VPELA Revue (October 2020)

revue

Fringe benefits

Growth area planning reviewed

Redefining the Australian dream Planning’s role in future housing affordability

Honoured All winners of the 2020 RJ Evans & Fellows Awards

Peer to peer

11 practitioners dive into our light-hearted questionnaire

Cover: Typical high density development in Australia. Quenda Estate, Hammond Park WA (photo: Creative Commons)

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 Hearing hangovers

Well this lockdown thing is certainly wearing a little thin now, isn’t it? As each extension has arisen, I’ve tried my best to remind myself about how far we’ve come since the working from home world landed on us in March. With each extension of the lockdown restrictions we have learned many new skills, and indeed have become quite adept at, developing work arounds and managing our businesses remotely. At VPELA, the transformation has been phenomenal and some great benefits have evolved, including the opportunity for significantly higher levels of participation in our webinars and events.

Our annual conference is no exception. For the first time, our conference will be run entirely online during November. I encourage you to support the conference by registering as a delegate and attending as many of the webinars as you can, including our keynote address with special guest, Adam Goodes.

No doubt you’re also experiencing extreme screen fatigue by now. While this was a phenomenon that we all noticed early in the year, the onset of online hearings has certainly added to that fatigue.

Tamara Brezzi President, VPELA

during a hearing day, it’s no wonder that many have reported experiencing ‘hearing hangover’ the day after a hearing. Bearing these things in mind, I encourage you to consider the following suggestions to assist in the additional self-care necessary to handle your workload during these challenging times:

- Block out the morning after a hearing or big screen day to attend to less taxing administrative tasks, catch up with a friend for a walk or do some exercise to give your busy but exhausted brain time to recover;

Oneinsightinparticular stuck with me – it’s more physicallyexhaustingtorun onlinehearings.Thisarisesas a consequence of numerous factors,butinmyview,it’s primarilyconcernedwiththe fact that all of our senses have to work in overdrive in order to participateinonlinehearings.

In our webinar on 30 September, we brought together practitioners (Colleen Peterson (Ratio), Mark Sheppard (kinetica) and Greg Tobin (Harwood Andrews) to explore our insights and tips for dealing with online hearings having regard to the fact that they are now here to stay with us for some time.

The discussion concerning preparation for hearings, attending to your virtual court room setup and advocacy and giving expert evidence was a helpful one, highlighting that while there are some time efficiencies associated with online hearings (such as not having to commute to VCAT etc), much of the preparation and hearing attendance is taking longer and is generally more taxing than running hearings in person. One insight in particular stuck with me – it’s more physically exhausting to run online hearings. This arises as a consequence of numerous factors, but in my view, it’s primarily concerned with the fact that all of our senses have to work in overdrive in order to participate in online hearings. While we might usually rely heavily on sight to gauge body language, that opportunity is lost in this environment. While we might usually rely on our hearing to gauge nuance in questions being asked or submissions being made, the nature of internet filtered sound necessarily results in a flattening of the tone of audio, making it necessary for our brains to strain to hear, understand and process the nuance of what is being said or asked. Each of our senses is therefore forced to heavily compensate for the other, resulting in the screen fatigue we’re experiencing. Coupled with the pre and post hearing meetings with clients, and managing various devices for communication

- Find an opportunity to take a walk and get some fresh air, even if it’s just around the block, without talking on the phone (and preferably listening to some music) in the middle of a big screen day to give your senses time to reset for the afternoon ahead;

- Have a checklist of things you need to do in the days prior, and on the morning of, a hearing so that you’re not reinventing the wheel each time you have to prepare for an online hearing (and view our webinar online for some tips about what that checklist might include);

Self-care has never been more important than it has been this year. Please let us know if there’s anything more we can be doing at VPELA to assist the membership. .

Tamara Brezzi is President of VPELA and a Partner at Norton Rose Fulbright

STOP PRESS

New Board Members Elected

The results of our 2020-21 Election are in. Congratulations to returned Board Members; Meg Lee, Hall & Wilcox, Christina McRae, Urbis and Adam Terrill, Tract Consultants.

Welcome to our new Members; Mark Sheppard, kinetica, Ellen Tarasenko, Herbert Smith Freehills and Mia Zar, Tract Consultants.

Full new Member profiles will be featured in our October 2021 Revue.

Editorial licence

Bernard McNamara Editor and Director, BMDA Development Advisory

Safe tidings. Unfortunately, this is my second ‘intra-COVID lock down’ editorial! How are you managing things? For myself, I know so much more about my ‘walkable neighbourhood’ And, in one effort to remain connected with my Brighton swimming group (that beach is outside my 5km), I have joined a book club over Zoom. We commenced with Viktor Frankl’s ‘Man’s Search for Meaning’, followed by Orwell’s 1984 … do you think there is a pattern developing?

I recently listened to Hugh McKay, who observed that contemporary society has opted for a segregated urban form, the price of which is leaving a large proportion of our citizens lonely and disconnected. He suggested a positive that might emerge from the pandemic lockdown is that we, as individuals, become more connected in our neighbourhoods and build more compassion and kindness, leading to better communities. Maybe something there.

What a strong and engaged community we are at VPELA! In a ‘normal’ year, as editor, I had the simple task of filling the October Revue with the various presentations and goings-on from the VPELA Conference. Not this year.

Fearing a thin offering, and with a little invention, I ‘pivoted’ (as everyone is doing!) and sought some contributions from a range of our members by asking for their responses to a set of questions.

(

See ‘11 Questions to 11 Professionals’)

But wait, there’s more! Instead of a single-digit number of essays/contributions, as I would normally expect, I have been inundated with articles, from our wide areas of interest.

In addition to our wonderful group of regular contributors, we have articles from new contributors tackling the difficult issue of housing, the operation of residential zones, growth area planning, landscape values and more. So, a packed edition for you to wander through … online.

Rob Pradolin and Peter Mares have provided worthy articles on how the industry, and not just government, needs to address the provision of affordable housing. The housing focus extends onto how we regulate our housing and whether the common good is being lost with the preservation of existing. Andrew Clarke’s article on the under-performance of the Residential Growth Zone is telling, and when read with Sam D’Amico’s lighthearted, but pointed article on residential overlooking controls, the point is well made that new housing by formula is on a problematic course.

The Future of Cities, post Covid-19 was the subject of a VPELA webinar. Tim Nichols picks up the discussion and extends the proposition, articulated by Alain Bertaud that planners need to see the city more as a product of labour market demands rather than arising from an orderly design.

Through these economic forces, density and housing costs have been higher in the areas where jobs are at a premium, i.e. the central city. The question now is to what extent the pandemic disruption (with the dispersal of large sections of the workforce) will have on how the city functions? Will all our investments in infrastructure – in radial public transport and freeway systems (designed to provide high connectivity to the centre) – be what we need in 2025 onwards? How much will society alter?

According to WA sources, life in Perth is back to the ‘old normal’. But with a 5 million population, Melbourne needs to be a different city. Could the pandemic be a catalyst? And are we sufficiently smart to harness it?

On the point of how we plan the growth areas, we have two contributions. The first is from Stuart Mosley, CEO of the Victorian Planning Authority introducing the new Precinct Structure Plan guidelines, with an eye also on what might arise from a post COVID city. The 2020 version will replace the 2009 version, providing a ‘refresh’, setting new targets on accessibility etc, while encouraging innovation, and more local differentiation.

I see that the dictum of the 20 Minute Neighbourhood being rolled out. (And again, I state that all the ‘facilities/services’ which we need to access, over our changing demographic, don’t need to be in the one combined location!)

The other contribution on growth area planning comes from Charter Group 39, a group of senior planning professionals who, when looking at growth area outcomes, believe much needs to improve. The article is drawn from their publication, ‘Growing Pains: The Crisis in Growth Area Planning’. It is a critique of what these practitioners consider is not working in the production of growth area suburbs. The report assesses what has materialised on the ground against the current (former?) PSP guidelines and calls for changes in governance, transport systems, sustainability measures and open space planning, with a more dense and different housing mix.

Sadly in this issue we are also recording the death of another of our members – lawyer, Annabel Viner. I commend Cazz Redding’s article in which she sets out her own, brave challenge with mental illness, emphasising the importance of kindness, empathy and connection.

