program’, with the evergreen Jane Monk leading a gaggle of excited planning-related professionals a merry dance around Melbourne, sharing her enthusiasm and illustrating her insights into a veritable treasure chest of ideas about doing urban density better, housing diversity, sustainability, mixed use, public spaces, active transport and much, much more. From all accounts it was an inspiring and highly enjoyable day. If you want to know more, read Isobell Vescovi’s recap in this issue. And make sure you look out for our announcement of the next Legend to share their wisdom – an event not to be missed!

Tamara

Finally, I would like to record the deep gratitude of the VPELA Board and Association to Tamara Brezzi for her extraordinary contribution as President. Tamara held the role for exactly 83 lockdowns and presided over 9 conferences, 156 seminars/ webinars, 19 submissions to government and, of course, 29 parties. The Association grew stronger under her custody, whether measured by its membership, the breadth of its services or its financial position.

During her tenure, we benefitted on untold occasions from Tamara’s incisive thinking about how to improve the practice of planning and planning law in Victoria. Perhaps even more importantly, she brought deep empathy to the role, notably raising awareness of the importance of mental health. There was no one better to steer us through the uncertainty of the early Covid period.

Tamara not only led the Board and Association with aplomb, but also lived its mantra of fun. Always the life of the party, she will go down in history as probably the first and only president of a law association to climb onto a bar to give her address.

From all of us in the Association, thank you Tamara!

Mark Sheppard is President of VPELA and a Principal at kinetica

The times they are a-changin’

(Guest) Editorial licence YPG edition

We interrupt your regular (Revue) programming to bring you this special edition of the VPELA Revue for June; an edition edited by VPELA’s Young Professional Group (YPG). Don’t worry, your regular editor Bernard McNamara is safe and sound and will be returned to you without harm in time for the final edition of the Revue for 2022, but for now, you are in the capable hands of the YPG!

In line with Bernie’s instructions – yes, believe it or not, this was actually his idea – we’ve sought to bring you an edition of the Revue that has the more youthful edge that is synonymous with the YPG. To that end, you’ll find in this edition a number of articles either authored by or targeted towards young professionals. This includes, among other great reads, a thought-provoking analysis of working in different planning systems by town planners Heidi Duncan and YPG Committee member Madeleine Craig and a piece that talks to importance of good grammar in written communication by UPco Managing Director, Amanda Ring (sorry Amanda, you might find a few too many exclamation marks throughout this issue!). Also included is the first edition of what we hope to be a new ongoing column, ‘Asking for a friend…’ a place to find answers to all those tricky questions that you feel the opportunity to ask may have passed you by. Think a sort of ‘frequently asked questions’ section.

But fortunately, as we always say, the YPG doesn’t only cater to those who are strictly ‘youthful’, we also cater to those who are simply ‘young at heart’. In that regard, you’ll find articles from all our regular contributors, with more than worthy instalments of their columns. Given the time of the year, also included in this edition are the customary followings from VPELA’s Dream Destination Gala, including write ups of the award winners and photos from the always excellent night. Congratulations to all the award winners!

You may note throughout both this column and the magazine more generally, a discerning effort to identify the members of the YPG committee where their names arise. This is to highlight the ongoing hard work of all involved in the committee, something of which they should all be very proud of.

The significance of being trusted to edit this edition is not lost on the YPG. We have big shoes to fill stepping in for your seasoned regular editor for a publication that is seeing an ever-increasing reach. In fact, the reach of this publication is increasing so significantly that it was only a little surprising to see it was even recently referenced in a VCAT decision! 1

Inspired by Bernie’s regular Editorial Licence column, this edition will feature brief looks at areas that are of interest to your lead guest editor, including a call to Council’s to work together, a light-hearted (and possibly thought provoking) look at a lesson the industry can take from sports and a message to those people

Jack Chiodo Guest Editor and YPG Co-Convenor

who are new to VPELA, but are keen to be involved. But first, some YPG happenings.

YPG activities

What a start to 2022 we’ve had! Whilst some concerns evidently and understandably continue to persist with the ‘c’ word, I’m pleased to report that the YPG has started the year exactly as we would have hoped; with a number of in-person events and other face-to-face development and networking opportunities.

The year got off to a bang with our annual and ever popular, Speed Networking event in February at Urbis’ Melbourne office. The momentum continued with the annual DCE Nexus Ball, held in March this year after being rescheduled from 2021. Congratulations to the winners of the best dressed awards (as featured in the March edition of the Revue), Wendy Hernandez from Biosis and YPG Committee member Emily Mignot from Tract. This trio of social events was closed out by the inaugural YPG Trivia, held once again at Urbis in April. A recap of the trivia event with some sample questions is included towards the back of the Revue. The event was so well attended and received that the YPG are intending on holding a second instalment later in the year. Look out for an announcement shortly.

Over to the more educational side of things now, the YPG have just kicked off their annual Masterclass series (at the time of writing), this year focusing on the topic of professional development (with the excellent sub-heading of: Soft Skills and Hard Realities –Building Your Professional Foundations). At the first of the three sessions, we heard from speakers Ann-Maree Drakos (City of Melbourne), Mia Zar (Tract) and Eliza Minney (Best Hooper

Members of the YPG Committee at the Dream Destination Gala Dinner; (L-R) (BR) Jack Chiodo, Jack Curnow, Emily Mignot, James Cossins, (FR) Madeleine Craig, Lina Inglis, Amara Coleman and Isobell Vescovi.

Lawyers and former YPG Co-Convenor). Expertly and amusingly chaired by YPG Committee member Zac van Grondelle (Surf Coast Shire Council), the panel shared their tricks on working in a team, communication and building trust. Bookings are still available for the upcoming sessions and I would encourage everyone who is interested in personal development and career progression to attend.

Beyond the upcoming Masterclass sessions and the aforementioned Trivia #2, the YPG are looking forward to holding a number of events for the remainder of 2022, including a number of informal networking opportunities and a Christmas event (for the first time since 2019!). As always, look out for the weekly VPELA email for announcements in the coming weeks. As opined by Bernie in the March Revue, ‘the future looks good’!

Lastly, it would be remiss of me not to specifically recognise my fellow YPG convenor, and star of the cover of this edition of the Revue, Isobell Vescovi on being the recipient of the Young Professional Award for 2022. With thanks to the sponsors of the award, Beveridge Williams for their ongoing support in recognising the young professional of the year, congratulations, Izzy on a well-deserved award!

Councils helping councils

It probably comes as no surprise to those who know me that I’ve chosen to use my limited space here to give some air-time to matters relevant to those of us in local government. In particular, the focus here is the concept of inter-organisational collaboration. As someone who has spent the entirety of my professional career in local government, the manner in which Councils can better work together is something that is very close to heart and often at the forefront of my mind.

Several years ago, some enterprising members of various local Council’s had the brilliant idea of reaching out to the specialist appeals planners at each Council with the hope of forming a resource network that could be called upon to share and discuss common issues. And what a great success it has turned out to be! I have had the benefit of being involved in this initiative for the past four years and have found it to be of immense assistance for everything from dealing with new matters to just having a vent about a common issue! Whilst catch up opportunities have been limited given the events of the past few years, it has always been incredibly enthusing to see the number of responses received when a query is circulated to the group. (Editors note, does anyone know the difference between an Appeals Advisor, Appeals Advocate and Appeals Coordinator?)

On a related note, I was also recently present in a Panel Hearing that was attended by town planners of nearby Council’s that were dealing with similar issues. At the conclusion of the hearing, these fellow town planners assisted with the answers to some of the questions that had been raised by the Panel by sharing their own experiences with the related matters via email to the Council that were the proponent of the amendment. How great to see!

I’d recommend that any planner in local government, no matter what position you’re in, to consider forming a network group that

you can call on as a resource. It could be a network based on a number of different factors, including people in similar positions or people that deal with similar matters. At the end of the day, the real winner of collaboration is placemaking as a whole.

Taking a lesson from European football

Having recently witnessed my beloved AC Milan win the ‘Scudetto’ (for the victor of the top-flight Italian football league) for the first time since 2012 and seeing the role that loaned players played in the victorious campaign, I couldn’t help but ponder with great interest a hypothetical where a loan-type system existed in our industry.

For those who aren’t aware, loans in football (and various other sports) are a system where players are loaned from one club to another, to play for the new side for a fixed term period before returning to their ‘parent club’. The circumstances behind loans differ, but it is almost always in a manner that is beneficial to both sides involved. It may be that the player is currently surplus to the needs of their parent club, needs more development opportunities elsewhere or that the club receiving the player on loan desperately has a gap to fill (either through injury or some other means).

Now, imagine if such a system existed in the planning and environmental law industry. Putting to one side the difficulties of implementing such a system (because this is a hypothetical, after all), think of the benefits of such a system and the sheer scope of scenarios it could apply to. By way of some examples:

• Council A is dealing with a challenging planning issue for the first time. Its neighbouring Council B has been dealing with this issue for several years. Council B loans one of their planners to Council A for a six-month stint to not only help them work through the issue, but also train the other planners to deal with this issue in the future.

• A traffic engineer working at a private consultancy really enjoys their job and can see themselves being in that job for a long time to come, but laments their lack of public experience. The traffic engineer could spend three months on loan at a local Council to get that experience, before returning to their substantive role at the private consultancy.

• Consultancy A is experiencing a minor downturn. Consultancy B is suddenly inundated in work and is feeling very under resourced. Consultancy A loans some of its staff to Consultancy B for a short term period to assist in clearing Consultancy B’s backlog, until such time that Consultancy A’s work levels have returned to normal.

Whilst the significant challenges associated with such a system will likely ensure that such a system remains as a hypothetical, I can’t help but get caught up in the positives associated with such a system. The ability for cross-training, new experiences and development opportunities would be enormous. Because, similar to the conclusion expressed in the previous section of this column, when we all work together the real winner is the industry as a whole.

“the real winner of collaboration isplacemaking as a whole”

A message to those interested in being involved in VPELA

This industry can often seem large and daunting for those starting out. In particular, VPELA can seem like one big, welloiled machine where everyone knows each other in a manner that can make it very intimidating to break into. But having now been actively involved in VPELA for a number of years, I can honestly say that is most-definitely not the case at all!

Whilst less common these days, I spent a number of years attending VPELA events by myself and never failed to be surprised at how friendly our industry and, in particular, our association is. So, for those of you who are keen to be involved but don’t know where to begin, I would encourage you to get out there and get involved and put your hand up for events and other opportunities that are of interest to you.

Closer to home, the YPG generally seeks out new committee members at the end of every year. If you’re interested, I would

encourage you to look out for the call for applications in your VPELA update emails in or around December. As very well expressed by VPELA board member Carlo Morello in the March edition of the Revue; ‘put in your application and get involved!’

And to this edition

As mentioned, this edition of the Revue features a number of articles relevant to not only young professionals, but people of all ages. With thanks to all article contributors and our YPG sponsors, and on behalf of myself and my assistant editing team – YPG committee members Emily Mignot, Charlie Wurm and Jack Curnow, we hope you enjoy the June edition of the Revue. That’s all from me (for now).

1 Cher v Glen Eira CC [2022] VCAT 381 (14 April 2022) at paragraph 15.

Jack Chiodo is the Co-convenor of the VPELA’s Young Professional Group and the Statutory Planning Appeals Advisor at Manningham City Council where he works on all things VCAT related amongst the glorious city-country balance of “the ‘Ham”.

Best Hooper: continued growth since 1886.

NEW TEAM MEMBERS

We are proud of the continued growth of our firm, including the promotions of a number of key staff together with the introduction of new team members.

