VPELA Revue (March 2022)

revue

• VPELA New President announced

• VPA, Right place, right time

• E-Transport, the new norm?

• Permit ‘transformation’ transformed

• Young Professionals Group on the rise!

May the sunrise find you still dancing...

Are you interested in submitting an article for the VPELA Revue?

Members are invited to submit articles for publication in the VPELA Revue. If you have a topic that you are passionate about, why not share your view with others? We are always happy to stimulate debate over any issue.

Suggested article length is 1000-2000 words and photos are always a good inclusion.

Just forward your submission to our editor Bernard McNamara at Bernard.

McNamara@bmda.com.au or call 9813 2801 to discuss.

John

Leigh

Peter

VPELA’s inaugural President and Founder, Jane Power, Executive Officer VPELA

Kathy Mitchell, former VPELA President and Chief Panel Member, Planning Panels.

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 (ex) President VPELA President announces retirement

After 10 years of service as VPELA’s President, I have decided to resign from that role and hand over the reins to the next custodian of this wonderful Association.

Those of you who know me will know how much I have loved serving the Association as its President and on its Board. Being involved with VPELA has gifted me the opportunity to work with Ministers, judges, members of the Tribunal and talented professionals in the private and public sectors all in the advancement of planning and the related disciplines in Victoria.

From running a seminar to delivering the Christmas party welcome from atop a bar, VPELA has presented me with countless occasions to learn, to suppress my harsh inner critic and to meet and interview idols and heroes at conferences and events.

My real passion has always been the inclusive nature of VPELA and the important role that the Board and President have in bringing people from diverse professional disciplines together to debate and learn about ideas, philosophies, ethics, and, of course….car parking rates.

I’ve made so many lifelong friends from within the VPELA family and have laughed and had so much fun along the way – I am truly indebted to the membership and the Board for trusting me to be the custodian for the term of my Presidency and for providing so many treasured, joyful memories. I will always feel that VPELA gave me so much more than I could have ever dreamed of giving it in return.

I want to make particular mention of Jane Power and to thank her for her decades of service to VPELA. Jane has seen me through pregnancy, partnership, problem solving, time spent in nearly every role that VPELA has to offer, and now also a pandemic. The ease with which I was able to serve as President is able to be attributed to Jane. She is, and always has been,

Tamara Brezzi President, VPELA

a committed and passionate leader of VPELA who brings her exemplary organisational skills to every single seminar, Board meeting, conference committee and annual dinner. Thank you Jane for making being involved in VPELA such a joy.

I thank all of the Board members who I have worked with over the years, but in particular, sincere thanks must be paid to Kathy Mitchell who originally tapped me on the shoulder and gave me a little (or not so little) shove of encouragement to stand for the Board in the first place.

It has been such a joy to be so closely involved with the VPELA community. So few professional associations draw together a mix of professions bound by a common interest as significant as the development, protection and creation of great places for people to work, rest and play.

For those who are newer to the Association, or just embarking upon their career in one of these professions, I encourage you to get involved and stay connected with the Association – there really is no downside and you will be rewarded with knowledge, lifelong friendships, a great deal of fun and many, many laughs. Join a committee, nominate for the Young Professionals Group or the Board, write an article, speak at a seminar, go to the conference, the annual dinner, seminars and events; just get involved – what could possibly go wrong?

For those in the middle or later end of their career, you probably already know the value of VPELA, but please remember – it’s not just about you! I wouldn’t have got involved, learned, laughed and grown without numerous taps on the shoulder and the occasional push over the edge of a cliff. Find your young people and encourage them, mentor them, sponsor them and give them the confidence to have a go and get involved with the Association too. VPELA has no greater purpose than to bring its members together and to serve each of their needs throughout their career journey.

Every single one of us has a job in which the decisions we make affect the lives of those around us – most of whom are people who otherwise have no reason to be involved in the evolution of their own cities and towns. There are so many of us who are so fortunate to truly love what we do for a living. We are a rare breed amongst many who don’t ever get to experience that passion for their work and to be able to see each day that the decisions they make have an enduring impact on the physical world around them and on the lives of people with whom we share our cities and towns and the natural environment.

It’s a great privilege but also a great responsibility that we take on when we choose these professions in planning, law, engineering, architecture, surveying, environmental science and others. And so, it’s so important that we care about it, that we remain open to the ideas of others and that we engage in a constant and vigilant debate about the future.

VPELA has been a significant vehicle for 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 multi-disciplinary membership of the VPELA family for nurturing my appetite for growth and learning and exploration of new ideas.

Thank you for that opportunity. I will be forever grateful.

I am very confident that I am leaving the Association in very capable hands in the form of the current supremely competent

Board. Each of the current members are well respected by the membership and are leaders in their field. All have an enthusiasm for service in the interests of VPELA and its members and I wish the Board every possible success over the years to come.

This announcement of course raises the question of who the next President of VPELA will be. I was delighted to announce upon my resignation that the Board has unanimously elected Mark Sheppard, Principal at Kinetica Studio, to the position. I am confident that Mark will make a fantastic President. He is a smart, intelligent thinker with a consultative style and an enormous capacity to pull problems apart and look at them from a fresh and different perspective before eloquently articulating his own thoughts on the subject at hand. He also loves a laugh and has an enthusiasm for VPELA and all that it seeks to achieve on behalf of its members each year. My best wishes and congratulations to Mark on his election to President.

I look forward to seeing you at VPELA events throughout the years ahead.

And finally, as always, may the sunrise find you still dancing….

Tamara Brezzi, immediate Past President, VPELA & Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright, with Mark Sheppard, Principal, kinetica, VPELA’s new President

Editorial licence

Bernard McNamara Editor and Director, BMDA Development Advisory

Welcome to 2022 and a MAJOR changing of the guard, with our esteemed Tamara Brezzi handing over the VPELA Presidency to Mark Sheppard.

Our Association has been blessed throughout its 32-year existence in having a number of highly talented and forwardthinking professionals in the role of President. The honour list commenced with Peter Barber and continued with Jane Nathan, Henry Turnbull, Ian Lonie, Kathy Mitchell, Tamara, and now Mark. While I’m not equating the VPELA presidency with running Australia, I note that there have been more Prime Ministers during the same period! (And how has that gone?)

Planning Reform

This issue was to feature an article on Planning Reform from the DELWP team, providing a ‘work in progress’ report on implementation of reforms from the review of the Planning System written by Anna Cronin in 2019. However, readers would have seen the Planning Minister’s media statement on 1 March 2022 that these reforms will no longer proceed.

The release was candid about the reason for this policy backflip with tuck.

There was strong resistance within the property and housing industries to the 18 February 2022 announcement of a financial levy (the Social Housing Assistance Contribution levy), to fund social housing. That announcement also stated that the State would no longer pay municipal rates for social housing complexes.

Two big announcements. Indeed, to paraphrase ‘Yes Minister’ sage, Sir Humprey Appleby, these are two ‘bold’ announcements – particularly in an election year.

The Contribution proposal is now cancelled and, so it seems, is the whole planning reform package.