Let me conclude by joining in the salutations to our new Richard J Evans award winner, Michael Barlow, a very worthy recipient and a colleague with whom I go back decades. The successful rise of Urbis is largely an outcome of Mike’s strong professional, leadership and business qualities. Congratulations also to VPELA’s new Fellows – all outstanding professionals and people.

So, lots of important reading and a bit of fun too. As per usual (is there such a state?), comments/criticisms etc to e: bernard.mcnamara@bmda.com.au

VPELA 2020: Richard J Evans and Fellows Awards Awards

ceremony held online, 13 August 2020

Congratulations to our amazing award recipients, each of whom has made an outstanding contribution to the industry and the Association. These are the citations which were presented by VPELA President, Tamara Brezzi at the awards ceremony.

Michael is one of Australia’s leading town planners with experience in excess of 40 years and a long association with VPELA. His expertise in major infrastructure, airport redevelopment, retail and commercial development and strategic urban renewal projects are the core of his expansive skills. Michael is a quiet achiever who has inspired and supported the Australian planning and property sector, contributing to its international reputation.

Michael undertook his qualifications at RMIT (Diploma of Applied Science). In his early career he was the City of Melbourne’s appeals officer where he was held in high regard by his worthy opponents.

In 1985 he commenced work with AT Cocks (which was later to merge and become Urbis). In that period he established a career as a preeminent expert planning witnesses, regularly led by many of Melbourne’s top Barristers and QCs (including Richard Evans).

Michael has been a director at Urbis since 1990. In the early 2000s he became the National Managing Director of Urbis and over the next eight years led the growth and evolution of Urbis as Australia’s largest privately owned property consultancy.

His technical knowledge and understanding of the interaction between planning and property markets is of the highest order and he was an early leader in his analysis of the multi disciplines that influence positive land use and development outcomes.

Michael’s rational thinking – always spiked with a keen eye for opportunities for innovation has led him to be a trusted advisor of private clients and governments in Australia and internationally.

Our final presentation this evening is the award that is VPELA’s highest honour, the Richard J Evans Award

The criteria for this award include:

• An outstanding contribution to, and leadership in, town planning or the environment;

• Service to the profession with distinction; and

• Being of good character, inspiration as a leader and held in high esteem within the profession

Some previous recipients of the award are with us this afternoon, and include Justice Quigley, Kathy Mitchell, Helen Gibson, Jane Nathan, Geoff Underwood.

It’s my great pleasure to announce that this year’s Richard J Evans’ award winner is director of Urbis, Michael Barlow

His reputation extends well beyond Victoria and Australia, having been invited in 2018 to consult to the Hong Kong Planning Authority as part of a committee of international experts rethinking the future of land use planning and development in Hong Kong.

Other international experience includes advice on planning of the new city servicing Yangshan Port (Shanghai Deep Water Port), China 2005 and preparation of the Dubai Urban Development Framework Plan for the Emirate of Dubai 2007-2008.

Closer to home Michael has led the assessment of key projects (too many to mention), but including redevelopment of Melbourne Central Shopping Centre and Station in 2002, reviewing the urban growth potential associated with the $10 billion Melbourne Metro Underground Rail Project (2015), and advice to Government in relation to planning and land use impacts and uplift opportunities associated with North East Link and various Level Crossing Removal Projects (2018- 2020).

Michael’s personal and work ethic is a hallmark of his professional excellence and he sets an admirable standard for his staff and colleagues. He has a comprehensive knowledge of all aspects the discipline of city shaping demonstrating intellect and rigor and providing frank advice in his interactions.

Michael’s skill and generosity of knowledge have been an inspiration for many emerging and established professionals in the fields of town planning and property. He is liberal with his time, mentoring staff through sharing his genuine fascination for

FELLOWS

Teresa Bisucci, Deputy President, VCAT

Many of you will have worked with Teresa during her career as a planning lawyer with Best Hooper until the time that she was appointed to VCAT in 2018. Many of you may not know that she has a very interesting and diverse working history, having commenced her professional career as a research scientist for a private research company based in one of Melbourne’s leading hospitals. She has a long list of published papers in both national and international science and medical journals on topics such as wound healing and diabetes.

After completing a law degree she accepted a role in 2004 as Associate to Justice Morris (as he then was) who at the time was also President of VCAT. In 2007 she joined Best Hooper Lawyers, becoming a principal in 2012. Her legal career has been focused on planning law with regular appearances at VCAT, Planning Panels Victoria and the Heritage Council. Teresa says that her greatest achievement in her legal career was her dedication to community service including representing many community groups.

She has been an active supporter of VPELA, and has participated in many seminars and conferences since joining the Association.

Last year, Teresa was appointed as Head of the newly created Planning and Environment Division of VCAT.

[In my experience] As a solicitor, Teresa was always a fair and skilled opponent with a keen eye for finding practical solutions for her clients and for living by consistently strong principles that improve the standards of the planning professions and the contribution it makes to the community.

Congratulations Teresa

Michael Deidun, VCAT Member

Prior to his appointment as a VCAT member in 2011, Michael spent many years as a planner at various municipalities; Yarra Ranges 1995-1996, Maroondah 1996-2001, Baw Baw 2002-2004 and Boroondara 2004-2007, before moving to private sector work with Coomes Consulting Group.

Michael’s service to VPELA has been nothing short of exemplary. He joined the Association in 2004, served on the board from 2010 until 2019, including as a member of the Executive from 2011, and Secretary from 2015. His contribution to the Association has been enormous, through the organisation and delivery of many seminars, but in particular through his involvement with VPELA’s

urban systems. This reach has extended far and wide through government and private practice with the many Urbis alumni.

Michael has made an outstanding contribution to planning in Victoria through his established career. He is also currently a member of the Women’s Housing Limited Board where his expertise in land use planning and development is highly value.

Congratulations Michael.

annual conference. He has consistently brought intellectual debate to the conference committee table and has played a major role or been convenor of the conference every year since 2010. His impact on the organisation has been significant.

Michael is one of those valued members of the community who regards making a contribution to society as core to his existence. He regards the duty to serve as being fundamental and his work in the community, but in particular, as a foster parent of many years, is testament to that.

From my perspective, I am so grateful to have had an opportunity to serve with Michael on the Board. I came to rely on him to absolutely keep me on my toes, to always ask questions and to always bring the perspectives of a broad spectrum of the VPELA community to the table. He is much missed on the Board now that he has retired, and we still get to some agenda items where we ask each other “would Michael have any questions if he were here” in order to check in for ourselves that we are thoroughly and diligently performing our roles as Board members.

Michael – congratulations and thank you for your service to VPELA.

Congratulations Michael

Mark Sheppard, Principal, kinetica

Mark has been a long-time member and supporter of VPELA. He has presented at our seminars and conferences many many times over the last 10 years.

Mark established David Lock Associates (Australia) in 1998 and recently transformed that business into kinetica.

He is renowned as having set the benchmark for good urban design and has made an enormous contribution to VPELA and to the profession. Throughout his career he has specialised in large-scale master planning and urban design renewal projects. His urban design advice is frequently sought by both the private and public sectors and he has long been one of a very small number of urban design experts working in Victoria. His name has become synonymous with the giving of urban design evidence as an expert witness in relation to development proposals and planning scheme amendments. And with overseas experience in the UK he also brings a wealth of international knowledge and expertise to his profession.

Mark is an author and his book, Essentials of Urban Design, demonstrates his talents in communicating the fundamental concepts of urban design, to provide the understanding and tools needed to achieve better design outcomes.

Mark is a great thinker and regularly gets in touch to discuss current issues and topics that he thinks would be of interest to VPELA members, either to propose seminar debates and discussions or to publish material in the VPELA Magazine.

I’ve been the beneficiary of Mark’s thought provoking style as over the years we have come to realise that we share a keen interest in organisational behaviour, team building and how to look after staff and the profession like they’re your family. These discussions, together with those about planning and design and the law, have always demonstrated to me that Mark is a kind, generous, smart, intelligent man, applying consistently high standards to his professional pursuits.