As we have done so extensively over our rich history, our team is best placed to assist you and your clients at all stages of the property and development cycle.

Best Hooper looks forward to continuing to grow and remain a leader in our industry.

Victoria’s Property, Planning & Land Development Advisory Law Firm

T 03 9670 8951

E mail@besthooper.com.au

besthooper.com.au

Jonathan Hourigan Senior Associate

Ruth Smith Associate

Eliza Minney Principal Lawyer

Taryn Parkinson Lawyer

Chris Boocock Associate

Edward Mahony Senior Associate

Lauren Cullen Lawyer

Jack Curnow Lawyer

Ruby Rockman Associate

Andy Vicendese Associate

Brett Taback Associate Principal Lawyer

Mitchell Trevaskis Lawyer

Andrew Iser Associate

Amelia Toohey Lawyer

Stef Gattini Graduate Lawyer

Land Development and Compulsory Acquisitions Team Property and Transactions Team

Planning Team

People VPELA Richard J Evans Award 2022

Tamara Brezzi

Her career path went from strength to strength, and she was appointed as a Senior Associate at Norton Rose Fulbright in 2004 and was made Partner in 2008. In 2011, our recipient was elected as the President of VPELA.

I am of course talking about our immediate past President, Tamara Brezzi.

In the mid to late ‘noughties’, I had the great pleasure of Tamara being my Vice President until 2011 when I stepped down. There was no question that Tamara would be President and it is testament to her incredible drive, her commitment and her leadership that she has remained our President until she formally retired from that position in February this year.

The Richard J Evans award is VPELA’s highest honour and recognition. It is named after the late Richard Evans QC, a barrister and a founding member of this great association. I acknowledge Richard’s daughter Catherine, his son Andy and brother Laurie who are here tonight. Not here tonight but I also acknowledge Richard’s wife Deidre, who has attended many previous VPELA dinners in honour of Richard. Thank you to the Evans family for this ongoing support and affirmation.

The Richard J Evans award is earned. Past recipients have included VPELA members and non-members. It recognises those who have made an outstanding contribution to the planning, environmental, development and law industry in Victoria.

This year’s recipient is truly amongst those greats. I first met her when she was studying at Victoria University for a planning degree and then a Graduate Diploma, which she completed in 1994. As one of her lecturers, I was struck by her endeavour and commitment, her questioning of planning principles, her writing skills, her clarity of thought and her work ethic. I just knew this person would make her place in planning.

She went on to be a planner at the former city of Malvern and never one to sit still, she commenced a law degree at Deakin University in 1995. Not long after, she was invited to commence her new career path as a paralegal at Deacons Graham and James in 1998 before she graduated in 2000. In then joining VPELA, I think there might have been a nudge from our inaugural President, Peter Barber.

While continuing to study and in developing her career, our recipient ran the VPELA Young Professionals Group for two years while at the same time becoming a member of our Board.

Tamara has achieved so much over these years. First and foremost, Tamara had her son Hamish in 2010 and to take on the presidency of VPELA in 2011 as a partner in a leading law firm, with a newborn, is amazing testament to Tamara. It is so wonderful that Tamara’s husband Geoff, her son Hamish her mother Marie and her father Nereo are here tonight to share this honour with her.

Some of the key qualities that have been so evident in Tamara’s career are:

• Her mentoring and support

• Her excellence in practice

• Her leadership

• Her innovation and delivery.

It was Tamara’s initiative that led to the very successful VPELA Barber Lecture series, now held every second year – starting with Jeff Kennett and John Faine, then the Hon Justice Michael Kirby, then Jennifer Keesmaat and most recently, Australian of the Year, Dylan Alcott.

Tamara was at the helm of VPELA when COVID emerged, and she quickly transitioned VPELA. She initiated a seminar in late March 2020 about online hearings, well before lockdown and well before we had any idea of the full implications of COVID.

Tamara has been an outstanding President of VPELA for 11 years for you, our members. She took a particular interest in mental health and wellbeing and was instructive in organising seminars and key-note speakers on that topic at seminars and conferences for the benefit of us all.

In advocating for awareness of mental health Tamara noted that as a professional industry association whose members are, in the main, involved in stressful jobs making decisions each day with very significant consequences, there is an important role for VPELA to play, in sharing knowledge, in reaching out, in offering support, in listening and talking.

…continues next page

L-R: Kathy Mitchell, Tamara Brezzi & Mark Sheppard.

Further, it is noteworthy that Tamara instituted a highly successful Cranlana retreat for members the year before COVID hit.

As Tamara hands over the VPELA reins to Mark Sheppard, Mark says this about Tamara:

“Tamara has been a great support for me over many years— not only in terms of instructions for professional work and for nominating me for VPELA President, but also in providing opportunities to speak at or facilitate VPELA events, and as a business mentor. We have often discussed the joys and challenges of leading and managing teams, and I have always found her reflections to be insightful. Tamara’s poise and sense of fun as VPELA President (particularly while climbing on a bar to give an address) have also been a source of inspiration.”

Tamara, sincere congratulations to you as the recipient of VPELA’s Richard J Evans Award for 2022. You should be very proud of who you are, what you have achieved and how you will continue to lead our industry in so many ways going forward. I have seen you grow from a shy but determined student to a brilliant, strong, resilient, fun and inclusive President of VPELA and a decisive, dedicated and committed partner in a major law firm. You get out of life what you put in – and Tamara is testament to that.

Kathy Mitchell AM

Former President, VPELA Chief Panel Member, Planning Panels Victoria

The Paul Jerome Award 2022 Nominations Are Invited

In 2005 the Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association established The Paul Jerome Award, as a memorial to a much loved and respected colleague. This award was created to encourage, recognise and support outstanding contribution to public administration.

The principal focus of the award is planning within the umbrella of public service to state and local government and the list of past recipients has brought prestige to the award.

A list of previous recipients, criteria for the award and a nomination form can be downloaded from our website

https://www.vpela.org.au/about-vpela/awards/paul-jerome-award Nominations can be emailed to admin@vpela.org.au by Friday 22 July 2022.

The recipient will be presented with an engraved trophy at the VPELA Conference Gala Dinner, to be held at Mantra Lorne on Friday 2 September 2022.

Thanks to Contour Consultants for their sponsorship of this prestigious award.

Focusing on the sustainable future of our cities

As future city shapers, Arup addresses challenges, seeks answers and works towards creating positive change. Together we can rise to meet the environmental, social and economic challenges of today and leave our cities fit for the many futures of tomorrow.

People

Tamara Brezzi’s response

The following Richard J Evans Award 2022 response was delivered at the VPELA Annual Dinner on 6th May 2022

Here I was stupidly thinking that for the first time in 11 years I’d be able to avoid having to get up on those treacherous stairs, and that I’d finally be able to have a drink at the VPELA ball before 8.30pm! Maybe next year….

Kathy, Mark and the VPELA Board: thank you. I’m so honoured. I’m so overwhelmed. I’m so thrilled. Mark rang a week ago to tell me this news and I’m still pinching myself and waking each morning utterly convinced that this was obviously some sort of a trick.

27 years ago, I went to my first VPELA Ball. I was working as a planner at the City of Stonnington, and a planning consultant had invited me along as his guest. Helen Gibson got the RJE that year, and I spent much of the evening hiding in the bathrooms because I didn’t know anyone.

I’m sharing this somewhat awkward and embarrassed memory with you because I want to explain to you what a privilege and joy it has been to be a custodian of VPELA and to be a participant in this wonderful profession that is planning and planning law.

I subscribe to the philosophy that the world is run by those who show up. If you choose not to participate, you lose your right to influence, to have an opinion or to criticise. By joining the planning or the related professions, we’ve each demonstrated that we have an interest, perhaps even a passion, about the world in which we live. We’ve turned up, and we have a duty to make the most of it.

There is a constant pressure, in this city shaping profession, to get everything right. We work in a profession that requires discretions to be exercised, complex legal and political decisions to be dissected, advice to be given and balanced decisions to be made that take into account the good fortune, the amenity, the misery, the happiness and the lives of our fellow citizens who have to live with the legacy of the planning decision making processes that we engage with every day. The fact that those things are core to our profession is truly a great privilege, but it comes of course with great burden and responsibility.

It would not be unreasonable of us to every now and then, or indeed every week, throw our hands in the air and exclaim “Why do we do it?” “Who would willingly put themselves in a position with such overwhelming potential for conflict, disappointment, and less than ideal or indeed even acceptable outcomes?”

For me, there have been three things that make me want to be one of the ones who shows up:

(1) The first is this public interest quest – as multi-disciplinary placemakers and city shapers, are we leaving behind our places in better shape than we found them;

(2) The second is a desire to pay forward on the passion –infecting others with an enthusiasm about creating better places for our collective future and a better environment; aiming for something better than a just functioning urbanity, but rather, the creation of a great city, great regions and great awesome places for people;

(3) and the third is about creating the opportunities to bring people together, to help them move from hiding in the bathrooms to hearing different opinions, to debate, share ideas, to have fun and to form our own views about any given topic on any given day.

My commitment with VPELA has been the strong focus on bringing people from diverse professional disciplines together to engage in a discourse about planning, architecture and design, ideas, philosophies, ethics, and, of course….car parking rates.

I remain adamant that through listening to and understanding the diverse views from across the professions that VPELA represents, we might experience the luxury of enrichment in that we might:

- each individually be clearer in our own views about current issues;

- be more confident in advocating our views to our colleagues, our bosses, our councillors and our Ministers; and

- be better at our jobs or indeed even love our jobs a little more; - or that we might make a more informed contribution to the communities who rely on us so very heavily to not stuff it up.

VPELA has been a significant vehicle for all of that for me throughout my career. It’s given me a front row seat in a field of expertise that I love and I’m indebted to each of the Board members and Presidents who I’ve served with, and the broad church that is the VPELA family, for nurturing my appetite for growth, learning and exploration of new ideas with the hope that they might just make a difference.

Ultimately, each of my interests in this profession seems to me to come down to one thing: people. If we change the way we think about our urban environment to be focused on making decisions that create better places, we’re really talking about making better places for people.

After all, working through a complicated mandatory streetwall height in a planning control serves no purpose if there’s no-one around to enjoy the physical manifestation of such a complex restriction!

Tamara pictured with her husband Geoff Cope and son Hamish.

When Peter Barber gathered together that first group of VPELA Board members over 3 decades ago, it was the multi-disciplinary nature of that group, and the fact that they all didn’t mind having a long lunch every now and then, that cemented their connection and sense of inclusion and support for each other. It’s a unique forum that allows professionals to show up with a contribution that is valuable and interesting and important.

None of this is possible without the huge village of people who’ve been in my corner along the way – these are the people who will catch you a fish for dinner and then take delight in teaching you how to catch your own; the mentors, the sponsors, the colleagues, the lifelong friends and my family.

In my little village, I have one very special little boy, Bear, who is here tonight, and who makes it completely worthwhile all the efforts required to persist with this quest and to show up every day.

So many of you here tonight have given me reason throughout my career to no longer feel a need to hide in the bathrooms at the VPELA dinner. There’s my work family at Norton Rose Fulbright including my partners Sally, Elisa and Nick and all those who we’ve been so privileged to work with and have as part of our team over the years. There’s all my friends and colleagues at the Bar, in the consultancies and in government positions who have helped me strategise about complex problems and who have taught me so much about how to do so.

Some of those people are of course also an integral part of the VPELA Village Family. The fact that there are so many that I have been able to rely upon along the way is testament to the people focussed essence of the Association.