Some ever-shifting goal posts

The Planning and Building Regulation Reform has been underway in earnest since 2018. The review has been long and wide-ranging, leaving all participants frustrated and without measurable benefits.

The situation in Victoria is that the planning reforms of the 1990s have since become swamped with layer upon layer of additional controls and procedures. These have added costs to development projects and harmed housing affordability (among other things).

Looking at the Commissioner for Better Regulation final report Turning Best Practice into Common Practice’, the benefits of planning reform, as summarised on page 4, are many. But what

I can’t see in the list of benefits is a goal to fund social housing?

The announcement of the Big Build social housing program in 2020 did not come with any conditions that planning reform was an essential component. Quite the opposite.

The Minister for Planning amended Cl. 52 of all planning schemes so that social housing projects were exempt from requiring a Planning Permit. The Government would not let its own ‘pesky’ planning permit procedures get in the way! (Procedures, I might add, that the rest of us are required to confront.)

One of the benefits identified in planning reform was removal of permit requirements from low-impact uses and developments. So, Minister, can we please take a collective breath and not throw out four years of planning reform development with the proverbial bathwater?

Positions vacant – apply now!

It is a truism that we live in a lucky and beautiful country. On top of that, many of us in the planning and development assessment professions have been fortunate during the Covid waves. Unlike friends running good businesses in the entertainment, recreation, events and hospitality sectors, our businesses have generally not been forced to close, with the attendant financial and social consequences. Simply put, if you could work by opening a laptop, things were relatively OK.

However, we now have a labour shortage. In my (longish) time in this industry, I can’t recall a period when skilled planning and related personnel were in such short supply. A seller’s market if ever there was one.

This problem is afflicting everyone, from councils to departments, to private practices. By way of just one example, observe how many local and state government leaders in planning and building are using LinkedIn to reach out for staff.

It hasn’t helped that there’s some ‘doubling up’, with planning teams now assembled in every new project infrastructure building ‘agency’. (Committee meeting anyone??). The result is a ‘logjam’ of planning permit applications, amendments and appeals. And with the planning reforms not proceeding, there is no end in sight.

The future looks good

This issue includes three articles related to the Young Professionals Group (YPG), with a report on YPG activities by CoConvenors, Jack Chiodo and Isobel Vescovi.

We are also introduced to the YPG Committee for 2022. It is important and fundamental to VPELA that we have a group of

leaders ‘on the rise’. Secondly, we need a group that incorporates the various sectors of our industry – from planners, lawyers to engineers to the various sectors within state and local government, agencies and private firms.

In reading the YPG profiles, one can only be impressed by the qualities and energy in the next generation and undimmed by the COVID years.

Proof of the pudding is provided in Carlo Morello’s article setting out why becoming involved with YPG and VPELA has been career enhancing, and good fun along the way. Carlo continues to play active roles on the VPELA Board and the Conference Committee. A model to follow. Thanks Carlo.

And (drum roll) … the June edition of VPELA Revue will be turned over to YPG, so stand clear! Should be fun – and educational for me!

A call to keyboard warriors

Sometimes I am swamped with articles, but not for this edition, so let me renew my pitch for Members to contribute. The Revue is a platform for your perspectives. Articles can be on projects, policies, practices, places or people. Or any topic that you think will resonate with our readers.

As always, I welcome you feedback or ideas to: Bernard.mcnamara@bmda.com.au

Nexus celebrated its 15th anniversary with a Crystal Ball on the 18th March. Guests dazzled in crystal while some took inspiration from the mystical art of fortune telling. Industry young professionals who were keen to have a sneak peek into their future enjoyed a reading with a Mystic and as always the photobooth captured the rest of the entertainment!

You can see all the photos here

Congratulations to our costume winners Emily Mignot, Tract Consultants looking sparkling in crystal and Wendy Hernandez, Biosis, who created her own Esmerelda look.

Thanks to our major sponsor Dalton Consulting Engineers and all our supporting sponsors.

Places Right place, right time Planning for more connected communities

After two years dominated by Covid-19, Australia’s international borders are opening, and we will once again become a magnet for migrants looking to call Victoria home.

Local demand for housing has been at record levels in Victoria’s greenfield areas.

With population growth expected to rebound strongly renewed growth will shine a light on the increased need for infrastructure that inevitably comes with building new communities and the associated price tag (see table 1 below to understand the dimensions of the challenge).

The Victorian Government is on the front foot driving economic recovery with infrastructure programs such as the Big Build and the Big Housing Build which are already creating jobs, economic growth and benefits for many Victorians.

More effective alignment between land use and infrastructure planning and delivery would further catalyse this public infrastructure, ensuring these benefits are further amplified. This means ensuring the infrastructure leads to wider benefits in the community including activating local areas and encouraging private investment that can lead to local jobs.

Rachel Dapiran, Victorian Planning Authority

Better integration of infrastructure provision will also drive innovation and achieve greater efficiencies. An example might be co-locating infrastructure and services on the same piece of land such as a school and a kindergarten.

Most importantly, it will lead to the delivery of more complete and connected communities.

In order to meet this challenge, the VPA has been looking at new models to help better coordinate land use and infrastructure planning. One of these is the Place Infrastructure Compact (PIC) pioneered by the Greater Sydney Commission.

This new model is currently being trialled in Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) areas and more recently as a part of the Western Sydney City Deal.

Using a PIC as a new strategic planning tool will better align growth with committed and planned infrastructure and service delivery and promises to be a game changer.

In the Victorian context, it would ideally be trialled in an area with already committed infrastructure investment.

In the NSW example, GPOP areas will benefit substantially from future investment such as the Parramatta Light Rail and Sydney Metro West. It is expected to support substantial growth in this area in the future.

Place Infrastructure Compacts identify the most cost-effective sequencing for infrastructure delivery over set time periods and provide government with options to plan growth and investment. This establishes a blueprint as to how an area can develop to support growth in jobs and homes in the right place, and at the right time.

At its heart, a PIC is a place based approach to enable better integration of planning for growth with infrastructure investment that supports quality places that people want to live, work and invest in.

Beyond looking at models, the VPA as the state’s placed based planner is already driving better connections between land use planning and infrastructure delivery.

At the highest level, better utilising existing or committed infrastructure before building more is a key principle underpinning our work in established Melbourne and key regional cities. By planning for well-designed growth close to existing services, we can help defer or reduce the cost of extending networks.

Perhaps the best example of this is the Arden renewal precinct – a key transport precinct – where a new community of 35,000

workers and 15,000 homes is on track to be built atop a new metro station on the doorstep of Melbourne’s CBD.

Another example is the Lilydale Quarry Project, where the VPA has finalised a plan for the redevelopment of a former quarry. The site is surrounded by existing schools, shops and services, ready to service this new in Melbourne’s east.

The VPA has also pioneered other successful tools for delivering infrastructure for our fast-growing outer suburbs, the Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution (GAIC) Work in Kind (WIK) agreements.

GAIC is a charge on development that helps fund the provision of essential state infrastructure such as public transport, schools, or community facilities. GAIC WIK agreements allows those parties liable for GAIC (usually a landowner) to provide land and/ or capital infrastructure works in a growth area in lieu of a cash payment of GAIC. This can provide Government with earlier and cheaper access to land for infrastructure.