Congratulations Mark

REVUE DELIVERY OPTIONS

Nick Tweedie SC, Victorian Bar

Nick’s great capacity to see things from alternative perspectives is perhaps partly explained by the fact that he grew up in Western Australia. Nick practiced as a solicitor there from 1992 before seeing the light and moving to Victoria to work for Maddocks in 1996. While in Western Australia, Nick worked as a Solicitor Advocate with the Crown Solicitor for WA, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Youth Legal Service in Perth. He was also Associate to Commissioner Sir Ronald Wilson at the Royal Commission into WA Inc.

Since moving to the bar in 1998 and taking silk in 2013, Nick’s practice has focused on planning, land valuation, liquor and gaming, statutory crime and administrative and governmental matters regularly appearing before VCAT, Advisory Committees, planning panels and the Courts, including the Supreme Court.

Nick is a wonderful guitarist, vocalist and lyricist; and his passion for live music has fuelled his interest and work as an advocate for and contributor to the development of Victorian music noise policies. He has offered guidance and counselling to music industry associations and conferences, and to music venues, not for profit associations and statutory authorities in finding the statutory balance required to ensure music venues can continue to operate within a complex and ever evolving modern urban landscape. Indeed, Nick’s contributions to Agent of Change clauses and music noise policies in Victoria have been adopted by many cities around the world including London and Glasgow.

Nick has contributed to VPELA in multiple seminars and conferences as a speaker and host and in the drafting of submissions and materials to government concerning music and noise policy development. [I have] [So many members of VPELA will have] briefed or worked with Nick on so many occasions since he joined the Victorian bar. He is strategic, so smart and a wonderful advocate. Clients are always impressed by him. And, he is witty. So witty. Nick is someone who is always able to eloquently articulate the ironic or hilarious side of any given situation, but particularly where even only a small level of absurdity is involved.

Congratulations Nick

As a result of COVID-19, VPELA moved to a digital format for the Revue magazine in June. This has been very well received with so many members in lockdown. Moving forward we wish to give members the choice of receiving the magazine in digital format or opting for the traditional hard copy delivery.

If you wish to receive a hard copy of the magazine click here

People Richard J Evans Award Speech Acceptance from Michael Barlow

May I first start off by thanking Tamara and the VPELA Board for this honour. When I received a phone call from Tamara and she said she wished to talk about the Richard J Evans award I immediately thought of other worthy candidates. Then to be told that no, it was actually me who was receiving this award was quite overwhelming.

I was lucky that I was sitting down when I received the phone call. So thank you to you all for the great honour, it is fully unexpected and potentially a little early in my career.

One of the things I want to do tonight is to share some stories. We often find that we live in the moment. We are always thinking about, ‘What’s on now?’; ‘What’s on tomorrow?’; ‘What is next?’, and we often don’t look back and ask ‘Why did that happen or what did I do that made a change?’

I hope that in sharing these stories with you today it may inspire some of the younger planners and other professionals to know that even though you’re only starting on the journey, there is an immense opportunity awaiting you in whatever you choose to do and, really, it’s up to you. If you take the chance and challenge yourself, it is amazing what you can find and what you can do, even humble planners from the State of Victoria; so where do I start?

I wanted to be an Architect. Unfortunately, I wasn’t very good at maths, and my Uncle who was an engineer said there’s a thing called town planning – it’s very similar to architecture, so I applied to the University to go into town planning. Around Day 2 of the course it was apparent that it really wasn’t about architecture but, nonetheless, there I was at RMIT in a new course.

We were all given the opportunity to be at the University for one year and then had to go out into the workforce – study parttime; work full-time – that was the idea. In 1975, for those of you who either read history books or were around at the time, it was a pretty tough economic time in Australia. We had just come out of the 1974 oil shock that smashed the world economy. The Board of Works ,who used to take all of the younger planners straight into an industry internship said, ‘Sorry, we’re only taking two’, as opposed to the year before when they took 40.

Needless to say, I wasn’t one of the two that they chose. I found work as a technical draftsman. Then I was lucky enough to obtain a job at the City of Doncaster and Templestowe in 1977, and as I remember, my job interview consisted mainly of talking of John Wayne movies with the Chief Engineer, who apparently thought I knew enough about John Wayne to pass, and was offered the job.

What was it like in 1977? Well, Melbourne was about half the size that it is today – 2.7 million people. The ordinance was also quite small. I can still remember Reprint 4, probably about half a centimertre thick and there were only about eight or nine real zones – the others were hardly ever used – and a few clauses.

Michael Barlow

Many developments didn’t need any consent at all. For those of you who are familiar with the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, East Doncaster was basically apple orchards.

I still remember vividly my first day at work as I was handed a very demanding file to look at

– a post and wire fence that required a permit. I can’t understand why it did, but it did. I don’t recall the day because of that, what I do remember was it took me an entire day to write the report, analysing this very important post and wire fence. It wasn’t the fence that was difficult, I didn’t know how to read a Planning Scheme. I really had no idea where to start but by the end of the day, after some help, I had a one page report recommending approval of the fence. That’s how you start your career.

After that, I went to the Shire of Eltham and during that time managed to ‘prang’ the Council car on an adventurous site inspection. I was only with the Shire for a very short while!

I was then very fortunate to secure a job at the City of Melbourne at a time when, again, jobs were reasonably scarce. I’d just graduated after my six years of study, so I was now a fully fledged Planner as opposed to an Assistant Planner. I worked my way up to the role of Planning Appeals Officer. This is in the days when the City of Melbourne had over a hundred Appeals a year, and the Council had been restructured – twice!

At that time we had many active resident Councillors wishing to make their mark on the City of Melbourne. We were defending some interesting decisions of Council over the time and I was a regular attendee at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as it was called then. During this time I regularly came up against the great QCs and really smart Juniors, including Richard Evans. One of my abiding memories of Richard is that he always had the time to have a chat. Richard never tried to ‘lord’ it over you that he was a Lawyer and you were a mere Planner; he was a true gentleman.

In 1985, I was very lucky to join AT Cocks and Partners. I say lucky because the job was offered to a very good friend of mine, John Keaney. John turned the job down because he had other ideas about what he wanted to do, so he suggested me to Terry Cocks and I was very fortunate to secure the position in a firm that comprised six people. I was the only planner, though Terry did have a planning qualification from the UK.

This provided me with the opportunity, thanks to Chris Canavan, to turn my ‘Planning Appeals Officer’ experience into a planning witness; I wouldn’t say expert I was a mere 27 years old. I had a little bit of experience, but felt quite out of place providing evidence in front of some very wise and eminent people of the AAT at that time. This is when I had my second experience with Richard.

Richard was then the leading Junior; I’m sure Michael Wright and Chris Canavan would agree that Richard was the most experienced of the three of them at that time – and he was the smiling assassin. He was always courteous, quite unlike the great QC, Garth Buckner, who was ferocious. With Garth, you’d always be trembling before you go into the box, and that was when you were on his side. Whereas with Richard, you were sometimes unnerved, because at the end of the cross-examination, you realised that you’d been ‘comprehensively done’; yet he did it in such a nice way; his cross-examination was calm; it was measured; it was meticulous; there was never an easy question.

Stuart Morris once described cross-examination to me as walking down a corridor, as each question was asked a side door was closed. Then at the end, there was no exit. Richard was the master placing you in the cul de sac and there was no way out.

I should point out that all this occurred at a time when witnesses didn’t have to provide their reports to the Tribunal or the other side before the case started – halcyon days indeed. So the barristers had no idea what you were going to say until you got into the box; there was no preparation. Chris Canavan used to refer to this as ‘ambush by evidence’. I have to hand it to the advocates of the day because they were able to listen to the evidence, quickly read the report and still come up with some absolutely ‘smashing’ cross examination.

Opportunity beckons

I want to reflect on three parts of my career as examples that there is so much that you can achieve.

When I joined AT Cocks we were a valuation firm with one town planner. Today, we’re 650 people; a national company; we have 180 planners. Back in the mid 1990s, in the depth of the Victorian recession we realised that if we didn’t do something, we were going to get overrun by competition from new quarters.

This was in the days when Lend Lease and others were seeking to move into consultancy. So we took the battle to their heartland and established an office in Sydney. At that time I knew little about the New South Wales planning system, but I flew up to Sydney every week met many potential clients, didn’t win very much work – but we persevered.

and good friend, Tim Blythe, and sent him to Sydney; and the rest is history. Our Sydney office is our biggest and most successful office. Sometimes you’ve just got to make the commitment and challenge yourself – it’s amazing what can come out of it.