The VPELA Family has seen me through pregnancy, partnership, problem solving, time spent in nearly every role that VPELA has to offer, and now also a pandemic; and each in their own way has been instrumental in navigating me through the next public speaking engagement, the next evolution for the Association, or the next career or work challenge. From running a seminar to delivering the Christmas Party welcome to members whilst standing on a bar, VPELA has presented me with countless incredible opportunities to suppress my harsh inner critic and to meet and interview idols and heroes at conferences and events. The ease with which I was able to serve as President is able to be attributed to the rosie disposition, enthusiasm and encouragement of all of those within the VPELA Village Family.

Thank you for that opportunity. I will be forever grateful and I will be forever very confident that VPELA gave me so much more than I could have ever dreamed of giving it in return.

And so finally, as always, may the sunrise find you still dancing…. Have a great night everyone.

People Young Professional Award – 2022

Isobell Vescovi, UPco – Urban Planning Collective

The VPELA Young Professional Award is granted to a Young Professional member of VPELA and is designed to support a young professional member in undertaking independent research, study tour or a course of study related to their profession and which promotes the purposes VPELA.

VPELA congratulates this year’s recipient, Isobell Vescovi, who will research public art strategies and policies within metropolitan and regional Councils across Victoria. She plans to engage with private developers, Council planning officers and other place-making Departments to see if they are satisfied with how their public art is delivered and research if the introduction of a Public Art Contribution Levy across each municipality would deliver a better outcome.

Proudly sponsored by

Alisanne Boag, Manager Planning, Beveridge Williams presents Isobell with her award along with Mark Sheppard, VPELA President at our Annual Dinner on the 6th May.

People Fellowships

The following citations were delivered at the VPELA Annual Dinner on 6th May 2022

Frank Butera, Arup

Frank Butera has been a long-time contributor to VPELA. He joined the Association in 1998 and served as a board member for 9 years between 2012 and 2021. In 2018 he joined the Executive Team and served three years as Treasurer before retiring from the Board. Under Franks watchful stewardship VPELA continued to consolidate its strong financial position allowing the association to deliver valued and valuable seminars and conferences for all members. Frank has participated in numerous events and has provided sage counsel during his period as a Board member. Frank was also a member of the YPG Committee and in 2002 he won the inaugural VPELA Peet & Co. Young Professional Award.

Frank has over 25 years experience in consulting on diverse projects in areas of architectural acoustics, building noise and vibration control, and environmental noise analysis. He has provided acoustic consulting advice for virtually every type of building or development project over the course of his career. In his role as Victorian & South Australian Property Leader, he leads multidisciplinary engineering teams in the delivery of landmark, city shaping building projects.

Franks career demonstrates a long running commitment to VPELA and the broader professions that warrant his recognition as a VPELA Fellow. Please congratulate him on his award.

Jane Sharp, Victorian Bar

Jane Sharp has been a member of VPELA since August 2006 and served as Board member for 15 years. She joined the Executive in 2010 and became Treasurer in 2014, then Vice President (Legal) in 2018, before retiring at our AGM last year. During this time, she has had enormous input into the operations and strategic direction of the Association, as well as participating in numerous events and government policy reviews.

Jane commenced her career as a statutory planner working in both the public and private sector. On completing her law degree she was articled to Mallesons Stephen Jacques, before joining the Planning & Environment Group at Maddocks, where she honed her expert evidence skills.

For more than 10 years, she has worked at a senior level as a Barrister in the planning and environment fields. She is held in high esteem within the planning legal profession as well as associated professions and has achieved a high level of knowledge and expertise.

This expertise coupled with her long standing service and commitment to VPELA makes her a worthy recipient of a VPELA Fellowship. Please congratulate her on her award.

Membership Subscriptions 2022/2023 Renewal Notice

Your membership subscription invoice for 2022/2023 will be emailed to you on 1st July. Please look out for it or if you do not receive it check you Spam Folder! If you still can’t locate it, please email info@vpela.org.au for a copy.

Minister Updated Precinct Structure

Planning guidelines for new communities in victoria

Living locally has never been more important – and the stronger our local communities are the easier it is for us to stay connected and healthy in body and mind.

During the pandemic, we have stayed close to home, relying on our local areas for everything from shopping to services to recreation.

This shift has proven the social, economic and environmental importance of the 20-minute neighbourhood.

Creating communities where we can access most of our daily needs within a 20-minute walk is proven to be a durable planning framework for now and into the future.

With Melbourne’s population expected to reach a population of eight million by 2056, comes a sustained demand for wellplanned new communities that can live locally.

To maintain our world-class liveability and standard, we need to make sure all Victorians have access to quality places to live and work.

That’s why we’ve launched the Victorian Planning Authority’s updated Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines: New Communities in Victoria (the Guidelines), to guide our planning for liveable new communities where our growing population can live locally and adapt to the changing world.

We need to create communities that people want to live in –communities that are well-planned and designed, have easy access to shops, services and amenities, green space, transport, and everything else we need to live our daily lives.

That’s why the updated Guidelines are so important, ensuring new communities in growth areas have the strong foundations they need to grow into healthy, connected 20-minute neighbourhoods.

The new generation of Precinct Structure Planning are all about planning for more local living, sustainability, and improved social connectedness.

That’s why the new Guidelines set targets for diversity, access to green space, and keeping schools and activity centres close to local communities. With requirements for better footpaths and bicycle paths, and targets for access to transport options.

They will also encourage greater housing diversity by requiring three distinct home types in higher density areas, making it easier for all residents to live locally.

In addition, the new Guidelines consider and respond to the local

need for affordable housing based on need and supported by evidence and policy.

We know that a key aspect of delivering well planned new communities is ensuring that the infrastructure needed to support the community is delivered in the right way, at the right time and in the right places.

The updated guidelines provide stronger guidance in our plans about the staging of development so that infrastructure providers can more readily prioritise investment that is needed, as it is needed.

The Victorian Planning Authority has also ramped up the quality and timeliness of information to support the planning and delivery of services and infrastructure.

Greater collaboration and information sharing across Government on the infrastructure that will be required in growing areas at the five-year, ten year and final build out stages will help us provide the infrastructure we need, as we need it.

This will help ensure greater alignment between planning and the delivery of infrastructure and give Government a better line of sight to growth needs.

With the launch of these Guidelines, we’re raising the bar for Victoria’s new communities.

With them, we will create walkable, liveable and resilient new neighbourhoods that Victorians can be proud to call home.

Would you like to advertise your business in the VPELA Newsletter?

Do you have a job you need to fill?

If you are interested in placing an advertisement in the VPELA newsletter or advertising a position on our website employment section, please contact the VPELA office on 9813 2801

A full schedule of advertising costs is available on our website www.vpela.org.au

The Hon. Richard Wynne MP Victorian Minister for Planning and Housing

Shadow Minister

Victoria’s regional cities Facilitating the future

Last year following the period of lengthy lockdowns, it was a pleasure to recently get together face-to-face with industry stakeholders in Geelong to discuss their vision for Victoria’s second city.

Engaging in this way with the local community highlighted the clear need for the government of the day to facilitate, encourage and support the evolution of the wide range of opportunities for the area.

Lack of land supply, housing (un)affordability and insufficient transport planning are all issues which have hindered Geelong’s progress from a regional city to a truly Metropolitan city.

Combined with further issues such as the Windfall Gains tax and other measures taken by the current Government, it seems like Victorians who are new to the housing market will never be able to break through. From a planning perspective this doesn’t bring our state any faith in our ability to recover and rebuild post pandemic.

The population growth rate for the City of Greater Geelong is predicted to increase by over 64 percent by 2041. That’s 153,600 more people who will need access to affordable housing, community services and transport.1

As a result, local growth is hindered by a lack of connectivity, a failure to release land in line with demand and unjustifiable taxing. Commuters and locals are experiencing the range of negative impacts which poor planning brings, including worsening road traffic congestion, inadequate public transport options and a rise in the cost of living. These factors combined perpetrate inactivity and a lack of productivity in the region’s local economy, further endangering the future of Geelong in a postpandemic setting.

Geelong has the capacity for more Victorians to work, live and ground themselves in the local community. However, in order to facilitate the area’s transition into a Metropolitan city that bridges the divide between Melbourne and the Western regions, genuine commitment coupled with foresight and vision, must be undertaken.

It can be done.

By understanding the need for new transport corridors to link the growth areas outside central Geelong as well as streamlining public transport, cycling and pedestrian connections, Geelong can be unshackled from its constraints.

It is a government’s responsibility to release the full potential of available land that is appropriately identified for development and facilitate the necessary changes, while protecting the heritage of certain areas.

It is government’s responsibility to be fostering and supporting growth through planning flexibility.

Government and more importantly planning, should be incentivising quality development which elevates the future of our western regions.

Law, tax and planning process reform must occur to facilitate and accommodate the growth that Greater Geelong is experiencing now. Historically a site for manufacturing and wool exportation, today Geelong is one of the leading supporters of Melbourne in public administration and practical research and developmental outcomes. That means new capabilities, new employment opportunities and, most importantly, the potential to aid Victoria in its journey of recovering and rebuilding post-pandemic.

Geelong as a city, has the capacity to be a major centre for business, events and activity - from sports to festivals, shows to shopping. It has the capacity to support tourism in the region and help stimulate the broader Victorian economy.

What’s missing is a long-term vision and plan from government that is grounded in evidence and community consultation. What’s missing is the will from government to facilitate the local private sector, who want Geelong to meet its potential. What’s missing is a clear and structured pathway that gives confidence to residents, commuters and local developers that Geelong is the place to be.

Geelong’s problems are being felt across the regions.

There is a lack of commitment by the current government to manage the growth of the regions, with their consistent failure to engage with local developers and businesses who stand ready to help turn around the post-pandemic malaise across the state. These local investors have their communities’ best interests at heart, they give meaning to their city and they are the most attuned to their areas’ needs. The state government’s reluctance to engage with these committed locals are stifling opportunities to manage challenges and create positive solutions for the future.

In recent years there has not been a more important time for the Planning Minister to realise the economic potential (and responsibilities) of his portfolio, to expedite opportunities and act as a visionary for the future.

That includes providing modelling and processes that are informed by genuine locals to ensure that population growth is managed and encouraged in Victoria’s regions.

It means being open to change, listening to community stakeholders and showing a willingness to facilitate the realisation of a prosperous Victoria.

1 Forecast.id ‘City of greater Geelong Population summary’, demographic resources. City of greater Geelong. https://forecast.id.com.au/geelong/ population-summary

Hon Ryan Smith MP, Victorian Shadow Minister for Planning, Finance and Heritage

VPELA Events Legends Program

A day with Jane Monk

On 7 April a keen group of us had the pleasure of attending VPELA’s first installment of the ‘Legends Program’ which was hosted by the one and only, admirable, Jane Monk.

The day started with breakfast at Maddocks’ Melbourne office and a morning session that included a workshop of Jane’s philosophies and experiences. The afternoon included a guided bus tour of various places that, in some way or another, had an influence or relation to Jane’s career, including Nightingale 1, inner-city Carlton and, of course, Jane’s fathers house (which happened to be a Merchant Builder’s classic). The day concluded with more discussion over drinks and food at Maddocks.

Though one day is simply not enough to absorb all of Jane’s philosophical ideas and opinions, it’s clear that her creative spark, innovative mind and practical judgment has lead her such a successful career in planning. Whether it be delivering social housing within the inner circle railway linear park, being on the board of Nightingale, planting trees along Rathdowne Street with her very prolific green thumb or being so solution-driven during her time at the Tribunal.