So far, the VPA has facilitated ten finalised agreements that will deliver $35m worth of land for infrastructure. Most of these agreements have provided land for Government schools, streamlining the provision of one of the most essential building blocks for new communities.

The VPA has also ramped up the quality and timeliness of information we provide to Government on the infrastructure implications of our PSPs. We work closely with all state infrastructure agencies to provide high level strategic advice about the infrastructure that will be required in growing areas as they develop at the five-year, ten year and final build out stages.

The challenge of integrating planning and infrastructure delivery is not new. Nor is it cheap or without complexity. But is it a challenge we must meet to ensure we deliver complete and connected communities where infrastructure is delivered in the right way, at the right time and in the right places.

Rachel Dapiran is the Executive Director of Infrastructure, Strategy and Planning at the Victorian Planning Authority and can be contacted at rachel.dapiran@vpa.vic.gov.au.

Shadow Minister Recover and rebuild

The planning portfolio is about envisioning our state at its best and then facilitating that vision. It is about setting goals and achieving them, to benefit all Victorians. In my experience, previously holding various portfolios particularly Roads and Infrastructure, Resources and Energy, I have learned that planning impacts almost every aspect of our lives.

As our population grows (albeit, with a current downtrend due to two years of government restrictions) and as we focus on postpandemic recovery, it is important that thoughtful, long term planning occurs to ensure that the vibrant central core of the city is restored, that busy activities areas are rebuilt and our quiet neighbourhoods are reimagined. It is essential that the focus is on rebuilding Victoria so that it can become an international destination for liveability, re-attaining the status of the world’s most liveable city. I want Victorians to be proud, once again, of where they live.

The Current Landscape

Our planning system has conventionally been one that allows for, and facilitates, consultation through the engagement of local

Hon Ryan Smith MP, Shadow Minister for Planning and Heritage

councils and local communities. It has traditionally been open and transparent, reflective of the wider democratic system we live under.

However, a number of councils have highlighted, with alarm, that recent reforms to the planning processes have seen the Minister reduce local government power and community third party rights through evading that key consultation component. The Minister is no longer obligated to listen to the public on key projects of state significance, with objector appeal rights removed.

Projects of state significance, as designated by the Andrews government, are now able to legislatively circumvent the regular planning process that we, rightly, have an expectation should be followed. Planning schemes can be modified without notice or consultation with, worryingly, poor provision of detail regarding these projects.

Separately, many Ratepayer and Community Action Groups have contacted me expressing their fears that Melbourne’s personality and neighbourhood character are becoming lost amongst inappropriate community developments. Particularly

in regional townships, there is encroaching developments that detract from the character of the heritage areas.

In other areas of the state, such as the greater Geelong Region, not enough is being done to keep pace with population growth and the rising demand for services. Rather than stifling such growth, appropriate development and planning should be employed to manage and mitigate resource strain.

These concerns deserve to be addressed with sympathetic consideration, not ignored by a Minister who seems to prefer following the path of least resistance. Further, as each area of the state faces different planning conundrums, solutions must be adaptive and particular to the character of the area rather than broad sweeping and standardised.

Moving Victoria forward

There needs to be careful thought to renew, restore and reform the current processes and landscapes to revive Melbourne, and Victoria’s, most liveable status again. It’s not lost, only dormant. It can be done. With effort, care and proper planning. We can recover and we can rebuild.

Renewal – The first step is to facilitate and reinstate community and council consultation on key projects that will impact neighbourhood characteristics. Taking actions that protect green spaces and the environment through guaranteeing that inappropriate development won’t overshadow these areas. We should be planning to revamp suburban areas to ensure they are greener, cleaner and healthier for Victorians who reside there. It is possible to expand growth areas whilst being environmentally conscious and building infrastructure that lasts. In 20 or 50 years’ time we should look back on this period as the era of opportunity

and recovery. We should look back with pride knowing that the government did everything they could to give rise to the renewal of Victoria.

Restoration – Melbourne. The heart of Victoria. In some small way, so many Victorians have encountered the City and connected with it. Whether they live, work or simply daytrip there. Prior to the pandemic, Melbourne was the centre of events and activity – from sports to festivals, shows to shopping. Restoration of Melbourne’s centre will bring back the life and vibrancy of our great city, which will permeate throughout the state. Again, looking forward, this should be done in an environmentally conscious way. We have a unique opportunity to develop the city to be a leader in green operations and connectivity. It starts with planning.

Reform – We must release the full potential of our available land, facilitate the necessary change and protect the heritage of certain areas. Law and planning process reform must occur. Starting with the review of any clauses of planning law that remove powers from councils and communities. Local communities need to be supported and strengthened through open and transparent state government processes. Further, there needs to be more codified protections of greenspaces, parks and neighbourhood structural facades that ensure communities are protected from overdevelopment in inappropriate circumstances. This means that details surrounding key state projects are released, not hidden.

As Shadow Planning Minister, I seek to support Victoria in its recovery. To see our beautiful state feeling like home once more. It’s time to move forward and begin our recovery post-pandemic. Its time Victoria started looking forward and rebuilding for the future.

The Business Rory’s Ramble

E-transport: the answer to replacing cars in inner-city traffic

Electric scooters and e-bikes are fun, convenient and practical, and really don’t deserve the poor publicity they’ve been getting lately. A few common-sense precautions, as with any motorised vehicle, and they can be a valuable and sustainable part of our transport infrastructure.

But right now, people have let some nasty incidents colour their view. When in reality, these are the teething pains of new devices as people push their boundaries, particularly after Covid lockdown for two years. Hopefully, things will settle down and people will respect the road rules and not vandalise this remarkably handy means of transport.

In the Melbourne and Geelong CBDs, councils have reduced speeds to 40kmh and have gone to a lot of expense to build hardedged, protected bike lanes. As soon as you’re out of those areas, you’re not protected as traffic is travelling at 60kmh then 80kmh. We need a more consistent bike lane system over a larger area. It needs to be less obtrusive and more economical.

It’s peculiar because decisions to make the Melbourne CBD and inner suburbs bike-friendly are being made by planners and engineers, the majority of whom don’t even ride a bike. I’ve been in many local and state government forums where I’m one of only a few who actually do any commuting on a bike between the office and home. We actually have eight bikes: four leg-powered bikes and four e-bikes.

And we have regulations that are way over-cautious, to the point of potentially denying the public a valid, healthy, convenient

Rory Costelloe, Founder & Executive Director, Villawood Properties

and much-needed mode of transport. Buses, trams, bicycles, electric bikes are all accepted options that make up a valuable, low-energy package of transport options for modern cities and towns. They’re good for your nerves, your pocket and your planet.

Electric scooters tick all the same boxes and need to be part of that system, too. It’s a good idea to make our roads more prioritised and protected for cyclists. And if that’s the end game, you can’t complain about the proliferation of e-scooters and e-bikes being used as modes of transport.

