7 minute read
Editorial Licence
Greetings as we head into no mask territory and a somewhat return to normal. Now quadruple-vaxed and office normal, we move into the end of 2022 and an election in November.
In the shadow of the YPG
I am still in recovery mode after having been shown up by the YPG in its ‘super-good edition of the VPELA Revue in June 2022. Well done to Jack Chiodo, Isobel Viscovi, Emily Mignot, and others for their work.
That, and other activities from the YPG, indicate that VPELA is renewing and strengthening. The humorous and informative Work from Home/Office debate at the Conference illustrates my view.
Conference
Wow , we actually had an in-person conference in Lorne at the start of September. Well done to the Conference organising Committee led by my friend and former BMDA staffer, Anna Borthwick.
There was an energy across the 300 plus delegates. We explored the environmental and professional topics with speakers including Tony Wood, Stuart Harrison, Julian Lyncoln, but also the personal with Cathy Freeman and Adrian Medhurst (breathe and release!)
And lots of fun along the way.
This edition of the Revue provides an abridged version of a number of the presentations. These include the new researchnew voices contributions of the RMIT Phd students. Hearing these new voices was a good initiative. A test of a conference/ seminar is to ask yourself whether you are coming away with some new thinking. Conference gets a tick.
Metropolitan Planning as a political football
As a member of the Victorian Government’s Plan Melbourne Ministerial Advisory Committee in the 2013—2016 period (i.e., under Minister for Planning Guy and then reformed under Minister for Planning Wynne), out primary objective was to think about Melbourne as a city, long term.
The objectives included creating an environment that would foster new age skills and businesses to sustain and grow Melbourne as a world city. The initiatives included the National Employment and Innovation Clusters, at Parkville, Monash, La Trobe-Austen and others. We recommended a vision which we hoped would be acceptable to all sides of politics, allowing for long term planning policies and investment confidence; both public and private. One of the frustrations we experienced was the absence of clear transport plans from the government department. Phrases provided by staff such as ‘node-agnostic modes of travel’ are not much help when one is trying to understand and establish where and how opportunities might be encouraged and connected, respectively.
The Advisory Committee was a fan of Metro 1, and Metro 2 (now thankfully back on the agenda), the east west freeway link,(abandoned),extensions to tram routes and the introduction of high capacity/high frequency Smartbus services to allow people to access services, employment clusters and regional centres. In Melbourne, unlike Sydney, bus services have been a neglected resource.
No suggestion was ever provided to the Committee on a suburban rail link. That first surfaced in late November 2018. To my knowledge there was no input from Infrastructure Victoria. I acknowledge the State Government’s authority to introduce a project without requiring broad scale departmental consultation. Putting the huge billions of dollars involved (and the various and conflicting business case forecasts) to one side, the situation where the project has become an election issue is a disappointing occurrence.
Personally, I have always questioned why more transport investment should be focussed on the eastern side of Melbourne when the western side of Melbourne is under-provided with rail services. The airport rail link will redress a part of that challenge.
Bernard McNamara Editor and Director, BMDA Development Advisory
First, a declaration that I provided expert town planning evidence for a party before the Bellarine Peninsula Distinctive Areas and Landscape Assessment. Advisory Committee,
On 6 October, the Premier announced that the Minister for Planning had approved the Bellarine DALs with permanent settlement boundaries around towns. The Minister did so after having the Advisory Committee report in July.
But the Advisory Committee report did not recommend approval. Instead, it criticised (my word) the authorities for the poor level of investigation. It concluded that the authorities had by and large, simply used the old planning scheme town settlement boundaries to become the Permanent Settlement Boundaries without doing the necessary work to meet the DALS criteria. The Advisory Committee effectively handed the DELWP and Greater Geelong CC a massive ‘Fail’ and recommended resubmission. This was no ‘on balance’ call.
Not so, said the Minister and the faceless bureaucrats passing the boundaries into law.