Once we were established, we were looking for more challenges again and were approached by a firm in Hong Kong about a potential competition for a new town on the outskirts of Shangai. We thought, ‘OK, we’ll have a go’; put our credentials forward and were surprised to learn we were shortlisted to prepare a masterplan for this particular location.

We flew to China, made the presentation, got to know some people and off we went from there.

Working overseas, particularly in different cultures, you quickly learn two things; one, is that you are a product of where you come from – it doesn’t matter how much you consider that you are a free thinker and so forth – what you do, who you are with and where you live have a massive influence on you.

I learnt that in China, because when you spoke to the Germans about how they were going to plan a Chinese new town, they would have the German way; you talk to the Americans, they would have the American way, and so it went on. We had the Australian way.

The second realisation was to really need to understand the culture – not simply acknowledge that it is different.

An excellent example of this arose when we were fortunate to be shortlisted to undertake the design for the new City of Yangshan at Luchuagang, located on the Yellow Sea. The Chinese government was building a new port 20 kilometres out into the ocean in the deep sea. The new city was to be the land-side area where all of the transportation and such took place, and was proposed to accommodate about half a million people.

Our compettors were the Germans and Italians. We had this rather interesting final day when we heard each other’s presentations. The Germans started talking ‘poetically’ to the judging panel about the way that their city was to be designed. We thought it was a reasonably traditional design, but the head architect when describing the large central lake of this new city described how the lake was going to be filled with ‘tears from heaven’. We thought that was rather odd. Is that the way you sell a major city project? The Germans won with their ‘tears of heaven’, and much of the city has been built in 12 years.

We asked one of my good friends and a great Victorian planner, John Wynne to head up Sydney and then we picked another fine planner …continued

So we learnt something from that. Our next competition was on some islands not far from the new Port. We came up with our design and realised we needed to better explain this to our Chinese clients. We described our city design as ‘like a butterfly rising from the sea’.

The Germans again were our opponents. This time we won. So, there’s a lesson for all. You have to listen to the culture that you are dealing with and not simply assume.

It became more difficult to build a business in China in the later 2000s, due to restrictions on capital transfers and many other matters. We decided to retreat from that market and started looking for another. At that time the Middle East economies were starting to boom and we thought, ‘We’ll go and have a look at that’.

Again we were fortunate enough to meet the right people and win a couple of small jobs. Soon after the opportunity to prepare a framework plan, a new planning system and the future vision for the entire Emirate of Dubai was tendered worldwide. This was a very large project!

Everyone who was anyone from around the world bid – Fosters, Price Waterhouse, Calthorpe; the lot. We were shortlisted to five then two, and then we won! The reason that we won was twofold; one that we were not one of the traditional groups that did similar projects around the world and secondly, we demonstrated we had thought about the brief and provided some thoughtful ideas as opposed to simply saying, ‘This is how much it will cost you’

We thought we were going to do most of the project from Australia; well, how wrong were we? After we had landed the project, we were told we had a month to mobilise. We had to have the entire team in Dubai at that time. We weren’t allowed to work in our own office and had to work in an office provided by the Government because of the sensitive nature of the project.

We assembled our team, put them on a plane, arrived in Dubai and ended up at the Police Officers’ Club. This was the only place that the client could put us up due to a shortge of office space! We had three power points and one internet connection. So, welcome to Dubai and you have 12 months to finish your project. After about six months of analysing Dubai, given it had relatively scarce data, we concluded that there was a serious problem. Everyone had a different idea of what Dubai was going to be.

The Road and Transport Authority thought they were building freeways for a city of seven million people by 2020; the Water and Power Company thought they were providing for a city for five million by 2020 and the developers said we can build a city of nine million by 2020.

Our economic advice said on the very, very best hope of (an unreal) 11 per cent real growth per annum, you will get to three million people by 2020. When I presented this to the client advising that they were overinvesting their capital in Dubai and that quite a few of the projects needed to shut down, I was told that was not possible, and each project needed to proceed.

We continued our work and 38 volumes later the project was complete, but in September 2009, when Lehman Brothers went down, every one of the projects we identified that needed to be shut closed down. Dubai, today, has a population of about 1.8 million people.

Our work included many ideas of what was needed to improve the city and quietly over the last 12 years, many of those have been built.

What I have learned through these experiences is to back yourself. Just go and do it. All that people can do is say, ‘No’, and that’s not too much of a problem. If you do back yourself, you’ll be surprised at what you can achieve. Many of these opportunities still exist today and they will exist into the future – you just have to go out and pursue them.

Some reflection on the future planning for Melbourne

I want to return to Melbourne and briefly talk about the future planning of the city and the ture of the planning system. Melbourne now is over 5 million; it’s a big city. Geoffrey West of the Santa Fe Institute did a fascinating piece of work some years ago about US cities. He looked at the way cities grew and developed and formed a number of theories regarding scale; one is that cities are analogous to biological networks.

He also suggested that as cities get larger they become far more complex and that complexity can atrophy the city if you don’t look after it very, very well. Now, Geoffrey, unfortunately, has an opinion that large cities are ultimately doomed to fail. I don’t subscribe to that view, but what he did find is that when cities get to about 5 million or thereabouts, some of the issues that were more readily

dealt with by cities of 3 or 4 million of scale become increasingly more difficult to deal with. You can address the problem but the cost of fixing them becomes increasingly greater.

Melbourne is now at that point and it is timely to ask ‘Do we have the right planning system?’; ‘Do we have the planning smarts to address this issue?’. I don’t mean the people, but collectively do we have the desire to truly enquire and decide ‘What do we need to do?’ as we can follow a number of paths.

One is that we could simply make our planning system more complicated in an endeavour to manage the complexity, and you know who’s going to win there; it won’t be the planning system. The planning system will become more and more like many of the cities in Europe, where it will take you anywhere between four and eight years to get a major project approved. We can’t afford that time when the city is growing so quickly.

So we do need to go back and start identifying, with ‘fresh eyes’, what is it we want out of our cities.

Henry Cisneros, who was the Secretary of HUD (Housing and Urban Development) under President Clinton, visited Australia some years ago. Following a speech he gave one evening, he was asked a series of questions. One of the final questions asked was, ‘What makes a good city?” Cisneros, rather than trotting out the latest buzzword or concept, remained silent for about 15 seconds; he thought about it. He answered, ‘What you want is good security for your citizens, access to a wide range of jobs and access to housing for all”. Three simple concepts.

I appreciate there are many other issues in cities – they are complex – but when you really go back to it, isn’t that what we want? We want to house our people; we want to give them good jobs; we want to keep them safe and well. All the other things contribute to that and if you can’t provide the three ‘basics’ you can’t have a great city.

Maybe our ‘planning system’ needs to really address how we achieve those three things. I accept that security is not just a planning issue, as there are other mechanisms available to Government to provide this. Planning doesn’t make jobs but planning can facilitate jobs, and sometimes planning, in the way that it’s run today, can impede the creation of jobs.

The one thing that planning can do, and do a lot better, is help with the housing issue that we have today. This is probably the single largest issue that is constraining us into the future. If you get housing right, you make great cities but I have to say at the moment that, unfortunately, I don’t think we are getting it right.

So that’s the challenge I put to all of you, whether you are a planner, a lawyer or any professional involved in the development of cities; think about this issue. How do we improve our system? How do we actually make things better? – because whilst the system today is good, we should never rest on our laurels; we should always be trying to do better.

Thank you.

Minister Neighbourhoods

While there are very few positives to be drawn from this pandemic, for many of us it has been an opportunity to spend more time with our families, slow down and really begin to appreciate all that our communities have to offer.

Through spending our designated exercise hours in our local streets, shopping for essentials within 5km of our home or grabbing a coffee from the local café, we’ve been forced to experience and reconnect with our local communities and realise the value of local services and amenities.

As I walk around my own neighbourhood, I see people enjoying a coffee at the local café, picking up groceries from the Queen Victoria market or fresh bread from the local bakery. More and more, people are enjoying being able to walk to places that offer the services they need.

We are also spending more time in Melbourne’s open spaces and beautiful parks. I see joggers keeping fit in Royal Park, couples taking a stroll in Edinburgh Gardens, and families having picnics in our green spaces.