The number of e-transport deaths and injuries is dramatically less than the number of car deaths and accidents before seatbelts, airbags, .05 laws or tighter speed limits were introduced. This is another such situation, and e-transport will sort itself out. Currently, e-bikes have governed speed, via electric assistance, at 26kmh which is too slow when sharing bike lanes with other commuter bikes that travel consistently within a 30-32kmh speed range. When these regulations were introduced, they were borrowed from overseas without thought for Australian conditions, particularly travel over longer distances.

Many e-bikers are importing chips from overseas so they can increase the speed, usually by doubling the 26kmh limit, to have electric power assistance up to 52kmh, which is obviously a dangerous situation. But rather than people being dissatisfied with 26kmh, you should increase the electric assistance speed to say 32kmh, for a happy medium. If that was changed, then the attractiveness of e-bike and e-scooter use for commuting would be increased, and that would mean people could commute into the CBD from inner-ring and mid-ring suburbs.

The effect could be quite significant. Anecdotal evidence says e-bike commuters will travel triple the distance than a normal rider will. So, by tripling the distance, you are increasing the catchment of rideable suburbs into the CBD by 900 per cent.

It’s pertinent, too, to note that Melbourne’s CBD speed limit is currently 40kmh, creating such gridlock that it’s almost impossible to drive in the city. There’s talk of dropping this to 30kmh, which I don’t particularly agree with. Slower-moving cars means pedestrians cross the road willy-nilly with little or no regard for drivers. Slowing to 30kmh would further gridlock the city. It would not make it safer, there’d be less regard by pedestrians.

Melbourne should allow e-transport to use some footpaths where traffic is too tight and wide paths exist; for example, Flinders Street south side between Queen and Market, and City Road in parts. Also, one-way streets with low traffic speeds such as Flinders Lane, Little Collins, Little Bourke, etc, could be designated shared roadway so that bikes could travel in both directions. I’ve done it a few times to experiment.

As speed limits have been reduced, it would beg the question why do we need to wear helmets in sub-40kmh precincts? Helmets are not worn in other countries; for example, South America, USA and many parts of Europe and Asia. Helmets are a good thing to protect against brain damage and I have personal experience with brain trauma from a bike-car accident, but there is a greater good to getting more people on bikes. Isn’t it better to get people on bikes and reduce car traffic with 40kmh areas?

A key problem here is that all levels of government, and to a lesser extent private industry, are paralysed from making decisions based on risk management. I believe this lack of decisionmaking reflects a failure to allow people to take responsibility for their own decisions. It’s causing great damage through inactivity and the rise in mental health issues. We should be able to get

outside, have fun, take risks and be responsible for our own actions.

I recently went to the St Kilda Festival to see Daryl Braithwaite, and I drove from the office. Knowing parking would be a premium there, I looked at my Neuron and Lime e-scooter app to locate scooters in nearby free parking areas. I found some in Middle Park, parked and conveniently rode from there. Hiring an e-scooter is not cheap but they’re cheaper than Uber. At around 50 cents a minute, they’re not realistic for long-distance commuting but certainly are for short distances, to say meetings that might take five or eight minutes to get to. They’re far more economical and quicker than travelling by taxi, Uber or tram.

As for wet weather, travelling by powered e-bike means you don’t sweat underneath when wearing waterproof/sweat proof clothing, so you’re not wet when you get to your destination. A lot of people like to ride e-bikes to work so they’re not sweaty when they arrive, but then on the way home, conversely, they turn down the power-assist and ride under their own steam for a workout.

The bottom line: we know cars are harder and harder to accommodate in our city centres, we know people want more options, we know people like sustainable alternatives, and we know they will favour convenience every time.

E-transport offers all of the above. We just need to ensure regulations are practical and safe to ensure public confidence in these modes of transport.

Christmas Party

The Business Think Again Rethinking expert evidence

Welcome to the first instalment of Think Again, which aims to question the status quo and provoke new thinking in planning and urban design. I have to be honest and admit that I stole the title of the column from an Adam Grant book of the same name which is one of my favourite books from last year—highly recommended if you haven’t come across it yet.

Grant is an organisational psychologist. Part II of Think Again is about how to win debates and influence people. Reading it prompted me to rethink how I go about giving evidence, so I thought I’d share some of my discoveries with you.

Giving evidence requires a certain mindset. But it may not be the one you think.

As an expert witness, it is tempting to adopt what Grant refers to as the ‘preacher’ mode. This involves exuding a supreme level of confidence that says you should believe me because I am so convinced that I’m right. In part, this is a defence mechanism. If you haven’t separated your opinions from your identity, the adversarial nature of the cross-examination process can provoke the ‘preacher’ mode when your beliefs are attacked (or even as a pre-emptive strike). However, as Grant says, “The risk is that we become so wrapped up in preaching that we’re right … that we don’t bother to rethink our own views.”

At the other end of the confidence spectrum, ‘imposter syndrome’—where someone lacks confidence in their ability— can prevent an expert from effectively delivering their opinion.

Then there’s the scientist mode. Scientists have a healthy scepticism about their own arguments. They are aware of the limitations of their understanding and constantly test and rethink their ideas to develop a more robust evidence base. However, this doesn’t mean that they lack confidence: they are secure in their ability to contribute to the subject. But they don’t assume that this will automatically lead to the right answer.

So which mode is most persuasive? Well, first, it’s always good to remember the Dunning-Kruger effect, which says that the most confident people are probably the least competent. Grant refers to research which “shows that in courtrooms, expert witnesses and deliberating jurors are more credible and more persuasive when they express moderate confidence, rather than high or low confidence.” He calls this ‘confident humility’ and describes it as having faith in our capability while appreciating that we may not have the right solution …”.

Mark Sheppard, Principal, kinetica

Grant goes on to say that expressing doubt makes an expert more persuasive; “When someone knowledgeable admits uncertainty, it surprises people, and they end up paying more attention to the substance of the argument.” This suggests that we should acknowledge weaknesses in our arguments. Grant again: “An informed audience is going to spot the holes in our case anyway. We might as well get credit for having the humility to look for them, the foresight to spot them, and the integrity to acknowledge them.” Similarly, identifying caveats and contingencies associated with an opinion makes it more credible.

Expert witnesses know to acknowledge when the arguments of others have changed their view. What they may not fully appreciate is that giving credit where it’s due is not only the correct course of action, but it also reinforces their credibility by signalling that their motive is to assist the Tribunal or panel and demonstrating that their opinions are based on reason. Grant says, “Psychologists find that admitting we were wrong doesn’t make us look less competent. It’s a display of honesty and a willingness to learn.”

So, next time you find yourself giving evidence, have confidence in your ability (though not too much!) but don’t be afraid to acknowledge alternative opinions with merit, and to admit which of your views are based on weaker reasoning. It will enhance your credibility.

Fortunately, adopting a scientist frame of mind is not only more persuasive, it is also better for our health. Grant refers to a Harvard study which shows that people who see challenges to their opinions as an opportunity to develop and evolve their thinking don’t find cross examination stressful. They act as scientists, not prosecutors or preachers, which means that they detach their opinions from their identity. In fact, a good expert welcomes having their ideas examined.

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

Mark Sheppard, Principal at kinetica, is an urban designer with 30 years’ consultancy experience. He specialises in leading large-scale master planning and urban renewal projects. In January 2022 he was elected President of VPELA, he brings to the role a passion to improve the liveability, sustainability and resilience of urban areas.