Jane has continuously questioned how and why we do things and asked herself and those around her; “can we do things better”?

Jane’s enthusiasm for making Melbourne a better city is contagious, but that is tempered by her great ability to succinctly identify issues and to bring parties together to resolve problems in a fair and reasonable way, taking into account all of the pressures that come to bear on planning matters that are in dispute.

Jane emphasised that we need to ensure we are using common sense when making planning decisions, remember to keep an open mind and to have the courage and conviction to MAKE CHANGE. As Jane said; ‘You can’t make an omelette without breaking an egg!’

The event was attended by a variety of professionals at various stages of their careers and was well received by all. Some take away messages from the attendees of the program included:

Melbourne … in search of the tool kit we need for “growing up” as we are getting obese “growing out”.

A takeaway message from this event was that we have the licence to be “urban changers” in creating new and innovative residential developments that can foster a stronger sense of community in Victoria.

Too often we allow policy and procedure to get in the way of common sense and human engagement; we need to remember to get back to the basics of what and why we do what we do.

Isobell Vescovi YPG Co-Convenor and Senior Planner, UPco

Jane sharing some wisdom with the group amongst Merchant Builders housing.

Hearing the philosophy of Nightingale from within one of the apartments.

The Nightingale 1.

Our urban communities should be places that facilitate opportunities for layering. Rather than focusing on what has gone wrong or failed, the emphasis should be on how we can make these spaces better, and how can we facilitate future opportunities for innovation in these places.

Melbourne and our industry will forever be in debt to Jane for her contribution to what Melbourne has become. On behalf of the attendees, I wish to thank Jane for sharing her knowledge and wisdom and Maddock’s for sponsoring the excellent event.

For those of you who fear you may have missed out on such an excellent event, never fear, this is just the inaugural session of what is intended to be an ongoing program featuring giants of the industry. Look out for the second edition of the Legends Program to be announced soon and I would encourage anyone interested in exploring why we do what we do to attend!

Isobell is Co-Convenor of VPELA’s Young Professional Group and a Senior Planner at UPco. Isobell is also the recent recipient of VPELA’s Young Professional Award for 2022.

The rooftop terrace of Nightingale 1.

Jane and the participants of the inaugural Legends Program.

Places

Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Final Draft Statement of Planning Policy

Key insights

The implications of this statement, and subsequent implementation into respective planning schemes, will have lasting effects for the Surf Coast declared policy area.

As the Minister for Planning has released the final draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) and the Standing Advisory Committee’s (SAC) report for the same, it’s an appropriate time for us to consider the outcomes.

Our high-level view of the Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape (DAL) Program is that:

• Planning and politics will always be intertwined. It’s a matter of striking a balance between both, notwithstanding the underlying role of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in Victoria.

• The principle of the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Program has strategic merit – its implementation is what will have the most effect.

• In a time where housing affordability is critical, this program must be supplemented by commensurate planning investigations into how population growth can be housed over the 50-year life span of the Statement of Planning Policy. Each affected municipality must be able to accommodate population growth over at least 15 years. This particularly applies to situations where major tracts of land are removed from the land supply pot.

The final draft SPP and Spring Creek PSP area

The politicised nature of this DAL program and the reliance on the Surf Coast SPP to resolve the matter of the Spring Creek PSP area has somewhat overshadowed its overall intent. Political interventions before the last State election have seen this growth area fill headlines, mostly relating to community perceptions that this is an inappropriate location for growth.

The final draft SPP has removed the Spring Creek PSP area, drawn the protected settlement boundary along Duffields Road,

James Hamilton Senior Associate, Ratio Consultants

and placed the land within the defined ‘Green Break’ between Torquay Jan Juc and Bellbrae. This is despite the long-term designation of the area for urban growth supported by the SAC.

Both the Minister for Planning, Richard Wynne, and Member for South Barwon, Darren Cheeseman, were of the view that this outcome responded to community feedback while providing certainty and confidence for stakeholders regarding long-term investment plans.

The Surf Coast Standing Advisory Committee Report

The SAC report provides a contrasting position to that of the final draft SPP and the positions held by the Minister for Planning and Member for South Barwon. It provides a planning-based merits consideration of the draft SPP and a suite of recommendations for consideration by the Minister for Planning.

The SAC report clearly sets out its consideration of key matters, including land supply and population, landscape and visual, ecology and biodiversity, bushfire, cultural and social heritage, civil engineering, and site-specific issues.

We focus on several of the below themes:

• Spring Creek PSP area – this area has been contemplated since the 1980s as a location to accommodate population growth. Since then, the planning intervention ‘yo-yo’ effect has been prevalent, finally coming to a head under the Surf Coast DAL program. The SAC found that the development of Spring Creek should progress generally in accordance with the Council endorsed PSP. The SAC further considered that the two options for this area contained in the draft SPP are not reflective of the strategic planning process undertaken or strategic imperatives of the Surf Coast planning scheme.

• Ultimately, the SAC concluded that Torquay-Jan Juc is identified as a District Town, a designated growth location, and that the Spring Creek PSP area should be retained. It further concluded that the final draft SPP should be updated to remove reference to Options 1 and 2 and show the PSP area within the protected settlement boundary.

• Land Supply & Population – given the status of Torquay-Jan Juc as a designated growth area in the Surf Coast planning scheme, the SAC found that it would take a significant portion of the population and household growth. It both considered and recognised the serious implications of dwindling land supply, or the removal thereof, in terms of housing affordability and diversity in Torquay-Jan Juc. It referred to additional pressure being placed on the likes of Central Torquay and other areas.

• Landscape Controls – the SAC considered the role of the landscape character and significance assessment that underpinned the draft SPP and subsequently proposed landscape controls. Several concerns were raised by the SAC and submitters regarding the limitations of the landscape character and significance assessment in terms of its approach to finer grain assessment, the fact it was not independently peered reviewed, and flagging that the widespread application of Significant Landscape Overlays was limited in justification and potentially not required in their proposed extent.

What does this mean for ongoing DAL programs?

Whilst each DAL program will be governed by the same legislation, these respective areas all contain unique areas and landscapes that warrant a tailored approach. This means that the tools available when preparing each SPP should be investigated to their full potential while remaining cognisant of the 50-year vision.

An example of this can be seen in the opportunity to consider the use of Settlement Boundaries in addition to what appears to be a carte blanche approach to the use of Protected Settlement Boundaries, noting that this matter did not appear to be a major point of contention during the Surf Coast SAC Hearing.

In relation to land supply and population, ongoing DAL programs need to carefully consider the implications of protected

settlement boundaries – or in the case of the Surf Coast – backzoning land that could accommodate up to 2,000 lots. Ultimately, a balance needs to be struck via a solution that does not displace demand into other municipalities.

Finally, DELWP will need to further consider the major role landscape character and significance assessment plays in these DAL programs. The implications of this work and subsequent implementation into respective planning schemes can have lasting effects. If there is one key outcome of the Surf Coast SAC report in this respect, it’s the importance of applying a deeper level of rigour to the preparation of controls and the need for independent peer review.

These projects will have lasting effects on future generations. At Ratio Consultants, we place importance on the planning framework proposed through each SPP and hold the view they should be guided by logical and orderly planning processes and inputs.

Note, this article was originally published on Ratio Consultants’ website on 4 May 2022.

James Hamilton is a Senior Associate: Planning based in Ratio Consultants’ Geelong office. His experience working in Australia and the UK have seen him gain a global planning perspective across statutory and strategic planning frameworks.

Dream Destination Gala Dinner

More than 780 boarded our fabulous dinner flight V.P.E.L.A 2022, travelling around the world to some of our favourite destinations. The surrounds and theming added to the excitement of meeting up again and the evening buzzed with enjoyment and atmosphere. Unfortunately, we can’t award prizes to everyone who went to the trouble of dressing up, but it was really appreciated. As always, we had some truly standout guests representing a range of countries as can be seen below:

Table costume winners

Congratulations to Marshall Day Acoustics who again nailed the brief with their “Where’s Wally” world tour costumes. These guys never fail to impress and have set the organisation bar very high.

We are also excited to acknowledge new comers, Allens Lawyers, for their laid-back and very colourful Hawaiian themed outfits. Great work!

Individual costume winners

There were so many wonderful individual efforts from all over the globe and beyond.

Jasmine Ong, Biosis pictured with Azin Emampour, Spiire

Renee De Alwis, Department of Transport

Rubin Winograd, Mencone Stuart Valentine, onemilegrid

Thanks to our sponsors

Markus Tschech, City of Melbourne pictured with Jane Power, VPELA

Terri Landouris, KLM Spatial pictured with Alice Nicolaescu, KLM Spatial

Sophie Handley, Strategic Advisory

Tony Shaw and Fiona Cotter, Energy Forms

Gerard Gilfedder, Currie & Brown

pictured with Darren Wong, Planology

Tania Quick with Air VPELA flight attendant

Emily Mignot, Tract, pictured with Caroline Graham, Tract

Dillon Fiorini and Jack Dowe, Whiteman Properties and Rory Costelloe, Villawood

People Peregrinating planners

Comparing different planning schemes through lived experiences

The public piazza; the Garden City movement; Jane Jacobs; Georges-Eugène Haussmann…

From Victorian England to the Victorian Planning System, our planning education follows a streamlined account of the evolution of ‘urban planning’ and its interdisciplinary nature. We follow the historic accounts of our most honourable urban planners and the iconic movements which inspired the design of many of our current cities… We learn from the past but how often are we reflecting on the present? Firsthand, might we add.

Here we talk to four individuals who, along with one of our authors, have experiences working regionally, interstate, and overseas in the urban planning field. What were the challenges, what were the differences, and how has it influenced them? In particular, would they change anything?

Roaming respondents

Justin Kliger: Justin has recently returned to Australia, after 16 years working abroad in Israel and the UK. Justin has worked in both the public and private sector in Israel and the UK, in statutory planning, urban design and digital planning. Justin is currently a Senior Urban Designer at the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions working in the Fishermans Bend Taskforce.

Jane Witham: Jane is currently a Senior Consultant at Kinetica, in Melbourne, where she has worked for the past four years in both the planning and urban design sectors. Prior to joining Kinetica, Jane spent four years in local government, having worked in Far North Queensland at Livingstone Shire Council and subsequently at Macedon Ranges Shire Council in Victoria.

Ed Riley: Currently the Acting Manager of Strategic Planning at the City of Ballarat, Ed has a relatively even mix of statutory and strategic planning experience in local government in the UK (6 years) and Victoria (4 years), and central government in the Isle of Man (5 years).

Sophie Kusznirczuk: Over the course of 10+ years, Sophie’s experience has included both public and private sectors including time with the City of Port Phillip as a statutory planner, close to five years with Contour Consultants (Victoria), and her current role with Ethos Urban in their Sydney office.

Motivations and challenges

We asked our respondents about what motivated them to move, and what professional barriers or challenges their relocation presented. Unsurprisingly, a strong sense of adventure or eagerness for a new challenge was cited as a key reason for relocation. The excitement of living, working and truly experiencing a new city and culture was enough to encourage some to make a big international move. However, some moves were more pragmatic, dictated by family circumstances, or more recently, the global COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, Jane recalls that her move to far north Queensland was guided by “the advice from my mentor who recommended starting my career where I would be thrown in the deep end from Day 1 – a regional Council”. This advice paid off, and the move had many advantages.

Jane’s role in a smaller council exposed her to a wider variety of projects from day one, and it also enabled her to assist the Council more broadly, such as its response to Cyclone Marcia and by kick-starting a parklet initiative, including commissioning and painting murals around the town centre.