These close-to-home experiences represent exactly what the 20-minute neighbourhood principle is based on and designed to create – more neighbourhoods where people live locally and can meet most of their daily needs within 800 metres or within a 20-minute walk from home.

In January 2018 the 20-Minute Neighbourhood Pilot Program was launched at Strathmore, Sunshine West and Croydon South to identify opportunities that would help achieve liveable 20-minute neighbourhoods.

The pilot programs proved such a success that our Government injected a further $360k into the three sites to carry out small infrastructure projects including pop-up parks, streetscape improvements, the extending of footpaths and opening up more space for street trading.

While the projects were all low cost, their benefits to the community were huge and revealed the massive opportunities to be had in delivering new and exciting mixed use, dense, diverse and thriving neighbourhoods into the future.

Together, we have the chance to change the way people live, to bring about cutting edge solutions to the way people interact with their surroundings, and to deliver positive and sustainable change to our neighbourhoods, towns and cities.

Creating a bustling hive of thriving 20-minute neighbourhoods has the ability to deliver huge economic, health and environmental benefits for our city. More people walking to wherever they need to go means reduced congestion on our roads. It means more money in the hands of our local bakers, fruiterers, newsagents and traders and it means less pressure on our health system as more and more people get active, leave their car at home and simply walk to wherever they need to go.

As Melbourne’s suburbs continue to grow, we’re presented with a once in a generation opportunity to change the way we live but we can’t do it alone. We need the architects, the planners, the surveyors, the designers, the lawyers, the engineers and everyone in the industry to share in our vision, and to help us deliver not just better spaces and better cities, but a better future for all.

The 20-minute neighbourhood principle is a world first and a cornerstone of the Government’s Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. It gives us the chance to lay the foundation that the next 30-years will build upon. A foundation that will support jobs, housing, transport, growth and the sense of community and togetherness that our great city represents.

But most of all it’s an opportunity for all of us to create spaces that change the very way people live, and to maintain Melbourne’s status as one of the world’s most liveable cities.

Empowering Renewable Energy Projects

Hansen Partnership is committed to supporting renewable energy projects throughout Australia. For over a decade we have been contributing our expertise to the planning and design of wind farms, solar farms and other sustainable energy ventures.

Our collaborative, multi-disciplinary approach allows us to offer a comprehensive service across planning, landscape architecture and visual impact assessment.

Contact us today to find out how we can help your next project.

The Hon. Richard Wynne MP Victorian Minister for Planning

Shadow Minister for Planning Cladding Safety Victoria Bill 2020

The Parliament will soon be debating the recently introduced Cladding Safety Victoria Bill 2020.

As readers will be aware, in response to the Neo 200 building fire caused by dangerous combustible cladding, Victorians were shocked to learn that dangerous combustible cladding was used on buildings throughout the State, displaying a failure of the Victorian Building Authority VBA) in regulating the building industry and ensuring the use of safe materials.

The government’s response was to establish the Victorian Cladding Taskforce (VCT) to identify buildings wrapped in this dangerous material, and to rectify this issue through Cladding Safety Victoria (CSV) – a unit within the VBA, that was formed last year.

I have previously called for CSV to be setup as a separate statutory entity, to avoid potential conflicts. For example, a practitioner disciplined by the VBA might appeal that decision based on the conflict of interest where the VBA (via CSV) had acted incorrectly/too quickly etc. to fix the building without giving that original practitioner an opportunity to respond (i.e. a denial of ‘natural justice’). This type of situation would cause enormous difficulty and possible delay to decisions and rectifications.

I fully support that owners who bought in good faith should not have to foot the bill to remove dangerous cladding, as their buildings were signed-off for occupancy through the regulatory framework set up by the Victorian Government, the VBA. Most owners have no capacity to fund these urgent rectification works, and it is unfair to expect them to. People ought to be able to rely on the regulator to ensure that their building is safe for themselves and their families.

Funding of $300million has been allocated by the Andrews government, which intends to double this amount to a total of $600million through additional revenues raised from an incremental Cladding impost to the Building Permit Levy. This could potentially add millions of dollars extra to projects over the next five years. The Opposition opposed this tax increase, it wasn’t necessary and the extra funds for required for rectification should have drawn from consolidated revenue.

This Bill seeks to establish a separate Body Corporate entity, called Cladding Safety Victoria (CSV), to administer the cladding rectification program with improved governance to the current status of CSV as a department within the VBA. CSV will be

Tim Smith Victorian Shadow Minister for Planning

responsible for prioritising of properties requiring cladding rectification work and determine amounts of financial assistance for each project.

The VBA collects the Building Permit Levy and will transfer the Cladding levy portion to CSV.

As stated earlier, the Liberal Nationals opposed this Cladding rectification increment to the Building Permit Levy, which applies the new cladding impost to building works in excess of $800,000 (unless it is in regional Victoria). It is a tax grab to pay for the failure of the VBA. Why on earth would we want to impede developments by imposing a new tax, when we need the property sector to play a leading role in our economic recovery in a postCovid environment?

Further, it concerns us greatly that the Treasurer has the power to transfer “excess” money, beyond what is required to rectify the cladding debacle, back into the Consolidated Fund. We believe that if the Treasurer deems there is “excess” money, it should be returned to those who paid it. Also, under this Bill, the VBA will be permitted to deduct an “administration” fee for handling the money, and there must be clear transparency over what is sure to be a significant money trail. If there is one thing we’ve all learnt through the bungled management of the Covid hotel quarantine program and the hopeless failure of our State’s contact tracing system, it’s that we cannot trust this government to deliver the basics in sound public administration. At the very least, accountability with respect to the apportionment of public funds by electorate should be transparent, to ensure no mis-use of public funds or, to use the vernacular, ‘pork barrelling’.

I continue to be amazed that this shambolic government intends to keep secret the identity and location of buildings that will benefit from public money in rectifying their cladding, just as I have been concerned that there is no transparency of clad buildings to prospective property purchasers. Other jurisdictions have managed without adverse consequences to ensure prospective buyers are informed, and the same should happen in Victoria in a way that protects the building and its inhabitants from the threat of arson..

Then again, competent, transparent and honest government has been absent in the state of Victoria for a long time, and this Covid crisis has shown just how poor, and politicised, the internal processes and the machinery of the state government has become over many, many years.

Most owners have no capacitytofundthese urgentrectification works and it is unfair to expect them to

11 Questions ? for 11 Professionals

People

Editor’s Introduction

Seeking both enlightenment and entertainment, ..and fearing a less-than-full Revue edition (in the absence of the VPELA conference papers),

I decided to approach a ‘cross section’ of members and gain both some career-focused and some lighter responses on who, and how they function. Our responders were ‘randomly’ selected, drawn roughly in the proportions of the membership base. ‘From’ planners, lawyers/ barristers, engineers, and an urban designer; ‘From’ DELWP, Local Government, and private practice, and ‘From’ senior level to mid-level in career.

The 11 questions for 11 professionals explored (in overview), their career paths, asked about the persons who have influenced their careers; asked some views on the planning and development system, and some personal insights.

These answers and the stories behind, provide lessons in finding your passion and thinking long term. In tertiary studies, our 11 professionals have qualifications ranging across law, architecture, chemical engineering, civil engineering, town planning, science, music and business. From those studies they have taken different tracks to where they are today, and where they will go later.

What a delightful set of responses about favorite film, book and music! Some surprising and entertaining revelations about binge watching in the lockdown, which I will leave you to read. (Mine was catching up with The Crown.)

My great thanks to the generous contributors, (in alphabetical order) Julia Bell, Lucy Eastoe, Julian Edwards, Jane Homewood, Joseph Indomenico, Hilary Marshall, Carlo Morello, Tim Nicholls, Emma Peppler, Tyrone Rath, and Nick Tweedie.

Dr. Jane Homewood, DELWP

1. What and where did you undertake your tertiary education and, what stands out in review?

I studied Architecture and Urban Design, and recently completed a PhD at the University of Melbourne and studied Planning at RMIT. My PhD is called the Authorship of Space – it is about the transformation of inner Melbourne from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s. What stands out is the lessons we can learn from inner Melbourne’s radical transformation over this time and lessons that are relevant today as we need to reimagine and rebuild our capital city. Minister Wynne was a key player over the research period, so it has been invaluable working with him as Planning Minister while I was studying.