Places Restrictive Covenant removal

Tales from the planning permit route

Council Competency as a matter of Public Confidence in the Planning System: Berecz v Casey City Council [2021] VCAT 1336

If you’re a Council officer assessing a permit application to vary or remove a restrictive covenant, you should read, and heed, the Tribunal’s comments about your role in Berecz v Casey City Council 1 The case is also a rare example of the Tribunal granting a permit to vary a covenant and it shows how difficult it is to meet the threshold test in s 60(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act).2

The case involved an application for a permit to modify a single dwelling covenant to allow a second dwelling in Garnet Close, Narre Warren. Council refused the application on the ground it didn’t meet the test in s 60(5) of the Act:

Pursuant to section 60(5) …, the Responsible Authority is not satisfied the owner of any land benefitted by the restriction will be unlikely to suffer any detriment of any kind (including any perceived detriment) as a consequence of the variation of the restriction.

The problem was, the restrictive covenant was created after 25 June 1991, so s 60(5) didn’t apply.

While Council correctly referred to s 60(2) in the Tribunal, it did not, as the Tribunal observed, seek to amend its ground of refusal.3 More troubling was that in substance, Council’s submission continued to apply the test from s 60(5). This was implicit in its submissions on amenity, which used the word “possible”, and on compliance with ResCode, which relied on s 60(5) authorities relating to perceived detriment:

Council is not convinced that the beneficiaries will be unlikely to suffer loss of amenity. A list of physical amenity impacts is possible to be created as a result of approving two dwellings on this lot. These impacts include additional street parking and traffic flow to the neighbourhood and additional noise and shadowing impacts to the adjoining properties.4

Though the proposed development complies with most Rescode requirements, compliance with the Rescode does not in itself establish that a covenant beneficiary will be unlikely to suffer a detriment of any kind. ‘The question is not whether the development proposed is a good one from a town planning point of view but rather, whether the beneficiaries would suffer detriment’ (Ambrose Holdings PL V Boroondara CC [1999] VCAT1852). The tribunal has long held that perceived detriment includes loss of amenity (A & K Corporation v Darebin [2014] VCAT 1783– para 21).5

Council ultimately failed entirely to engage with the actual terms of s 60(2), and relevant authorities which call up material loss or detriment, not perceived detriment of any kind.

Natalie Blok, Barrister, Castan Chambers

Councils will therefore do well to not ignore the Tribunal’s incisive comments about the need for them to competently process applications of this kind in paragraph [19] (emphasis added):

After considering Council’s written submission and the oral submissions made to us by Council at the hearing (together with the relevant text in the Delegate Report), our impression is that at all of these stages, there has been a fundamental lack of proper understanding and application of the statutory provisions and caselaw for this type of ‘variation of restrictive covenant’ disputed permit application. As we said at the hearing, for VCAT planning merits hearings to be workable and for there to be public confidence in the Victorian planning system, it is essential that this type of permit application is competently processed by the relevant Council

The case is also useful as a reminder of how difficult it is to meet the threshold test in s 60(2) before a permit may be granted to vary or remove restrictive covenants. While the s 60(2) test is easier to satisfy than the test in s 60(5), because the decisionmaker must be satisfied the owners of land benefitted by the relevant covenant will be unlikely to suffer material loss or detriment (whether financial or amenity, or arising from a change to neighbourhood character)6, rather than any perceived detriment of any kind, the test in s 60(2) remains hard to satisfy. Indeed, the Tribunal emphasised the success of the application lay on the unusual facts: the proposed second dwelling was contained in the existing building envelope, built at least 10 years before, and already inhabited by a number of people (albeit only as a single dwelling). Accordingly, there could no loss arising from change to neighbourhood character and amenity loss was marginal (emphasis added):7

For the record, we wish to be crystal clear that our findings in this case very much turn on the unusual facts before us here i.e., a second dwelling that has already existed for it would appear at least 10 years.

Other facts that tended towards the grant of a permit included that the subject land was located close to the entry to the subdivision, thus reducing amenity impact arising from increased numbers of people or vehicles. There had also already been two earlier subdivisions within Garnet Close.

While the Tribunal was undoubtedly correct to say the case turned on unusual facts, less helpful were comments that the discussion in the Tribunal would have been “very different” had there been evidence of prior illegal use of the existing dwelling as a second dwelling.8 Illegality is not a bar to the grant of a permit, and the Tribunal was not prevented from granting a permit even had the facts been such that the existing dwelling had already been in use as a second dwelling, albeit unlawfully (which they were not), irrespective of whether enforcement proceedings had been issued.9

Natalie Blok

Natalie practises in Planning and Environment law and administrative law more generally. She acted for the developer in this case.

Footnotes

1 [2021] VCAT 1336 (Berecz).

2 Berecz at [7].

3 Berecz at [18].

4 Council submissions in Berecz at [34] (emphasis added).

5 Council submissions in Berecz at [39].

6 See relevant principles summarised at [22]-[23], [34]. Sushba Group Pty Ltd v Wyndham CC [2018] VCAT 2061 and Pawlak v Golden Plains SC [2016] VCAT 2049 are two other examples of successful applications, which also demonstrate that a particular factual set of circumstances is necessary.

7 Berecz at [36] [emphasis added).

8 See Berecz at [36]-[37].

9 See s 62 of sch 1 to the Victorian Civil and Tribunal Act 1998. See also Sibilia v Monash City Council [2001] VCAT 277 at [33]. See also Wilson v Shire of Winchelsea (1988) 1 AATR 26 at 30-35 and Faithland Inc v City of Doncaster and Templestowe (1991) 6 AATR 294 at 311 (both referred to in Silibia).

The Business Sound Bites General environmental duty and noise

Resuming our discussion on the new environment protection framework and the noise related repercussions, in this article, we tackle the cornerstone of the Environment Protection Act (EP Act 2017)

The introduction of a general environmental duty (GED) into the EP Act 2017 represents the most significant change to the noise assessment framework in Victoria. Importantly, the GED is a central element of the new legislation and is separate to the requirement to comply with mandatory limits set by the EP Regulations.

Previously, compliance with the EP Act 1970 was able to be demonstrated by an objective assessment against mandatory limits defined by SEPP N-1. However, under the EP Act 2017, this is no longer the case. The requirement to meet mandatory noise limits remains, but this is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the EP Act 2017. Now, compliance with the GED must also be demonstrated.

The requirements of the GED therefore warrant closer inspection. The EP Act 2017, section 25, states:

A person who is engaging in an activity that may give rise to risks of harm to human health or the environment from pollution or waste must minimise those risks, so far as reasonably practicable.

The potential risks requiring reduction extend to noise related amenity impacts.

The GED requires that all reasonably practicable steps be taken to minimise the risk of harm of noise and is independent to the status of objective compliance with the Noise Protocol1

Our interpretation of the GED is that it could be applied to a use that emits noise to the environment and, equally, could be applied to a proposal that introduces a noise sensitive use into a high noise environment (encroachment article to come in future edition of VPELA Revue).

Conceptually, there is merit to the GED.