For Heidi, one key reward was the heavy emphasis placed on benefits analysis in the UK as prioritised by the three-pronged objective of the UK’s National Planning Policy Framework, which required developments to demonstrate social, economic and environmental benefits. This enabled her to undertake socioeconomic impact assessments and economic benefits assessments for projects, alongside the day-to-day planning.

Madeleine Craig YPG Committee Member and Town Planner, Contour Consultants

Heidi Duncan Associate Town Planner, Tract

Heidi Duncan in the UK.

Unfortunately, it is not all adventure and airport lounges. Our respondents confirmed that interstate and international relocation is not always easy from a professional standpoint, and it is evident that they each faced a number of challenges.

First and foremost, there were challenges associated with securing employment interstate and aboard. From a practical sense, Justin observed that the language barrier would be a huge challenge to working in Israel, and acknowledged he was lucky to speak Hebrew. Most commonly, a lack of prior work experience within the specific planning system or not having studied domestically was perceived by employers as a significant shortcoming. This hindered some of our respondents in their initial hunt for employment. Similarly, differences in qualifications (three year Bachelor degrees, versus four year degrees, versus the need for a Masters), or a lack of recognition of international degrees by professional bodies was also a setback. And once employment was found, the challenges didn’t end, and participants acknowledge that there was a definite transition period and sometimes a steep learning curve, as they started to learn the intricacies of a new planning system.

With great challenges, there often comes great rewards, which Sophie summarises brilliantly, noting “It has been daunting and frustrating at times but also rewarding – in terms of creating an opportunity to upskill, broaden my network and try new things.”

A snapshot of how other systems differ

What is different, what would you change? These burning questions, notably open ended, elicited some profound responses from our respondents. Some were unsurprising and hit home, such as ‘the inability to search for and view the application materials for historic planning permits online in Victoria’ (Heidi) that we all resonate with! Other responses tackled big ticket items that could be a separate article in and of themselves. We captured several of the common themes below which challenge where we, Victoria, thrive and where we can grow in our current system.

Climate Change: There is a distinct outcry for stronger policy to address climate change. Ed observes how the definition of ‘environmental protection’ varies by location. In Australia, he observes a heavy focus on ecosystems and protection of remnant native vegetation where, conversely, in the Isle of Man and the UK there is stronger focus on climate change which manifests

though a focus on urban consolidation and limiting urban sprawl. Heidi pointedly states we need ‘clear, strict policy on addressing climate change through design’ which Ed supports by identifying heavy reliance in Victoria on weak building regulations, which again are stronger in the UK and Isle of Man.

Social and Affordable Housing: ‘The lack of delivery mechanisms / models in the form of social housing providers is alarming’ (Ed). Heidi concurs, asserting that, alongside clear climate change policies, the UK has equally strong planning policy requiring provision of affordable housing in all developments of 10 or more dwellings, which is supported by its national planning policy framework. Closer to home, Sophie considers New South Wales’s inclusionary zoning to be further progressed than Victoria’s and notes the existence of firmer requirements around the provision of affordable housing (or monetary contributions in lieu of) as part of certain developments.

Indigenous Land: Sophie finds herself impressed with the progress made in NSW with respect to developing a Connecting with Country Framework and building Aboriginal perspectives into the design and development process.’

Zoning & Prohibited Uses: A huge plot twist for Victorian planners debating a move to the UK is the use of Local Plans in place of zones. Justin puts it simply, “I kept asking my friends, but where is the information about an individual piece of land? I couldn’t understand how, without a map of land uses, I would know what a piece of land is used for.’

In place, the UK uses Local Plans and material considerations with no prohibited uses. Several of our respondents carried a similar sentiment being that the consideration of use on its own merits, and the reduced reliance on ‘prohibitions,’ allows for greater flexibility in planning. Reference was made to the undertaking of Olympic Park in London which was not foreseen in any local development plan. On a smaller scale, Ed complements the resultant diverse mix of land uses and a particular hallmark of the English settlement being the presence of the UK corner shop, which would otherwise be prohibited in Melbourne’s residential zones.

On the contrary, Ed is baffled by permit exemptions for dwellings in Victorian zones and the resultant identikit neighbourhoods. ‘Many applications (in the UK) are at household level (new builds; extensions; alterations) and go to significant detail, even in nonHeritage areas. This ensures local distinctiveness is retained and amenity impacts are properly considered in line with community sentiment.’ Interesting...

Planning Process: In several ways, our respondents acknowledge the ‘process-led’ approach which prevails in Victoria.

Statutory planners spend a lot of time ensuring processes have been followed and, with a shortage of planners in every Council in the State, this can have the effect of limiting the amount of time / energy that is directed to assessing the merits of the proposal.” (Ed)

With respect to amending the scheme, ‘the amount of evidence and laborious process for even the smallest edits to the planning scheme is a frustration’ (Ed). However, this is also felt in the UK system where local plans move very slowly, and are often out of date by the time they are even adopted.

Isle of Man (Ed Riley)a

Excitingly, Jane raised a potential route to speed up the postdecision planning process in Victoria. The ‘Negotiated Decision’ pathway used in Queensland piqued our interest. She explains ‘once a Permit has been issued, the applicant has 20 days to lodge a formal request to negotiate conditions. If Council agrees, they will issue an updated Permit. If not, the applicant then has an opportunity to appeal. This process works well and can save a lot of time and resources.’ (Jane)

Third Party Appeal Rights: The above leads seamlessly into our next theme; A non-existent feature of the United Kingdom and New South Wales’s systems, our respondents praise the ‘Third Party Appeals Rights’ process which appears both here and in the Isle of Man.

“The appeal process allows a sense of awareness and engagement that – through jargon, legalese, the overwhelming length of Planning Schemes - otherwise keeps the planning system at arms’ length from those who are most often affected by it.” (Ed )

Heidi notes the exclusion of this process in the UK felt ‘disingenuous to community engagement’ whilst Sophie highlights the increased community consultation that occurs outside the Council process in New South Wales, especially for large scale projects, appears to be a good alternative. She believes ‘the approach generally improves the overall success of the project including by identifying and responding to issues raised by the community during early phases.’

Foundations for growth

When asked whether their experience working interstate and internationally had influenced them in the planning profession, the response was a resounding yes. Working in other cities, states or countries reinforces that good planning outcomes and principles, are universal. Ed summarises this sentiment perfectly, stating “Planning is a truly global profession and the skills one develops as a planner are applicable anywhere, even if the systems / priorities are different in different countries.”

Generally speaking, our respondents found that working in different planning systems or frameworks broadens your perspective and enables a more rounded view of urban planning practice. Exposure to different processes and legislation can provide a wake-up call and help us acknowledge that there truly are different ways of achieving our desired planning outcomes. Sophie found this particularly influential, noting “that’s something

very valuable to learn after you’ve been working in the same system for a while, and you come to take things for granted. It empowers you to speak up and say that change is possible, and that things can be improved.”

Parting comments (pun intended)

It is very clear to us that the above ‘snapshot in the life’ of our generous contributors is purely a glimpse into their experiences outside of Victoria.

The honest acknowledgement of the challenges faced head-on provides a clear picture for what to expect. No-one has said it is easy, but everyone has said it is worth it. We are reassured by the demonstrated ability to adapt if not thrive in different systems and the outlined benefits have the potential to facilitate invaluable growth, personally and professionally.

To that end, it is evident that the identified ‘themes’ of difference are just the surface level of how other systems have evolved in their own manner. Each theme duly deserves its own, more thorough, investigation and we only hope that these preliminary thoughts have left you, like us, with a sense of intrigue and curiosity.

Ultimately, if you’re debating a move to a regional council, interstate, or overseas, it’s hard to disagree with Jane’s advice, ‘Jump in the deep end, you will make mistakes, you will learn fast and you will progress quickly.’

We thank all the participants for their transparency and willingness to put their time towards the content of this article. We note the experiences of our respondents, and perhaps our readers, may vary and the perceptions of alternate systems, being local or overseas, will inevitably be different. To that end, all opinions expressed are personal.

Madeleine Craig is a YPG Committee member and Town Planner at Contour Consultants where she is driven to deliver exceptional planning outcomes. She is highly determined and approaches her work with a sense of curiosity. Her work is primarily focused on residential and commercial projects in Victoria at a range of scales.

Heidi Duncan is an Associate Town Planner at Tract, Heidi recently returned to Australia after five years working in the UK, where she worked as a Planning Officer at London Council, and a Planning Consultant in the private sector. Prior to moving to the UK, Heidi worked as a town planner in Brisbane, Queensland, at multi-disciplinary firm Arcadis.

VPELA 1

Jane in Queensland.

Don’t forget to check out VPELA’s facebook page. This is a great way to keep in touch with what’s on. You can find us at

The Business

Crossing your ‘Ts’, dotting your ‘Is’ and minding your ‘Ps and Qs’

Call me old-fashioned, but I am one of those people who takes the quality of their written work seriously. Afterall, why wouldn’t I? Like many in the VPELA community, I am in the business of effective communication; much of it in the written form.

Now deep into my career, I am privileged to have the opportunity to employ and work with many young people – people who are in the early years of what I hope will be long and successful careers. While it may not always be apparent (just ask some of the team at UPco), I admire them. I love their enthusiasm; I love their embrace and masterful use of new technologies and I love their eagerness to please and their aspirations for professional success. I love it, too, that they keep me ‘on my toes’, that they know things I do not and that they are confident enough to challenge me on the ways I approach things, or the opinions I express.

In short, there is a lot to like about the young and ‘up and coming’ generation of professionals in our industry and, accordingly, I am one of many keen to nurture their developing expertise. There is, however, always room for improvement for those willing to give it a go; especially when it comes to the art of writing.

At Upco, I am well known for my interest in the quality of written work being produced by our team; a Sergeant Major (albeit smiling) of sorts. I am quick to ‘jump on’ spelling and grammatical errors when reviewing the work of others; taking time to explain the corrections in the expectation that the skills of a more experienced report writer might be passed to the next generation.

It takes time (some might proffer a lifetime) to hone writing skills – skills that were once grounded in the education offered at school and university, but which have been relegated to an extent that many young people are now only average spellers and worse, have only a limited understanding of English grammar. The ‘spelling and grammar checker’ has, regrettably, become a convenient and close, but not always reliable, friend.

So many aspects of report writing have me either curious, or simply frustrated.

Sentence structure in written work is so often lazy. I suspect this is due, in part, to the casualisation of modern-day communications, including the Short Messaging Service (SMS). Of course, ‘texting’ has its purpose, but advancing professional writing skills is not one of them. Sadly, I understand, I am one of a dying breed that still drafts a text message using capital letters, whole sentences, full stops and other punctuation suited to purpose. What a dinosaur, I hear you all thinking.

More and more, I observe young writers unable to use the apostrophe correctly – so much so that linguists increasingly

Amanda Ring Director UPco.

talk about the far-from-certain future of this pesky (but very important) piece of punctuation. I’m distressed, too, to read recently of the imminent redundancy of the ‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’ spelling rule. Surprisingly, it seems that many people are not aware the rule exists.

The explanation mark is grossly overused, especially by Millennials! Homophones send some into a spin and they are not assisted by gradual ‘Americanisation’ of English (eg metres and meters). Verbs have somehow become nouns (eg Thank you for the invite) and prepositions have become verbs (eg This week Collingwood is versing Richmond). Oh, yes, and what about the consistently incorrect use of the word setback as opposed to set back? Often, commas are used incorrectly, or not all, and nouns are attributed an incorrect verb or, where applicable, an incorrect pronoun. If I had received a dollar for each time I have read ‘the Council’ (as a single entity) attributed a plural verb or pronoun, I would have retired to an island paradise (or Paris) years ago.