2. What career steps have led you to your current role?

During my career, I have worked in the public and private sectors focusing on urban development and city development. I have been fortunate to work in local and state government in planning, urban development and renewal across metropolitan Melbourne and NSW, and in the private sector on international urban development projects. Highlights have been my role as Director of Planning at the City of Yarra, working with Arup in Singapore, Malaysia, and the UAE, and being part of the Priority Development Panel. Prior to joining DELWP, I worked at Urbis to lead social planning in Melbourne which was a great opportunity and privilege to see how such a highly successful and skilled company operates.

3. In your career, is there a person who stands out as a being a major influence on you as a professional, and why?

I have worked with wonderful mentors including Nonda Katsalidis, Geoff Lawler at the City of Melbourne, and Lydia Wilson at the City of Yarra who stand out. All three had an absolute passion for cities,

communities and making better places that were prosperous and inclusive, and they encouraged me to strive for better ideas and better solutions. Charlie Perkins sent me to Alice Springs when I was 16. I stayed with Dougie Scott who led Aboriginal housing projects. He took me to Aboriginal settlements and fringe settlements, which had a profound impact on me. I was at school in Canberra, a pristine, clean, and orderly city. I was ignorant that such poverty, racism, and disadvantage existed in Australia. I felt sorry and guilty, and it changed me. Scott said to me, we don’t want pity, that won’t help – if you have skills you can share to help us achieve self-determination, that is important. I have carried that with me ever since, and I have passed the lessons on to my children, two of whom have all lived and worked in Aboriginal communities. It is important we do whatever we can do to empower Aboriginal self-determination. Who better to advise us on how to care for country?

4. How effective do you consider is our planning and development approvals system? It is getting better or going in another direction?

The current commitment and response to COVID19 by the Victorian Government to embrace and invest in planning reform are positive. Over the past six months, the government has established the Building Victoria’s Recovery Taskforce and the Minister has approved over $7 billion worth of planning permits where he is the responsible authority. State Planning Services is also managing over 400 planning scheme amendments, 37 Environment Effects Statements, and assessments and referrals for wind farms, quarries and major infrastructure projects including the Suburban Rail Loop. This work is critical in supporting the construction industry and all the Victorians who work in this critical industry to the Victorian economy. I am constantly reassured by the ongoing hard work and commitment of the Planning Group to do the important work they do.

5. Ifyoucouldchangetwothingsabouthowweplanourcities, towns or regions, what would these be?

I would introduce earlier engagement and input from the community in strategic planning, and reforms to minimise delays for refusals and approvals as a result of unclear planning controls and legal disputes.

6. Are you positive or less so about the future of our cities and why?

I am positive for Melbourne. Melburnians love their city and will do whatever they can to recover from the pandemic and ensure that Melbourne prospers again. Managing population growth while maintaining what makes Melbourne so attractive and ensure it is sustainable will be a huge challenge in the future, but I think we can do that.

7. Howhaveyoumanagedworking,(andliving)intheremote /confined ways over the Covid period? Will it lead to longer term changes in how you operate? Better or not better?

I really miss the interaction with all the staff and planning and industry colleagues. I miss family, friends, swimming with my swimming squad, riding to work and going out. I think we will all spend more time working from home and more people will work remotely and take advantage of great places to live in rural and regional Victoria. I think that will be a good thing. We quickly adapted to new systems and platforms and the paperless office – I will be happy when we can have more face to face meetings and spend less time on Teams.

8. Whatadvicewouldyougiveto‘ajuststartingoutinthe professions you’, about a career in the planning and environmental law professional areas? Shaping cities and places is an important and great profession to be in.

9. What things are key to your life outside of work? Family and friends, swimming and going to our farm. I seek experiences in different sectors to broaden my understanding of planning challenges from different perspectives and keep in contact with the Melbourne School of Design

10. Is there a particular piece of music, a book, a play, or film that has made a lasting impression on you?

Midnight Oil, 1987,’Beds are Burning’.

11. OvertheCovidperiodhaveyou‘binge-watched’anyTV series and if so, what? what was the attraction?

Jane Campion’s Top of the Lake: beautiful landscapes, great actors, and COVID escapism. Phil Jones, the associate producer, is a friend and neighbour.

Dr. Jane Homewood is Executive Director, Statutory Planning Services, DELWP

Nick Tweedie SC, Barrister

1. What and where did you undertake your tertiary education and, what stands out in review?

I was born and raised in Western Australia, so I studied at the University of Western Australia. What amazes me in retrospect was how little of what I studied had any relevance to actually working as a lawyer. It was a bit like learning to be a tradie by watching the Block.

2. What career steps have led you to your current role?

I did my articles at the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Perth, then moved to the Office of the State DPP when it split from the CSO. I then changed course and worked at a community legal centre called the Youth Legal Service doing Children’s’ Court criminal defence work. Then I moved to Melbourne and got a job at Maddocks, before going to the Bar in 1998.

I have been there ever since.

3. In your career, is there a person who stands out as a being a major influence on you as a professional , and why?

Both Stuart Morris and Chris Canavan have been very strong influences on me, as well as being great friends. They are both incredible advocates.

When I was just starting out as a lawyer, I also had the opportunity to work for 6 months as the Associate to former High Court Judge Sir Ronald Wilson when he was conducting the Royal Commission into “WA Inc”. He was probably the kindest, most unpretentious and smartest person I have ever met. I would like to claim that he influenced me as a lawyer, but that is a bit like trying to claim that Jimi Hendrix influenced my guitar playing.

4. How effective do you consider is our planning and development approvals system? It is getting better or going in another direction?

I think the system is generally pretty effective, but I don’t think it is getting better. I think that the current trend is to favour prescription and complexity in planning controls. It seems that some people don’t believe that you can make good decisions based on experience, expertise and a careful consideration of the individual circumstances of each case. I disagree with these people.

5. If you could change two things about how we plan our cities, towns or regions, what would these be?

I think we need to be less concerned with heritage (or at least the current narrow view of what represents our heritage) and existing character, and more concerned with building for the future. I would also try and minimise the degree to which local policy can be used to dilute or eliminate all together the ambitions of State policy.

6. Are you positive or less so about the future of our cities and why?

In structural terms I remain positive. I think our cities can, and will, get better as places. My major concern is the people who will live in them. I am less positive about the ability of humans to evolve and adapt and become better.

7. Howhaveyoumanagedworking,(andliving)inthe remote/confined ways over the Covid period? Will it lead to longer term changes in how you operate? Better or not better?

I was initially very sceptical about remote hearings, but I am actually quite positive about them now. I think that they encourage (indeed demand) a better use of technology and in many cases allow for the more effective and efficient conduct of some cases (provided everyone has a good internet connection). I hope that they remain a tool that can be used in the post-Covid world because they could allow for more cost-effective hearings to be conducted.

I like working at home as well, but I think that it is far too distracting for me to do regularly in the long term. It is just too

tempting to go and grab a guitar or one of my other many toys in preference to doing actual work.

8. Whatadvicewouldyougiveto‘ajuststartingoutinthe professions you’, about a career in the planning and environmental law professional areas?

I would tell them it’s a great area to work in. The opportunity to engage with people of the quality you find in planning and environmental law is pretty rare. As a person who spent a great deal of time working in criminal law, it’s a great relief to have clients and witnesses who are not violent, drug addled lunatics (at least in the majority).

I would also encourage people to be themselves. While it is important to learn from other people, you don’t need to try and be something or someone you are not.

9. What things are key to your life outside of work?

My wife, my twin boys, our dog, my family (most of whom are in Perth) and my friends. Playing and listening to music also helps keep me sane. I also love to travel. Finally, I have an unhealthy and unjustifiable obsession with the Fremantle Dockers, whose antics tend to heavily influence my mood (usually negatively it must be said).

10. Is there a particular piece of music, a book, a play, or film that has made a lasting impression on you?

This could be a very long answer. I still remember the first time I read “Blood Meridian” by Cormac McCarthy and being astounded at how good a writer he was. That started a life-long obsession with his work. I could say the same about everything Michael Ondaatje has ever written. And most of what James Elroy has written.