The noise limits defined previously in SEPP N-1 and the Noise Protocol do not restrict noise to inaudible noise levels, nor are they intended to prevent noise related annoyance in all cases. Instead, the noise limits are set at values which aim to balance the needs of industry for a practical environmental noise management framework with the protection of amenity for most people. This means that noise that complies with the noise limits may still cause annoyance and impact sensitive locations.

Under the EP Act 1970 and SEPP N-1, there was no clear incentive to reduce this risk, even if basic and readily practical

options were available to provide a better outcome. Recognising the compromise that is inherent in the noise limits, the GED now establishes the incentive to go further.

However, what constitutes ‘reasonably practicable’ is a tricky proposition and will likely become fertile ground for debate. The EPA provide a general guidance approach2 for all industries and environmental effects to determine what is ‘reasonably practicable’ Defining what are reasonably practicable noise mitigation measures for each industry and setting has the potential to be a complex and collaborative process.

Another important point of context is that noise levels, in terms of decibels, are just one of many factors that contribute to the risk of noise related amenity impacts and in many cases community attitudes and reaction to noise don’t correlate well with noise levels. This means that modest reductions in noise levels may not yield any material reduction in the risk of noise related amenity impacts, particularly where noise levels are already low, as the law of diminishing returns becomes relevant.

Often other factors such as visual impacts and community engagement have a strong influence on community reaction to noise. Time will tell how these types of ‘mitigations’ fair as measures to address the GED when placed under the scrutiny of the various Responsible Authorities.

This is a significant change in thinking for applicants; the noise limits developed under the Noise Protocol are no longer a target level of noise that one can emit up to.

Early consideration of noise emissions and risk reduction are more important than ever, and often it is in the concept stage of a project that a lot of ‘easy wins’ for noise reduction can be identified as opposed to installing cost prohibitive acoustic mitigation measures once a compliance problem becomes evident.

The above presents our current interpretation of the GED based on a relatively small sample of tested cases. It is likely that there will be movement in this space in the coming years as precedents for following certain methods to address the GED are established.

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

Footnotes

1 EPA Publication 1826.4 Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues (the Noise Protocol)

2 EPA Publication 1856 Reasonably Practicable

Justin Adcock and Travis Hancock, Marshall Day Acoustics

The Business Permits: ‘Transformation’ transformed…

The decision by the Victorian Supreme Court in Mondib Group Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley City Council [2021] VSC 722 has provided long awaited clarity on the scope of the power available to amend a planning permit under section 72 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act).

The Court’s decision considers the principle of ‘transformation’ which has evolved over the last decade or so to amount to a constraint on a decision maker’s power to amend a permit under section 72 of the Act.

Here’s some background…

On 21 July 2016, Moonee Valley City Council (Council) granted the applicant with a permit to construct a multi-storey building accommodating ground floor retail, dwellings, reduction in the car parking requirement and works within a road reserve in respect of land in Moonee Ponds.

The applicant subsequently sought to amend the permit to allow for the construction of a multi-storey building containing a ground floor restaurant, residential hotel and works within the road zone.

The amendment was sought pursuant to section 72 of the Act which provides that:

“72 Application for amendment of permit

(1) A person who is entitled to use or develop land in accordance with a permit may apply to the responsible authority for an amendment to the permit.

The amendments proposed to the permit included changes to the permit as follows (amongst various others):

1. 335 residential hotel rooms and a ground floor restaurant. The permit contemplated 187 dwellings and commercial premises (including 4 retail premises at ground level);

2. 15 storey mixed use building sought instead of the approved 14 storeys;

3. maximum building height of 46.55m sought instead of the approved maximum building height of 50.07m;

4. a total of 94 car parking spaces, 3 pick-up and drop-off spaces, 6 motor bike spaces and 86 bicycle spaces. The permit required a total of 212 car parking spaces and 67 bicycle spaces; and

5. substantial consequential amendments to the permit conditions.

The Tribunal’s decision was…

The Tribunal dismissed the application for review summarily and concluded as follows (at [36]):

1. the proposed amendment is a transformation of what is allowed under the permit rather than an amendment to the permit. The Tribunal therefore considered that it did not have power to consider the application under section 72 of the Act; and

2. the application for review was misconceived or lacking in substance since the Tribunal cannot exercise its power under section 72 of the Act because the amendments sought would transform (instead of amend) the permit.

The Grounds of Appeal were…

The Appellant appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Supreme Court on two grounds. The first ground is more relevant to the consideration of transformation. The appellant claimed in this regard that the Tribunal:

1. adopted a concept - that of ‘transforming’ a permit –which is not found in, or to be implied by, the text, context or purpose of the Act and which is based upon common law principles developed in a different context;

2. failed to give proper effect to, and to properly consider, the meaning of the word ‘amendment’ in section 72(1) of the Act; and

3. failed to construe the words ‘amendment to the permit’ in accordance with the text, context and purpose of section 72(1) of the Act, including by failing to properly consider the intent of section 72(1) of the Act that a person who is entitled to use or develop land in accordance with a planning permit should be permitted to apply for an amendment comprising the addition of elements, the deletion of elements and the substitution of elements.

The second ground of appeal challenged the Tribunal’s ability to strike out an application pursuant to the power in section 75(1)(a) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (which contemplates the summary dismissal of unjustified proceedings).

What is ‘Transformation’ Principle?

The case of Addicoat v Fox (No 2) [1979] VR 347 (Addicoat) was one of the early cases to contemplate the concept of ‘transformation’. The case concerned whether a permit could be granted that differed from that sought in the original application.

The Court in that case held that (at [363]):

“In my opinion, a power to grant a permit subject to conditions authorizes the responsible authority to grant a permit for a use or development which differs from the use or development the subject of the application for a permit, provided that the difference is not so radical as to enable it to be said, viewing the

Tamara Brezzi, Nick Sutton and Sashank Krishnamoorthy, Norton Rose Fulbright

matter broadly and fairly, that to grant a permit on the supposed conditions would not be to grant the permit applied for with modifications, but to grant a different permit. This is plainly a matter of degree, and indeed it is almost one of impression. In my view, the changes made may be considerable without necessarily bringing it about that the permit granted is a different as opposed to a modified permit. Whether more may be countenanced by way of limiting the development or use, as opposed to extending it, before the point is reached at which alteration ceases to be modification and becomes transformation, is a question which I find it unnecessary to decide

(underlined for emphasis)

A general principle arose from the Addicoat decision that the power to amend a permit pursuant to section 72 of the Act does not extend to an amendment that would ‘transform’ the permit.

However, in the recent Mondib decision, the Court formed the view that the Addicoat decision is of little assistance in interpreting the meaning of section 72 of the Act for the following reasons:

• the decision is not concerned with an amendment power; and

• the Court in that instance was concerned with a permit being granted which had not gone through the processes of public notice and objection. Since the Act requires an amendment application to undergo the same process as a new permit application, a decision concerning an amendment application would not be one where the rights of third parties to participate in planning processes had been denied, avoided or overlooked.

The Court’s Decision was….

In exploring the intention of section 72 of the Act, the Court considered the meaning of the word ‘amendment’, which is central to that provision.