For some, the correct use of the language is just not important and, to a certain extent, I ‘get it’. We all get on perfectly well, regardless. Counterintuitively, places of learning appear to have little interest in the correct use of the language, too. However, for those of you that write as a core part of your daily professional activities and, further, aspire to be well-regarded and respected for it, you should always target improvement.

Think carefully about the words you choose and the construction of your sentences and paragraphs. Edit carefully despite the pressure of deadlines. Avail yourself of a dictionary, from time to time, and have a simple guide to everyday English handy to assist with (amongst other things) the correct use of the pesky apostrophe. These are simple and important tools in the armoury of professional and effective written communication.

Finally, remind yourself how good it feels to have an employer, peer, other colleague, or client compliment a well-constructed email, memorandum, letter, or report; how it instantly brings a broad smile to your face and puts a spring in your professional step. There is no greater encouragement to aim high.

“The limits of my language are the limits of my world.”

– Ludwig Wittgenstein

Amanda Ring is the Managing Director of UPco.

The Business Think again Can we codify activity centre built form provisions?

This column aims to question the status quo and provoke new thinking in planning and urban design. This edition’s column proposes a new approach to built form controls in suburban activity centres.

Many of Melbourne’s smaller suburban activity centres have no planning controls governing built form outcomes (e.g. building height and density), while the built form controls for other centres are generally relatively old. Almost one-third of Major Activity Centres and over 40% of Neighbourhood Activity Centres have no built form provisions of any kind. One-third of the MAC built form provisions are more than 5 years old and 6% are more than 10 years old, whilst 65% of MAC provisions were introduced more than 3 years after the finalisation of the background document. Furthermore, the vast majority of the controls that do exist are based on studies that pre-date the current metropolitan planning strategy, Plan Melbourne 2017-2050, while many predate the current residential zones.

Jess Jones Senior Consultant, kinetica

The lack of certainty resulting from old or absent controls commonly leads to underdevelopment and/or planning disputes that add considerable delays and cost to development. This, in turn, hinders the delivery of housing and services in appropriate locations.

The reason activity centre built form controls are absent or relatively old is that the strategic planning process required to be followed in creating them, as set out in Planning Practice Note 58, is slow and costly. Additionally, this work is almost entirely prepared by municipal councils which do not have the resources to keep up with the need for them to be created or updated.

An alternative model exists, and is already utilised for residential planning controls.

Development in residential areas is governed by standard zones and a standard code (‘ResCode’). Although individual councils choose where to apply these zones and have the opportunity to

Enabling our communities to thrive

Our planning and environment team has market-leading expertise across a broad range of industry areas, including property development, transport, construction, energy, waste and recycling and social infrastructure. We act for State government, local Councils, statutory authorities and the private sector. Our full service firm enables you, your projects and your communities, to thrive.

Meg Lee – Partner

M +61 404 070 549

meg.lee@hallandwilcox.com.au

Natalie Bannister – Partner M +61 409 418 259 natalie.bannister@hallandwilcox.com.au

Stan Kondilios – Partner

M +61 416 121 961

stan.kondilios@hallandwilcox.com.au

Rory O’Connor – Partner M +61 400 436 175 rory.oconnor@hallandwilcox.com.au

Brendan Tobin – Partner M +61 404 095 563 brendan.tobin@hallandwilcox.com.au

introduce variations to some residential standards (via schedules to the zones), the controls are largely set and updated by the State Government. Further, in the absence of specific choices by individual councils, residential areas default to standard provisions. This means that the controls are easily kept up-todate with metropolitan policy, without removing councils’ ability to undertake place-specific strategic planning as their resources allow.

Could a similar approach work for suburban activity centres (perhaps excluding Metropolitan Activity Centres, which are few and significant enough to warrant bespoke controls)? Could a set of default provisions be developed that is automatically applied to each activity centre in the absence of place-specific planning?

Of course, each activity centre has unique character attributes. Distinct types of activity centres would need to be identified, and a separate set of provisions created for each—just as we have different provisions for different residential zones—and councils could be invited to apply the relevant set of controls to their centres.

Inevitably, this would result in some level of standardisation between different activity centres of the same type. However, would this arguably adverse outcome be worse than the current situation where controls are generally out of date, and often restrict change altogether?

This proposition was the subject of research undertaken by kinetica for Suburban Alliance (Victorian branch).

The research found that there is some consistency among existing activity centre built form provisions, particularly in relation to:

• building heights relative to proximity to Central Melbourne and fixed rail;

• building heights and upper level setbacks in centres with extensive heritage fabric;

• street wall heights in street-based centres; and

• upper level setbacks relative to overall heights.

Notably, the research found that six municipalities (Bayside, Boroondara, Kingston, Moreland, Stonnington and Whitehorse) have already developed somewhat standardised built form provisions for NACs.

These findings provide clues to a potential suite of standardised provisions.

Standard provisions could be applied to all suburban activity centres (except Metropolitan Activity Centres) that do not currently have any built form provisions. Existing built form provisions could be required to be reviewed within three years of the introduction of the standardised provisions, with Councils required to justify if they wish to retain existing provisions that are more constraining (for example, on heritage grounds).

Councils could be provided with the opportunity to seek to introduce variations to the standard provisions—including more or less constraining provisions, or the introduction of a mandatory control—via a schedule, through a conventional planning scheme amendment process.

The research referred to above indicates that there is an opportunity to explore a new approach to built form controls for suburban activity centres based on standardised provisions. This could accelerate the implementation of activity centre policy by reducing disputes and delays, and reducing planning costs associated with the provision of housing and services.

(The views expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not purport to represent the position of VPELA or Suburban Alliance.)

Jess Jones is an urban designer with multi-disciplinary experience in both the public and private sectors of urban design, landscape architecture and strategic planning. Jess is currently working at Kinetica Studio, at the interface between strategic and statutory urban design and planning projects.

Places

Rory’s Ramble

Green teal climate change

The surge of Green and Teal votes at the Federal election shows people speaking loudly on the common theme of halting global warming and what they view as most important in our society

Many people believe addressing global warming is the Government’s responsibility but the reality is that everyone will have to accept responsibility and share the load if we are to dramatically improve our current practices.

Many people talk about global warming but still go home to their central heating/cooling and order Uber Eats. There needs to be some fundamental change.

This change needs to occur across all levels of our society. All levels of government, private practice and individuals need to step up. Each level must be prepared to accept that conversion to clean, green energy will come at an upfront cost in order to achieve long-term savings to our hip pocket and the health of our planet

At the Federal Government level, big-ticket essential infrastructure items include cutting fossil fuel use, more rapid electrification of our cars, improvements to our power grid to allow better use of green energy, and more incentives to further build our battery capacity.

At a more local level, there are many green initiatives raised in think-tanks. However, when it comes to implementing these initiatives, they often fall by the wayside because someone has to pay for their delivery and the ongoing maintenance costs.

Parks Victoria, for instance, won’t accept any newly revegetated land as biodiversity offsets. This is counter-intuitive when we should be trying to recapture as much green vegetation as possible. Instead, most offsetting is simply paying somebody to ensure the future of existing vegetation – but there’s actually no net gain in doing so.

Further, while people talk about the heat island effect in our cities, many councils reject the suggestion of double-planting nature strips or linear parks using existing vegetation – arguing maintenance costs. Surely the primary goal is greening our urban environment rather than maintenance costs if there is a positive cooling effect.

In the home, projects such as Villawood/South East Water’s Aquarevo and Brendan Condon’s Cape Paterson Ecovillage have proven that their tangible and practical initiatives immediately reduce our water and energy footprint.

Our Aquarevo community at Lyndhurst has proven potable water use can be reduced by up to 70% while recycled water still allows us to have a green environment where we can enjoy our gardens and parks.

Villawood has been experimenting in its projects with the use of microgrids, solar panels and batteries to minimise our reliance on fossil fuels. We’ve also initiated two estates to be gas-free, which is a fairly brave move in an urban setting. We have enjoyed remarkable success with the sales of our 7-Star mandated build lots at our Aquarevo, Redstone and Armstrong communities, with enormous demand for lots.

There still needs to be a broader shift in attitude by buyers to understand that if they design their house well – to at least 7 stars or above – the comfortable ambient temperature of the house won’t require central heating and cooling. This level of ambient temperature actually pays for itself. In fact, the longterm energy savings in dollar terms in gas-free homes of 7 or more stars is even more significant.

Brendan Condon’s message at the award-winning Cape Paterson Ecovillage (The Cape) is a very timely reminder of what is achievable if the whole community pitches in and adopts change. This community is building 8-Star energy-efficient, all-

Rory Costelloe, Founder & Executive Director, Villawood Properties

Aquarevo

Aquarevo drops

electric homes that are solar-powered, gas-free, operationally carbon-neutral and have electric vehicle charging as standard.

Residents have ditched gas for heat pumps and induction cook-tops, and have no gas bills and tiny electricity bills. Many homes now have eliminated petrol bills through use of EVs. The 230 dwelling community is on track to save over $1 million per annum in energy bills compared to a conventional estate featuring gas/electric homes and petrol vehicles.

Recent modelling by think tank Rewire Australia shows that, if The Cape approach was replicated across all homes nationally, Australian households could eliminate fossil fuel use and save around $40 billion per annum, money that would recirculate through local economies and communities.

More community/home gardens creating local produce and more home cooking would mean healthier eating, fewer car trips to restaurants and less delivery trips by Uber Eats to your home, saving both fuel and huge amounts of waste in packaging.

As our population grows, we need somewhere to put people. The planning fraternity would prefer 70% of growth to be absorbed within the existing urban footprint, so as to use existing infrastructure, particularly public transport.

Yet they put in place barriers such as Neighbourhood Character Overlays and long delays in planning processes, particularly with third party appeal rights. By the time a developer gets a planning permit for a scarce resource, the land cost leads to expensive

housing. Some sharp changes could dramatically improve affordability.

As per my last article, getting into the revolution of two-wheel transport can save a lot of traffic congestion and pollution. This can be by traditional feet-powered means or by electric bikes and scooters. Getting kids walking or riding to school would mean less car congestion at peak pick-up times, making it safer to ride. It would also start our kids into good early habits of exercise and a healthy way of living.

The Federal election result could well be the wake-up call we

The Cape.

The Business

Time to get serious about active travel

1. Despite the promised benefits from switching our vehicle fleet from Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) to Electric Vehicles (EVs):

a) a looming shortage of battery metals, including lithium, cobalt and nickel may well keep the price of EVs out of reach for majority of the population;1

b) the embedded energy in the full life cycle of a motor vehicle may mean that EVs have an only 18% lower carbon footprint than their ICE counterparts;2 and

c) road congestion can only be expected to worsen as an increasing population shares a road network bound by its historic reservations.3

2. Transport planners have long understood that motor vehicles are a relatively inefficient use of the road network. The Victorian Cycling Strategy 2018-2028 observed that:

a) a high quality cycle way can accommodate 4,600 cyclists an hour; whereas

b) a wide traffic lane can only accommodate 1,900 vehicles an hour.

3.