In terms of movies, I maintain that the 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian (starring the incomparable Arnold Schwarzenegger) is one of the finest works of art produced in the 20th century and I am fully prepared to justify this position loudly and at length (and with reference to diagrams and charts) if you dare to disagree with me.

I can also remember watching “Life of Brian” at age 13 and being unable to work out how anything could possibly be that funny and still be legal.

I don’t know where to start (or finish) with music. But there is a song by the group Television called Marquee Moon which has a guitar solo that I consider to be as close to perfect as any passage of music can hope to be, and it gives me goosebumps every time I hear it.

Otherwise, all I can do is to suggest that everyone go home tonight, pour themselves a nice big drink, turn down the lights and settle into their comfiest, available seating option and play the following songs loudly (in whatever order you desire) on your (hopefully good quality) sound system:

Once in a Life Time – Talking Heads; Dirty Work – Steely Dan; Jailbreak – AC/DC; The Mercy Seat– Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds (or anything by them actually); If I Had a Hammer –American Music Club; Read About it – Midnight Oil; Ol’ 55 – Tom Waits; Last Goodbye – Jeff Buckley and Duel by Swervedriver. If at the end of that you don’t feel like the world is suddenly a much better place, then I’m afraid that I can’t help you.

11. OvertheCovidperiodhaveyou‘bingewatched’anyTV series and if so what? What was the attraction?

I don’t tend to watch a lot of TV because I prefer to play video games where I get to shoot aliens and use space magic to save the universe, but my family and I recently watched seasons 1 and 2 of the Umbrella Academy on Netflix and thoroughly enjoyed it. Its’ about a dysfunctional group of individuals with superpowers who were taken from their families at birth by an eccentric billionaire and raised by him, a cyborg nanny and a hyper intelligent chimpanzee in the hope that they will one day save the world.

If that sort of thing floats your boat (and you are not squeamish about violence) I would recommend you check it out.

Nick has been a barrister since 1998, and does mostly planning work. He was appointed Senior Counsel in 2013.

Joseph Indomenico, Tract

1. What and where did you undertake your tertiary education and, what stands out in review?

My planning journey started in an Environmental Science degree where I took an elective in land use planning. The topic struck a chord pretty quickly and before I knew it, I was looking for further opportunities in the field.

Towards the end of my Environmental Science degree, I managed to secure a 6 month stint at Maribyrnong City Council where I was lucky enough to work alongside some really knowledgeable and kind people, some of which are still in the system. I was told on my first day by the manager of the department that ‘planning was the best job in the world… whilst sitting at a desk’. He was not far off!

I completed the Environmental Science degree and then charged ahead with a Master of Environment and Planning degree at RMIT.

2. What career steps have led you to your current role?

Shortly after my time at Maribyrnong, I secured a position at Tract as a planning assistant whilst completing my master’s degree. It was evident to me fairly early in the role that Tract and I shared a lot of values, particularly around professional development, culture and general wellbeing.

Throughout my time at Tract, I have been provided with an incredible amount of support and opportunity. I have worked on some great city shaping projects, and equally some not so great projects. Often it’s the latter where more lessons were learnt.

For me, it is all about the environment you are in and the level of support and opportunity you are given. If you are fortunate enough to get this right, you are generally going to get the best out of yourself and others around you.

3. In your career, is there a person who stands out as a being a major influence on you as a professional, and why?

It is difficult to name one, as several of my senior peers have had a big influence on me over the years, both on a professional and personal level.

In the early years of my career, I worked on a wide range of statutory and strategic projects under the guidance of several

senior colleagues. I often found that whilst each of my senior colleagues approached matters and managed files, clients and stakeholders slightly differently, there was commonality in consistency of message, authenticity, care and work ethic.

I would like to think that these traits are evident in my dealings with clients, colleagues and other industry professionals, however, I’ll let them be the judge of that!

4. How effective do you consider is our planning and development approvals system? It is getting better or going in another direction?

There is a lot right about our planning system and how it operates, however, opportunities will always present to improve it like anything.

The State Government’s commitment to cutting red tape and streamlining the system through the Smart Planning Program and Anna Cronin’s work are steps in the right direction and need to be commended.

5. If you could change two things about how we plan our cities, towns or regions, what would these be?

Understanding that construction will form a centrepiece of the state’s recovery from the current COVID crisis, we may need to look at further ways to streamline our current assessment and approval processes for statutory and strategic matters, particularly in the short term.

At a macro scale, the PCA has recently called for the creation of a ‘Precinct Authority’ for major urban renewal projects in Victoria. This makes a lot of sense for me given the inherent complexity of these projects, the various and numerous stakeholders involved traditionally, and the substantial social and economic benefits that these projects can generate.

At a micro scale, we could look at streamlining statutory planning matters of small-to-medium scale by delegating more responsibility to planning departments in Local Governments. These types of projects traditionally carry less risk and can often proceed to construction relatively quickly upon approval, hence providing decent return on investment.

6. Are you positive or less so about the future of our cities and why?

Positive. We’ve always had an ability to shape our cities and bring about positive change for how people live, work and interact. We are, however, living in a time where serious questions are being

asked about the role and function of CBDs, spatial planning and better utilisation of technology in business.

In my opinion, CBDs will continue to bring people together for all the reasons they have over time – culture, entertainment, art, business, health, sport, just to name a few.

Our CBD has been devasted in recent months by the COVID crisis and there is no doubt the recovery will be slow. However, we should take comfort that our social, health and economic foundations remain relatively strong, and for the most part the envy of many other cities around the world.

7. Howhaveyoumanagedworking,(andliving)inthe remote/confined ways over the Covid period? Will it lead to longer term changes in how you operate?

Better or not better?

Like most, working from home has had its ups and downs. I have really missed the variety of each day and the planned and incidental social interaction with my colleagues, clients, and industry connections. On the other hand, spending more time with my wife and our 1-and-a-half-year-old son has been wonderful.

Our office has seen some efficiencies in working from home, however, it is fair to say that face-to-face interaction and collaboration will never be replaced. I suspect we will land somewhere in the middle in the long term, but time will tell.

8. Whatadvicewouldyougiveto‘ajuststartingoutinthe professions you’, about a career in the planning and environmental law professional areas?

Planning can be incredibly fast-paced and at times frustratingly slow. There are lessons to be learnt in everything you work on so make the most of every opportunity and enjoy the journey.

9. What things are key to your life outside of work?

Apart from my family and friends, getting down to the coast and finding waves is something that brings me an incredible amount of joy and balance.

I would like to say my other joy comes from the Essendon Football Club, however, there has been a lot more pain than joy these last few years.

10. Is there a particular piece of music, a book, a play, or film that has made a lasting impression on you?

Paul Kelly is a regular feature on my playlists and a line that has made a lasting impression on me is from his song ‘Bradman’. It reads:

‘They say the darkest hour is right before the dawn’.

The hope and optimism in this lyric, partnered with Kelly’s vocals and guitar, is something that I turn to often during stressful times.

11. OvertheCovidperiodhaveyou‘bingewatched’anyTV series and if so what? What was the attraction?

As most parents would appreciate, by the time the little one is down and the carnage left behind is sorted, there is not much left in the tank. When my wife and I do find some time though, we love a good Australian drama.

Joseph Indomenico is a Principal at Tract with 12 years’ experience as a town planner

Hilary Marshall, Ratio Consultants

1. What and where did you undertake your tertiary education and, what stands out in review?

I completed a double degree of Civil Engineering and Business Management at RMIT.

The thing that has stuck with me is the low proportion of women who did engineering and the disappointment I feel that the percentage is still the same 20 years later. This motivates me to encourage and develop women in our industry whenever possible.

2. What career steps have led you to your current role?

A stint working in California, followed by a family break, led me back to Cardno in 2011. It was the realisation that I would have to move to advance my career, timed with the gift of ‘Lean In’ by Susan Sandberg from Ratio CEO Colleen Peterson, that changed my career path and led me to become a Director at Ratio.

Fundamentally, it was the right opportunity partnered with motivation for change, that led me to the best career decision I’ve ever made.

3. In your career, is there a person who stands out as a being a major influence on you as a professional , and why?

Steve Hunt is by far and away the biggest influence on my career. I started working as Steve’s graduate over 20 years ago and now enjoy being his employer. My father passed away shortly after I started working for Steve, and although Steve is way too irresponsible to be a father figure, he has played a really important mentoring role in my life and I now count him as one of my dearest friends. I have learnt a lot from Steve, including a lot of ‘what not too do’.