Section 3 of the Act defines amendment to mean:

amendment includes addition, deletion or substitution”

The Court noted the following in respect of this definition (at [71]):

“Rather than limiting the width of the word ‘amendment’, the Act defines the term in a non-exhaustive way so as to include an ‘addition, deletion or substitution’. That strongly suggests that, within the Act, unless a contrary intention can be discerned, the word is to have a wide meaning that includes replacing the existing text with a different text. It is true that these words describe a mechanism by which a change to a permit may be effected, however, the process of substitution suggests the capacity to bring about a substantial change free of the existing text. I can discern no contrary intention in division 1A that would avoid the definition”.

(underlined

for emphasis)

In view of the broader interpretation of the word ‘amendment’, and the Court’s views about the ‘transformation’ concept, the first ground of appeal was upheld on the following basis (at [88] and [89]):

“Section 72 allows a person to use or develop land in accordance with a permit to apply for an amendment to the permit. An amendment is an alteration to the terms of the permit. The text, purpose and context of the provision does not support a limitation on the power of the kind adopted by the Tribunal. The word amendment does not carry any particular limitation of the kind ascribed by the Tribunal and neither the purpose or overall scheme of the Act requires a limitation to be applied. A so called transformative change would, if made, still be an amendment to the permit The changes in an application to amend may be profound and entail a different use or a different development of the same land but they do not, for that reason, fall outside the power contemplated by s 72.

The Tribunal erred in dismissing the application on the basis that the proposed changes were transformative. The nature and extent of the changes were properly a matter to be assessed on the merits of the application and not at the threshold. I would uphold ground 1.”

(underlined for emphasis)

And the implications are….

It is clear that many decision makers, including the Tribunal, will now need to change their approach to decisions concerning amendments under section 72 of the Act, noting that the Court’s decision is binding on the Tribunal.

The Court has made it clear that a request for an amendment to a permit cannot be rejected on the basis that the changes would ‘transform’ a permit as those matters go to the merits of the application rather than the scope of the power to amend. Therefore while the merits of the application in those circumstances will still need to be assessed in the usual manner, the Tribunal will not be able to summarily dismiss an amendment application on the grounds that the proposed amendments constitute a ‘transformation’ of the type described by the Court in Mondib.

Article prepared by Tamara Brezzi, Partner; Nick Sutton, Partner; and Sashank Krishnamoorthy, Associate, Norton Rose Fulbright

The importance of being ‘Carlo’, and becoming active in YPG

I was asked to write this article about why it is worth being involved with the VPELA YPG and why our Young Professional cohort should apply for the VPELA Young Professional of the Year. There’s not much more that I can say, other than I don’t think I would be where I am today if I wasn’t so heavily involved with (and supported by) VPELA and the YPG.

That said, here is more that I can say. When I first joined the YPG in 2012, I didn’t know how to organise an event, wasn’t a very good public speaker, didn’t truly understand what the industry did, and didn’t have any work friends outside of the traffic, civil and structural engineers that I knew from my workplace.

VPELA, and particularly the YPG, changed all of that.

I can still remember my first State Planning Conference Committee meeting in 2014 where I was the YPG representative (I was also Co-Convenor of the YPG Committee at the time). I didn’t even know what the Conference was! Eight years later and I’ve been to Warrnambool, Phillip Island, and Lorne all on the back of being part of the committee and you won’t see me giving up my position on the committee any time soon.

After successfully applying for the Young Professional’s Award in 2015, (the State Government had just announced commitment to the Metro Tunnel Project), I used the grant money to fund a trip to Madrid and met with infrastructure giants Acciona. I was able to do this through contacts I made from a VPELA event, organised through the YPG, and with the money that the YPG Award Sponsors so generously provided as part of the Award.

Around the same time I got to follow Rob Adams (City Architect at City of Melbourne) around for a day. What an experience! Something I know would not have been possible if I wasn’t part of the VPELA YPG and writing an article for the Revue

Carlo Morello, Director Traffix Group

As a YPG Committee Member I was lucky enough to be matched with Board Buddies the likes of Tamara Brezzi, Adrian Finanzio, and John Carey. At the 100s of seminars, networking events, conferences and committee meetings that have followed since I first joined the YPG, I have been lucky enough to have had more mentors, friends and colleagues than I can count, and the tally keeps rising.

I migrated to the VPELA Board in 2016 and continue to be challenged and excited everyday to be part of such an amazing industry and association, surrounded by such quality leaders who make up the rest of the Board.

I know that my transfer to Traffix Group 7 years ago (where I have recently become a Director) could only have been aided by the fact that I was part of the YPG and so heavily involved in VPELA.

Yes, there is a bit of work that goes into organising and participating in events and attending board and committee meetings. That work pales in comparison, however, to the fun, friendships and ultimately career and life benefits that come from it.

As Aaron Burr says (in Hamilton), you’ve “got to be in the room where it happens, room where it happens”. And if there’s a room that a young professional associated with VPELA can be in, then it is in the rooms (or Zooms) where the YPG Committee meet and where the YPG Award is presented!

So, I implore all of you young professionals out there to apply for the YPG Award now, and when the YPG Committee Calls for nominations at the end of the year, put in your application and get involved!

Carlo Morello Director Traffix Group

E:

CMorello@traffixgroup.com.au

People Young Professional Group Co-convenors report

Despite, 2021 being, once again, dominated by lockdowns, fatigue and COVID chit-chat, it was still a successful year for VPELA’s Young Professional Group, having hosted several online (and one ‘in person’) seminars, events and social networking functions.

Though the ‘spicy’ cough may still be lingering around in 2022, it won’t stop us! The YPG is looking forward to hosting many more insightful seminars along with casual get togethers to meet fellow professionals and new friends in the workplace. After an interrupted past two years, there is plenty of need for us to make up for lost time!

We’d like to thank outgoing Co-Convenor Eliza Minney and outgoing committee members Vincent Pham, Taryn Sobel and Christina Chu for their contribution to the YPG over recent years.

On the flip side, we have some fresh faces who have joined our committee for 2022 (including a change of leadership) and we are excited to see what they will bring to the YPG going forward.

This year, we are encouraging the involvement of students at our seminars and events to meet fellow members of our industry. We encourage all workplaces to get their students and graduates to come along to our YPG functions. We’ll also be exploring a number of new initiatives and new ways to engage, interact and learn, so watch this space for some hopefully exciting announcements throughout the year.

We can’t wait to see what 2022 holds for us!

Your YPG Co-convenors, Jack and Izzy on behalf of the YPG.