Matthew Townsend Victorian Bar

statutory referral authority for large planning applications ensuring developers consider how people will access them on foot and by bike, and not just by car. Councils could lose funding if they try to install substandard schemes such as paint-only bike lanes, or delay work.4

b) Paris has released Plan Velo 2, a $174 million cycling plan designed to transform the French capital into a ‘100% cyclable city’. The plan will see the creation of 30,000 parking stands with an additional 1,000 spaces reserved for cargo bikes. Paris is already in the process of removing more than 70% of its on-street car parking spaces.5

c) Milan has approved a $300 million network of bike paths linking 750 kilometres of bike lanes across 24 different lines, including 16 radial, four circular and four longdistance greenways. The project aims to ensure that around 80% of homes and services in Milan, such as hospitals, schools and railway and underground links, are located within one kilometre of each bike route.6 6.

4. A Transport for London study found that bike-lanes are five times as efficient as vehicle traffic lanes, given they carry 2.5 times as many people as a regular traffic lane and require half the space.

5. For these and other reasons, cities the world over are placing greater emphasis on active travel:

a) England appointed an Active Travel commissioner to rate Council’s performance on how well they make space for cycling and walking. Active Travel England will be a

a) Berlin is planning the largest car-free area of any city anywhere in the world. Special permits would be given to emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, taxis, commercial and delivery vehicles (though many deliveries in Berlin already happen on cargo bikes), and residents with limited mobility who depend on cars. Others would be able to use a car, likely through a car-sharing program, up to 12 times a year to run longer errands. But most people, most of the time, would walk, bike, or take public transportation.7

7. Here in Victoria, the Victoria Planning Provisions now aim to facilitate an efficient and active travel network to increase the proportion of trips made by walking and cycling8 and the City of Melbourne is fast-tracking the delivery of 40 kilometres of protected bike lanes and pedestrian improvements across the city.

8. However, commuters often risk their lives to join the protected bike network and VicRoads’ seems to have achieved little more than the roll out of the ‘pop-up bike lanes’ along Heidelberg Road since the onset of the COVID pandemic.9

9. Victoria Walks lays part of the blame on the way in which roads are funded in Victoria:

10. But it’s not that we can’t afford it. Infrastructure projects such as the North-East link have been estimated to cost $15.8 billion, the Westgate tunnel $10 billion, and the Monash freeway upgrade $1.4 billion.

11. Against these eye-watering costs, the plans for Paris and Milan are a comparative bargain.

Matthew Townsend is a member of the Victorian Bar.

1 https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shortagesflagged-ev-materials-lithium-cobalt-2021-07-01/

2 https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-theenvironmental-footprint-of-electric-versus-fossilcars-124762

3 https://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/report/2-threebig-problems-that-are-getting-worse/

4 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/22/chrisboardman-to-lead-new-walking-and-cycling-body-inengland

5 https://road.cc/content/news/paris-become-100-centcycling-city-next-four-years-287285

6 https://road.cc/content/news/milan-confirms-new-bikenetwork-289375

State governments have tended to leave walking infrastructure like footpaths, crossings and median strips up to local councils. But councils, with their rates capped by the government, may not be in a position to provide substantial investment. This is especially true for rural and regional councils, with towns that often have few footpaths.10

7 https://www.fastcompany.com/90711961/berlin-isplanning-a-car-free-area-larger-than-manhattan

8 Clause 18.02-1S and 18.02-2S

9 https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/traffic-and-road-use/ cycling/pop-up-bike-lanes

10 https://www.victoriawalks.org.au/news/1686

The Business Sound Bites

Noise sensitive development near existing industry – a regulatory void

A seemingly obscure and technical detail of the procedure for measuring compliance with the industry noise requirements of the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (EP Regulations) has significant implications for new residential development in mixed use areas.

An important point of context is that the assessment requirements for noise affected residential development sites depend on the source of the noise. For example, for sites affected by transportation noise, there has historically been greater scope to use dwelling sound insulation improvements to enable residential development. In the case of industry noise affected sites, the EP Regulations place the emphasis on controlling noise levels outside of dwellings; this means less scope to use sound insulation improvement to address noise levels, and the potential for new residential development to create compliance risks for existing industry.

Broadly, the complications of assessing residential development near industry sites were similar under the old SEPP N-1, except for a measurement procedure change introduced by the EP Regulations. Under both SEPP N-1 and the EP Regulations, industry noise could be measured inside a dwelling when there is no way to test the noise externally (e.g., on a balcony or through a window); compliance is then assessed by applying an indoor to outdoor adjustment to work out an outdoor noise level to compare with the noise limit. However, the subtle policy change is that SEPP N-1 set fixed values for the adjustment whereas the EP Regulations use the sound insulation of the dwelling in most cases.

This is clearly a technical detail of procedure, but the effect is significant. Under SEPP N-1, the procedure could be used to enable residential development to be backed against an industry site. For example, an apartment or townhouse development could design a blank and highly sound insulated wall facing the industry, with balconies, terraces and openable windows oriented away from the industry. Under the EP Regulations, this option can’t be used to the same effect. Further, Victorian policy does not provide clear guidance for councils or developers in these situations.

As a result, under the new EP Regulations, there is scope for different approaches to be applied, with widely differing implications for development opportunities. For example, in some areas, councils have taken the view that new residential development must not create a situation in which an existing business would no longer comply with legislated limits; the most stringent form of approach which can significantly constrain opportunities for taller residential development. In other areas, councils and regulators have taken a much less onerous approach which doesn’t restrict the built form of residential

Justin Adcock and Travis Hancock Marshall Day Acoustics

development, but leaves existing industry exposed to compliance risks and possible restrictions on operations.

These issues might seem familiar. The threat to live music venues from residential development in entertainment precincts has been a source of dispute for many years. This was recognised by regulators, and noise policy was changed to align with broader planning objectives for mixed use areas. The changes were brought about by implementing agent of change principles into planning schemes and the EP Regulations; this provided a way of accommodating new residential development near live music venues.

Unfortunately, while the same issues apply to residential and industry interfaces, the EP Regulations don’t include any provisions for this type of situation, and agent of change principles are not reflected in the regulations.

These situations are now also complicated by the introduction of the General Environmental Duty (GED) and the Environment Reference Standard (ERS) under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (EP Act). The GED establishes a mandatory obligation for noise producers to implement all reasonably practicable measures to reduce the risk of harm, including noise related amenity impacts. However, the EPA have noted that the GED is an obligation that also applies to residential developers, meaning projects near industry sites would need to demonstrate that all reasonably practicable measures have been taken to address the risks of industry noise.

Feedback from regulators on some projects has suggested that upgrading facade sound insulation to protect internal amenity is an appropriate response to the GED. However, some of the performance standards that have been proposed for this approach are not intended for assessing industrial noise, and this doesn’t address the EP Regulations compliance risks.

Achieving Victoria’s broader housing and industry objectives would benefit from better alignment of noise and planning policy to address the changing landscape of industrial areas and brownfield development sites. This would ideally include agent of change principles, and provide guidance suited to the differing needs of minor and regionally significant industry. If the policy development that occurred for live music venues is anything to go by, the motivation for change will need to be driven by the professions that represent developers and industry alike.

Justin and Travis both work for Marshall Day Acoustics in the Victorian environmental noise team and can be contacted on jadcock@marshallday.com and thancock@marshallday.com.

The Fast Lane with Henry Turnbull

Department of Transport Inner and Greater Regions

In a major shake-up of responsibilities across metropolitan Melbourne, the Department of Transport (DoT), formerly VicRoads, has changed from having north-western metro and south-eastern metro regions to now having an Inner Metro region and a Greater Metro region as shown on the figure below.

I understand that DoT sought to improve accessibility and responsiveness to its external stakeholders, with the new Inner and Greater Metro Regions set up so as to better align to the differing transport and urban planning needs for inner Melbourne and greater/peri-urban Melbourne.

Timohy Brook Brook Lawyers

Brent Chisholm Traffix Group

Sarah Davison Sarah Davison Planning

Sashank Krishnamoorthy Norton Rose Fulbright

Daniel Letty Planning & Property Partners

Ashleigh McCoach Norton Rose Fulbright

Saskia McEldowney Urbis

Simon McPherson Global South Pty Ltd

Yaseen Mohiddin Student

Luke Mooney Planning & Property Partners

Thomas Morrison Planning & Property Partners

Henry Turnbull, Consulting Traffic Engineer

In particular, Inner Metro will focus on key issues of congestion, mode share, active transport (the new project development and delivery team for peds and bikes), tram network, Big Build interface and the Suburban Rail Loop, while Greater Metro will address the issues of significant urbanisation of the Greater Melbourne areas and with population growth areas.

Both regions will have Movement & Safety teams for general engineering advice/approvals. Transport Planning teams in both regions will provide Stat Planning referrals and manage the investment pipeline for future projects.

Greater Metro has the Transport Network Planning Integration team that provides Strategic Planning services on behalf of both metro regions, including Precinct Structure Planning. Greater Metro also accommodates the External Works team that manages developer funded projects from FLP approval through to delivery across both metro regions. Consent for Works to undertake works in a road reserve are also considered and approved by the External Works team.

The Inner Metro region will be based in the Sunshine office while the Greater Metro region will use the Burwood office until its relocation to Ringwood.

I look forward to seeing the benefits of this change, noting that the integration of staff from the former regions should ensure that there is a consistency of standards and approach across the metropolitan area which was sometimes missing in the past.

Henry Turnbull is Principal Consultant at Traffix Group and a former President of VPELA.

Yianni Papoutsakis Gadens

Astrid Ratcliffe Planning & Property Partners

Nathan Sambevski Planning & Property Partners

Cole Slone Harwood Andrews

Sarah Thomas Upco

Charlotte Townshend Planning & Property Partners

Rebecca Wardle Cogency

Declan Weir Stantec

Sebastian Withers Norton Rose Fulbright

James Woolway Urbis

Qiaochu (Jack) Zhang Planning & Property Partners

The Business Asking for a friend…

Ever felt like you should know something, but don’t ask for fear that it’s a “dumb question”? Ever felt the sensation of that question burning in the back of your mind, remaining unquenched? Dissatisfied and unanswered? Even after 20 years and now in the senior ranks …feeling that you’ve missed your chance?

Well, fear not! This column is here to save the day! The YPG are here to offer our readers the chance to get it off their collective chest and… “ask for a friend”. Coupled with the anonymity to solve your (*ahem*) “friend’s” predicament with professional discretion, read on to find out the answers you’ve been searching for!

Inspired by the infamous (yet universally intriguing) Dolly Doctor and other similar Q & A columns from the magazines we read as kids, “Asking for a friend…” is set to be a new ongoing contribution to the VPELA Revue. Got a question…for a friend? Send it on through to ypgquestions@gmail.com!

P.S. Contributor identities will be kept confidential – your “friend’s” secret is safe with us!

“What is a PSP”?

A PSP is a “Precinct Structure Plan”. It’s basically a big plan for areas that are to be redeveloped. Could be greenfields (picture: farmland on the outer fringes towards the urban growth boundary), old industrial sites that are to be revitalized, or even

A classic greenfield, primed to be the subject of a PSP (or possibly just the wallpaper of your computer from 2002)

established areas where there is a large piece of strategically located land that could be ‘reimagined’.

Essentially, the PSP tries to lay out a future structure for the land – things like: what uses will go where? Where, how tall and how big will the buildings be? Where do we want the open space and how much of it do we want? Where do we want all the roads and connections to go?

Importantly, the PSP is created in conjunction with the VPA (Victorian Planning Authority) who help to prepare the plan with a whole team of other people which could include Councils, landowners, town planners, urban designers, engineers and authorities. The process can take years with many steps involved, and then years again to implement. It’s a long game!

“Who is a Responsible Authority?”