OK, Ministers can make unilateral decisions about settlement boundaries and other matters. But why the farce? Many community groups and landowners, in good faith, invested in the preparation of serious and beneficial studies that in most cases identified the inadequacies of the background work and supporting studies. They did this, honouring the independence and high regard that Planning Panels Victoria holds and deserves.
Why waste months of time and resources, and devalue the role of PPV? A bit close to an election maybe? An echo of Spring Creek, Torquay? And every time this occurs, it chips away at the commitment of the PPV members, making him/her ask… “Is what I am assessing going to matter?” A black day for planning assessment independence.
Process or Outcome?
My turn for a grumble. Accepting that plenty is happening, and we all feel a bit under resourced, but we can do better. Acknowledgements to Julian Lyngcoln and team for reducing the time that the Minister(DELWP) is taking to authorise and approve planning scheme amendments and all the expended approvals under Cl 52 everything.
But seriously,… Should a sign in a shopping centre be notified to 180 residents (no objection received)? Should a minor change to endorsed plans take months to be reviewed? Should the RFI button be pushed, probably before an application is inspected?
My thesis is that our systems are drowning us. You can be assure that the planners and authorities which created the Hoddle Grid, the streets of Camberwell, the rail lines to Frankston and the Great Ocean Road, did not spend years in assessments etc. Are they perfect? No, but we have embraced them and built on them.
As development assessment professionals , we are in part guilty within the process game. I don’t have an answer except to say that in a simpler world there was a place called the Planning Counter in local governments where plenty of items were sorted out quickly. Now we find that often a planner within an authority will not pick up a phone, requiring everything by email, controlling the process. My first suggestion is that the outcome and its impacts (positive and negative) be understood at the outset, before the process buttons are pushed. If planning educators continue to see the profession as a regulator, rather than see it as a creator/builder on ideas, then we will continue for assessments to go slower and slower. As Anna Cronin found in her planning and building regulation review, this all comes at a cost to you and me. Did you read the Spanish infrastructure CEO who identified that project construction costs in Australia are twice as much and much slower in Australia than in Spain.(?)
Notable retirements
We are witnessing a ‘change of the guard’ of venerable proportions. This edition carries tributes to three of our leading QCs, (now KCs) from within the planning and environment jurisdiction. Chris Canavan, Chris Wren and Ian Pitt are passing the batons after decades of contributions. All have been active and generous VPELA members. I have personally worked with (and have been cross-examined by all over years.) My personal tribute as well.
And not forgetting the humble town planner! Michael Barlow, esteemed founder and director at Urbis is retiring after a stellar career.
Adios
This will be my last edition of the VPELA Revue. I assumed the editorial role at the start of 2015, giving me 7 years in this role, after years on the VPELA Board. Time for renewal. My thanks to Tamar Brezzi and the Board for entrusting me with this role. And, my great thanks to Jane Power, Grace Hamilton, and Katherine Yeo at the VPELA office for their support and guidance.
One fun comment to finish. Over the years, at the end of each column, I always requested feedback, but almost never got any. So, I concluded,…. people mustn’t read my column (sigh). But, in one edition, I wrote something that was not correct. Well,… people jumped out of trees! …..The lot of the editor!… Cheers and Thanks
Bernard McNamara e: Bernard.mcnamara@bmda.com.au
Mr Ian Pitt KC
Pivotal and key to Best Hooper’s rich history dating back to 1886 is the contribution of our Mr Ian Pitt KC, who remains actively involved with our firm. Ian joined Best Hooper in 1966 and, over the years, has been recognised as pre-eminent lawyer and a respected leader in our industry. In 2002, Ian was appointed silk, making him only the fourth solicitor advocate to be appointed as either Queens Counsel or Senior Counsel in Victoria. This significant honour and recognition in the legal industry is testament to Ian’s advocacy skills and dedication to jurisdiction. On behalf of the entire Best Hooper team, we take this opportunity to thank Ian for his outstanding 56 years of service to the planning, environment and development industry of Victoria. Ian’s legacy is the next generation from Best Hooper who continue to maintain the high standard set by Mr Pitt KC with quality legal skills, tenacity, mentoring and measured temperament, all attributes that Ian has fostered.