Welcome to our new members…

Maria Anenoglou Gadens

Howard Bartlett

Lexie Branda-Pawlaczyk Ecology and Heritage Partners

Rechelle Brookes Ratio

Alayna Chapman Yarra City Council

Louie Chen DELWP

Natasha Cox Urbis

Teresa Davis KBR

Rowan Farmer City of Greater Geelong

Hans Gao Stantec

Thomas Hams Beveridge Williams

Rhiannon Hossack Cardno

Steven Huang Maroondah City Counci

Shrijan Joshi Urbis

Isobel Kirkman Jacobs

Jacqueline Kirwan Urbis Pty Ltd

Sofie Lemaire Greater Dandenong Council

Taila Maher Urbis Pty Ltd

Josh Maitland Ethos Urban Pty Ltd

Alison McFarlane DELWP

Amy Najarialamouti Taylors

Rutu Parekh Waste Audit & Consultancy Services

Stefani Risteska Whiteman Property & Associates

Joshua Trowell Urbis

Katherine Vance-Smith Ecology & Heritage Partners

Shelley Warner Department of Education & Training, Victoria

Michelle West Manningham City Council

Jacqui Willis WSP Australia

Hayley Wu Cardinia Shire Council

Long term members marry

Congratulations to two of our best-known members, Charmaine Dunstan and David Hodge, who married at Siglio on Sunday 21 November 2021 in front of family and friends. The ceremony was delayed a number of times due to COVID but love eventually triumphed. David confirmed that they are “blissfully happy” and that Charmaine looked “absolutely beautiful” – we can’t argue with that.

We wish them a lifetime of happiness together!

Isobel Vescovi Jack Chiodo

People

Young Professional Group Profiles

Jack Chiodo (Convenor) One of the YPG committee Co-Convenors for 2022, Jack is a town planner at Manningham Council. Working predominantly in the appeals space, he has an ever-growing passion for advocacy, negotiation and dealing with the more complex planning matters. Outside of work, Jack enjoys all things fitness, being social, live music, the odd whiskey, supporting the Brisbane Lions and AC Milan. This is Jack’s third year as YPG Co-Convenor and he is looking forward to what is hopefully somewhat of a normal year in 2022!

Isobell Vescovi (Convenor) Isobell Vescovi is a senior planner at Upco. This is Isobell’s first year as the YPG Co-Convenor. She has experience spanning across the public and private sector. She is outcome driven and is passionate about innovative, sustainable design. Outside of planning, Isobell enjoys travelling, keeping fit and spending time with family and friends.

Lina Inglis Lina is a Senior Traffic Engineer at Ratio Consultants, her experience includes the preparation of VCAT expert evidence statements, traffic modelling of mixed use precincts and large residential estates in Greenfields areas. In her spare time Lina enjoys painting canvases and illustration.

Zina Teoh Zina is a senior associate in the Public Law team at Maddocks. She specialises in planning and environmental law and has broad experience advising local government and private clients. Outside of work she plays on too many netball teams, likes to host dinner parties and loves her lockdown cat, Tofu. She is looking forward to more opportunities for the young professionals to get together in person this year.

James Cossins James is a Senior Traffic Engineer at Traffix Group. He has experience across a wide range of land use developments from small scale residential developments to Town Centre and major retail developments. This is his first year on the YPG and is looking forward to 2022. Outside of work James enjoys heading down the coast, going to the football to support the Saints and playing golf.

Charlie Wurm Charlie is a lawyer in the Public Law team at Maddocks. He advises local government authorities on planning and environmental matters, and regularly appears as a solicitor-advocate in VCAT and Planning Panels Victoria. Charlie also has experience acting on behalf of private clients and maintains a broad practice in prosecution, often appearing in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. In the colder months, you will find Charlie supporting Carlton on the weekends, and exploring Victoria as the weather gets warmer.

Charlotte Phillips Charlotte is a Planning Consultant at Urbis and has experience working as a planning consultant across several projects throughout Australia. The projects have ranged in scale and complexity, including state transport infrastructure projects, strategic precinct planning, statutory planning and stakeholder engagement processes. This is Charlotte’s third year on the YPG Committee. Outside work Charlotte enjoys a hit of tennis, beach walks and cooking delicious food.

Zac Van Grondelle Zac has recently stepped into the role of Coordinator of Statutory Planning at the Surf Coast Shire Council. Experienced in a wide range of major development, urban and rural applications from working in both metropolitan and regional Councils, Zac is looking forward to helping shape the future of the beautiful Surf Coast. Outside of work, Zac spends as much time as possible exploring all things Geelong and the coast has to offer - always accompanied by his trusty sidekick, Elsie the rescue greyhound.

Emily Mignot Emily is a Senior Town Planner with Tract Consultants. Having recently made the transition from local government to consultancy, she hopes to deepen her understanding of the industry and embrace the chance to work on a breadth of projects with both a statutory and strategic focus. She is passionate about community engagement, having been involved in a range of projects across the public and private sector –from local community to statewide consultation. When not immersed in planning and development issues, Emily can be found in the world of performance, the arts and current affairs.

Amara Coleman Amara is an Associate in the Planning, Environment and Local Government team at Harwood Andrews Lawyers. Amara works across a variety of matters involving statutory planning, strategic planning, environmental protection and local government. Outside of work, Amara enjoys cooking anything and everything Ottolenghi, bushwalks with Lou (her chocolate Lab) and drinking Tasmanian Riesling.

Michael Pavlidis Michael is a lawyer in the planning & environment team at Rigby Cooke Lawyers. He is passionate about planning, property, environmental and administrative law and enjoys publishing articles in the VPELA revue when he can. Outside of work he enjoys hiking, going to the footy and travelling. This is Michael’s second year on the YPG committee.

Stephanie Cimino Stephanie is a planning and environment lawyer at Equipe Lawyers. She works on a variety of environment and planning matters, ranging from residential development to extractive industry permits. Stephanie is particularly interested in administrative law. Outside of work, Stephanie enjoys playing the piano, reading novels and spending time with her friends and family. This is Stephanie’s second year on the YPG Committee.

Madeleine Craig Madeleine Craig is a Town Planner at Contour Consultants where she is driven to deliver exceptional planning outcomes. Her work is primarily focused on residential and commercial projects in Victoria at a range of scales. Outside the planning world, Madeleine loves starting the day off with a run & in the evenings, navigating Melbourne’s ever evolving food and drink scene.

Teresa Davis Teresa is a Senior Urban Planner at Kellogg, Brown and Root. In Teresa’s current role, she is working for the North Western Program Alliance delivering planning approvals for Level Crossing Removal Projects. Teresa is passionate about the planning industry and enjoys working in complex approval environments across multidisciplinary teams. Teresa has also practiced in South Australia, working previously both for state government and a peak industry body. In her free time, you will find Teresa outdoors either running, riding or exploring Melbourne’s beautiful parks and spending time with friends and family.

Jack Curnow Jack is a Lawyer in the Planning and Environment team at Best Hooper Lawyers, beginning as Graduate in 2021. Jack assists in a number of areas and particularly enjoys the strategy behind preparing for a VCAT matter. This is Jack’s first year on the YPG and he is looking forward to connecting with others in the industry after a disruptive 2021. When not working or reading the VPELA Revue, Jack can still be found basking in the glory of a Dees Premiership.

Amy Najari Amy is an Urban Designer at Taylors. She has experience on preparing concept design, masterplan and land subdivision for greenfield areas in Victoria. Her experience involves preparing suite of plans for council approval. This is Amy’s first year on the YPG committee. She enjoys socialising with other professionals in Urban Development industry. Outside of work, Amy enjoys spending time with her family going for a picnic on weekends, travel around and watch movies.

Summer Drinks…

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.