A Responsible Authority is the body responsible for the administration or enforcement of a planning scheme, or a provision of a scheme. They are responsible for considering and determining planning permit applications and for ensuring compliance with the planning scheme, permit conditions and agreements. Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this ‘responsibility’ can be delegated to enable others to act on their behalf. For example, the Council is a Responsible Authority, but to save the Councilors from having to sign off every single document and permit that the Council looks after (imagine?!), they ‘delegate’ their authority to professional officers within Council to sign things and make decisions on their behalf. This is why a Statutory Planning Manager or Team Leader can sign reports and planning decisions, but a more junior statutory planner may not – different levels of authority have different levels of ‘delegation’. Another example of a Responsible Authority would be the Minister for Planning in certain instances (who ‘delegates’ to officers within DELWP).

“Why are there always so many traffic engineers at VPELA events?”

Known to one of the more social of the engineer subspecies (genus: Engineerus trafficus), the humble traffic engineer is subdued and methodical by day, but loves any excuse for a beverage and light conversation to counteract all the ramp grades and car parking calcs. Feeling less at home amongst those other subspecies of engineers who use decimals, rather than rounding down (or up, as per the subversive Clause 52.34), VPELA offers a reprieve from the other hardcore, and decidedly less fun, engineering-only industry bodies. Don’t be fooled, they’re quiet but astute – and have a keenly attuned sixth sense for the nearest free beer.

“What is the VPA?”

The VPA is the Victorian Planning Authority. Kind of similar to Utopia, they deal with big planning things like PSPs (refer above)

and do lots of number crunching with economic and population data help figure out how on earth we’re going to fit us all into that pesky urban growth boundary. They are a state government authority that reports to the Minister for Planning. Fun fact: They used to be called the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) and, before that, the Growth Areas Authority (GAA).

“What is a PPF Translation?”

Clauses 10 and 20 (state and local policies) in the planning scheme are currently being updated so all “Clause 20” local policies are integrated into the same place as state policies, instead of being separate and broken up into SPPF (State Planning Policy Framework) and LPPF (Local Planning Policy Framework). You might have recently noticed in some planning schemes the Clause 20’s have mysteriously disappeared…this is because they’re now integrated in Clause 10 and have been translated! Happy local policy hunting…

“How do I address the VCAT Member in a hearing?”

It’s best to listen to the guidance provided by the member at the start of the hearing, as some may have differing preferences. However, if it’s your first VCAT hearing or you’re a little nervous and forget what they said, if in doubt, ‘Madam Chair’ and ‘Mister Chairman’ will generally be ok.

“What is ResCode?”

ResCode is the set of rules a bunch of the best in the biz came up with in the late 90s and early 2000s to replace the Good Design Guide. Implemented in 2001, it applies to residential development and apartments of 3 storeys or less. It’s made up of “standards” for things like overlooking, overshadowing, site coverage and permeability, walls on boundary and access to sunlight. Although it might not always feel like it, it was meant to be a performance based system (until local policy decided to start putting in its two cents worth). You might have noticed a bit of chatter recently about the need to update good ol’ ResCode (kind of like democracy, it’s not perfect but it’s the best system we’ve got!). If you’re interested, you might like to keep an eye out for more updates on DELWP’s proposed PAM system… Editors, note: nothing to do with Bay Watch.

“What is Urban Design?”

That’s a great question. Not sure, maybe someone can help us with this for the next edition? Next question.

“What is the role of a Council statutory planner?”

(Don’t worry, this answer was provided by a Council statutory planner!)

A council planner is many things. Often confused with a doormat or lightning rod for the local community to channel their disenfranchisement with everything they feel the Council is doing “wrong”, the humble council planner’s role is often inappropriately conflated with the responsibilities of a social worker. While both professions contribute to the wellbeing of people, the council planner really is only there to help with the planning related things, which, given the effects planning

The default attire of the Engineerus trafficus.

decisions and issues can have, can be rather difficult to tease out over the phone or counter. The council planner’s actual position description involves the reviewing and assessing of planning permit applications, issuing of written and verbal planning advice, offering guidance on planning matters, and generally wading through a sea of unruly files...well, now electronically for the most part. And no, your rates do not solely pay their wages.

“What is Plan Melbourne?”

A big glossy document, broken up into a bunch of chapters about a whole stack of big picture (but really important) things about planning for Melbourne’s future and what we’d like it to look like once we eventually get to 2050. It has been updated in the form of a “refreshment” (but served neat, without the ice or lime). It can be read with a liberal application of Control+F (hehe). All in all a lovely, slightly overwhelming, but generally optimistic view of future Melbourne. Also doubles as a nice coffee table addition, if that’s your thing.

the exception of the Tribunal, who often likes to ask questions just to make sure you’re adequately prepared) and therefore are not generally treated with as much weight as evidence.

“How does a shuffle stacker system work and why do I need access to all bays?”

When you think about a car stacker, you might imagine something like a ferris wheel, where all the little cars go round and round in a nice clockwise direction, and you can access any car from a single spot. Well, a shuffle stacker is a little different to that. Here’s what is actually does:

“What is the difference

between an advocate and an expert in a VCAT proceeding?”

Imagine this scenario: a developer applies for a permit for a child care centre, but (for a number of reasons) the Council refuses to issue a permit. Despite being knocked out in round 1; the developer then decides to get back up for round 2 and appeal the decision through VCAT (gloves on: ding, ding!). They find an advocate to represent them, Council does the same, and off they go!

So, what does an advocate actually do? Exactly what their title sounds like: they advocate for the party they’ve been engaged to represent (i.e. the developer or the Council) and make submissions to VCAT on their behalf. For example, you might have a town planner or a lawyer advocating on behalf of the developer who’s wanting to build the child care centre. And you might have a council officer (for example Council’s in house VCAT advocate, or a planning officer), or a lawyer or independent town planner representing the Council.

On the other hand, an expert’s job is to provide opinion on the matter in their area of expertise, which will help the Tribunal to make their assessment, and ultimately could sway their decision either way. Because they are present in an ‘expert’ capacity, their views generally carry more weight than simple submissions advanced by advocates and their opinion is subject to being tested through (sometimes scary rigorous) cross-examination.

For example, to help demonstrate whether the proposal will create unreasonable additional detriment as a result of increased traffic or parking demands, either party might bring in a traffic engineer as an expert to substantiate whether, in the expert’s opinion, the car parking and access arrangements on the site, and the proposed times of operation and number of children in the centre will generate unreasonable additional impact to the surrounding street network.

Whilst an expert will be called by a particular party (for example: the developer who wants to be able to build the child care centre, or the Council who refused the permit), their duty is to assist the Tribunal rather than advance the case of the party calling them. Whilst an advocate may be an ‘expert’ in their own right, their submissions are generally not subject to any questioning (with

Effectively, if you have a 3 x 3 stacker (9 spaces in total), 3 of them will be accessible at ground floor level at any one time. That is, you have access to the 3 cars in the middle row. Then you have 3 cars suspended in bays directly above, and the same underneath. The bays in the middle row (ground floor) can go left and right, then the upper and lower spaces move up and down. This is the same as a “rotating” system, but doesn’t actually go “around” like you might expect.

Well, “why can’t I just have one bay that I can access for all cars?”, you ask? Because the spaces at the top and bottom rows only go up and down, not sideways, you must have access to all 3 ground level bays.

If you’re a visual learner, like yours truly, this handy series of diagrams we made might be helpful:

Still confused? Don’t worry, scan the QR code above for a handy video. Please note, the product displayed in the video and the manufacturer are not endorsed by VPELA, YPG, or the contributors to this article. The video is for strictly illustrative purposes only.

Closing

Well, we hope that we’ve helped answer some of those questions and saved your “friend” the trouble of having to Google them (we’ve all done it). Stay tuned for the next instalment and get in touch with your questions at ypgquestions@gmail.com

‘Til next time! – YPG

A helpful(?) diagram explaining the shuffle stacker system.

VPELA Events

YPG Trivia 21 April 2022

The old adage “everyone loves a good trivia night” rang true on Thursday 21 April, as an enthusiastic swarm of about 80 planners, lawyers, traffic engineers, acoustic engineers and environmental specialists converged on Urbis’ Collins Street office to flex their trivia muscles and vie for the coveted title of first (and last) place.

Sponsored by Biosis, Taylors, Traffix Group and Urbis, hosted by the wonderful Marji Kennedy (City of Melbourne), and supported by YPG Committee members James Cossins (Traffix), Amara Coleman (Harwood Andrews) and Isobell Vescovi (UpCo); the teams battled through 6 rounds of trivia. Kicking off with classic “general knowledge”, taking us round the world with “geography”, then (as always) learning some quirky celebrity facts with “movies & pop culture”, a very timely pre-election “politics” round and changing the tempo with “music” (pun intended), before concluding with the hotly contested “industry” final round.

Emily Mignot YPG Committee Member & Senior Town Planner, Tract

Despite some challenges through the peer review process (of course) with regard to the definition of the extent of “Asia” and the exact bounds of “Scandinavia”, the teams politely exchanged their marked papers and conspired amongst themselves with a mixture of excitement, surprise, and plentiful frustration at the ones they “knew” but were overruled by their teammates.

Between rounds there was an opportunity to further test our cryptic brains with a few teasers, deciphering train station anagrams and emoji movie titles – for those inclined, we’ve provided them here for you to have a crack, too!

Of course, after the final round, a waft of deliciousness entered the building that told us only one thing: the pizzas had arrived. Having expended all the energy our little grey cells could muster, the crowd descended on the piles of pizza boxes and mingled amongst friends (this evening briefly converted to trivia adversaries). But not even pizza could stave off the hunger for

YOUR NATIONAL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT EXPERTS

Colin Biggers & Paisley has expanded its national planning and environment team with the appointment of Partner, David Passarella to head up the Melbourne Planning Infrastructure and Environment group.

Our Melbourne team is pro-development and the delivery of our client’s projects means everything to us.

David Passarella, Partner

the final score tallies. The moment they had all been waiting for. The winners, and the losers.

In first place, the team from Best Hooper Lawyers (despite being most deserving of the prize, I can still hear the groan of all the planners in the room, followed by applause and concession). The team in last place, which was an equally coveted position on the night, will go unnamed for now (but they know who they are).

All in all, an evening of fun, suspense, and laughter to bring us all together. If you missed out, or want to try your luck again, have

a go at a selection of the trivia questions and teasers below… good luck!

Emily Mignot is a YPG Committee member and Senior Town Planner at Tract Consultants, with experience across planning and community engagement. Passionate about planning and its role within the broader industry, this is her second year on the YPG committee.

Speakers include:

Stuart Harrison – Founding Director, Harrison & White, Urban Design & Architecture

Julian Lyngcoln – Deputy Secretary, DELWP

Dr Adrian Medhurst – Organisational Psychologist

Sophie Renton – Research Director McCrindle Research

Kerstin Thompson – Principal, Kerstin Thompson Architect

Tony Wood – Director, Energy & Climate Change Program, Grattan Institute

Catherine Freeman, OAM – Kuku Yalanji woman, Olympic Champion & Founder, Cathy Freeman Foundation

PLUS panel sessions on Smart Cities & Tackling Climate Change. “In Focus” breakout topics on heritage, transport, regionalism, new research and DELWP plus two Young Professional Group debates.

YPG Events…

Established in 1989, the Association holds regular seminars, social events and a conference annually. It also reviews legislation, provides high level advice to Government and makes submissions to all aspects of land use planning. If you have any questions or are interested in joining the Association, contact Jane Power, Executive Officer.