One of my favourite pieces of advice from Steve is “You won’t like it…..but it will be good for you”.

4. How effective do you consider is our planning and development approvals system? It is getting better or going in another direction?

The Responsible Authorities I have dealt with over the last 5 months, including Councils and Department of Transport have been great. There were delays and technical difficulties at the

beginning of the work from home period, which most authorities have managed to overcome and, in some instances, the process has even improved.

Going forward, I hope there is a continued focus on the removal of red tape and efforts to decrease the time taken to achieve development approvals.

5. If you could change two things about how we plan our cities, towns or regions, what would these be? I would prevent some our best farmland from being consumed with residential development, as I think food security is something we need to start considering for our future.

I think we also need to be bolder in our public transport planning, especially in the growth areas. We don’t know what public transport may look like in the future, but if we don’t set aside logical, continuous connections now, we will limit our opportunities for a first-rate system in the future.

6. Are you positive or less so about the future of our cities and why?

The gradual acceptance of increased density and control of the urban sprawl make me more positive about the form and culture of our cities going forward.

7. Howhaveyoumanagedworking,(andliving)inthe remote/confined ways over the Covid period? Will it lead to longer term changes in how you operate? Better or not better?

I’ve included an element of working from home in my life ever since going back to work after kids and will continue to do this whilst I’m still working.

Although I have complained occasionally over the last 6 months, I know that I have had it very easy compared to some and have greatly appreciated my kids self-motivation and ability to learn unassisted. I have also gained a whole new appreciation for my home, especially the garden.

I think Covid will improve the working environment and has significantly sped up change throughout the industry. I firmly believe that the fastest way to reduce discrimination against women in the workforce, is to normalise traditionally female roles for men. Now that juggling family commitments and work has become part of our everyday work life (special mention to David Vorchheimer’s little one’s contribution to VCAT recently), I am hoping that it will make things a lot better for both men and women in the ever-elusive attempt to balance life and work.

8. If there was a part of your professional/work life that you could avoid, what would it be? Invoicing.

9. Whatadvicewouldyougiveto‘ajuststartingoutinthe professions you’, about a career in the planning and environmental law professional areas?

I really enjoy being a traffic engineer in our industry, however, I had never met an engineer before I chose to do engineering. So, in hindsight I wish that I had been exposed to a wider range of career options when I was young. But they just didn’t exist in my country town.

Therefore, knowing what I know now, I would tell my younger self to train as a landscape architect instead. As an 18 year old,

I had an extensive knowledge of plants and gardens that would have put me far ahead of my peers. The farm I grew up on had an extensive vegetable garden, orchid, swamp, and rose garden. We also spent many hours planting native species across the property and most holidays in national parks being junior rangers. Luckily, my suburban garden keeps my green thumb ambitions satisfied.

10. What things are key to your life outside of work?

Covid has refocused my attention on family, not only on my immediate family but also my siblings and extended family. I am looking forward to Christmas more than I have in years.

11. Is there a particular piece of music, a book, a play, or film that has made a lasting impression on you?

‘The Life of Brian’ is an all-time favourite and also includes one of my favourite songs ‘Always Look on the Bright Side of Life’.

12. Haveyou‘bingewatched’anyTVseriesandifsowhat? What can you tell us about it?

I really enjoyed ‘Little Fires Everywhere’. This is a relatively short series based on two families in the US; one white and privileged and one black and disadvantaged. While keeping a relatively light façade, the series examines inherent racism, discrimination by privilege, family bonds and career vs family choices.

Hilary Marshall is a Director of Traffic and Transport at Ratio Consultants.

Tim Nicholls, Marshall Day Acoustics

1. What and where did you undertake your tertiary education and, what stands out in review?

I have a degree in Music Technology & Audio Systems and a Diploma in Acoustics, both from the UK. Like me, many students in the UK attended residentialbased Universities – I left home at 18, learned how to take care of myself and made friendships for life.

2. What career steps have led you to your current role?

I have been fortunate to work on some fantastic projects in the UK and Australia over the past 19 years. Hard work and continual learning has been a key part of my development, but most of all I think I’ve been very lucky to work with some great individuals.

3. In your career, is there a person who stands out as a being a major influence on you as a professional, and why? I’ve worked with some great people but I owe a lot to one person in particular – they have always set the bar high and been my inspiration throughout my career to always try to achieve the highest standard possible.

4. How effective do you consider is our planning and development approvals system? Is it getting better or going in another direction?

I think it is an effective system, and while every system can be streamlined to an extent it is critical that we always maintain appropriate checks and balances.

5. If you could change two things about how we plan our cities, towns or regions, what would these be?

The first would be a continued shift towards public transport and cycle lanes, and the second would be more dedicated community

facilities for every local area. I see the reduced reliance on roads and the promotion of local community infrastructure as critical to our future

6. Are you positive or less so about the future of our cities and why?

I think there will always be a place for our cities as central hubs but over time we will need to shift towards more regional hubs and diversified community facilities.

7. Howhaveyoumanagedworking,(andliving)inthe remote/confined ways over the Covid period? Will it lead to longer term changes in how you operate? Better or not better?

There will undoubtedly be permanent changes, the most obvious one being the way we remotely conduct meetings/workshops etc. Working from home has lots of advantages and will become much more prevalent, but I don’t know if it will become the norm post-Covid. I personally enjoy being able to work from home but there are lots of practical challenges associated with it and I suspect that many people hope it is only a temporary measure.

8. Whatadvicewouldyougiveto‘ajuststartingoutinthe professions you’, about a career in the planning and environmental law professional areas?

Work hard and don’t settle for a low standard.

9. What things are key to your life outside of work?

In the current lockdown climate, getting out of the house and going for a long walk is a godsend. Jumping on the trampoline with the kids is also a great distraction!

10. Is there a particular piece of music, a book, a play, or film that has made a lasting impression on you?

I love music and there are so many good songs, it is hard to single out one in particular. But 1979 by The Smashing Pumpkins is an amazing song and always takes me straight back to my teenage years in the mid-90’s.

11. OvertheCovidperiodhaveyou‘bingewatched’anyTV series and if so what? What was the attraction?

Parks and Recreation (I love Ron Swanson!) and The Morning Show.

Tim Nicholls works for Marshall Day Acoustics and has worked in acoustics for 19 years, in the UK and Australia

Emma Peppler, Barrister

1. What and where did you undertake your tertiary education and, what stands out in review?

Bachelor of Arts/Law at Monash University. Having grown up in Gippsland, I learnt a lot about the world, life and the law in those formative years. A particularly lasting memory is that the Clayton Campus was so very windy.

2. What career steps have led you to your current role?

After university, I was not initially offered articles (now called a graduate position). So I worked in the Registry at VCAT, then as an Associate to the (then) President Stuart Morris QC, then as a Supreme Court Associate to Justice Byrne and Justice Osborn. Having watched many cases, I was convinced the Bar was for me and put my name down for the Bar Roll. In the meantime,

I worked as a research assistant, a solicitor and in community legal education in planning and environmental law. I also volunteered in Vanuatu. I have now spent more than 9 years as a Barrister.

3. In your career, is there a person who stands out as a being a major influence on you as a professional, and why?

Stuart was and continues to be a big influence. His ability to effortlessly comprehend and command the key overarching points and technical details in a case at once, and essentially without notes, is unparalleled. Justice Osborn taught me to always remember the humanity in all we do. Nick Tweedie SC was my formal mentor when I came to the Bar and remains a grounding force and professional inspiration. And there are so many other positive leaders that I look up to (e.g. Canavan, Finanzio, Brennan, Quigley) – but, unfortunately, I’ve been given a word limit!

4. How effective do you consider is our planning and development approvals system? It is getting better or going in another direction?

I think on the whole it is effective. No doubt our third-party appeals system can be frustrating for some (e.g. applicants who feel it costs too much for little benefit, or third parties who feel they need more resources to be properly heard). Ultimately, though, I think having a merits review system achieves better and fairer results than just a judicial review system – or no system at all. Of course we have to keep checking we’re still on the right track, and continue striving to get the best overall merits outcomes, without getting lost in unhelpful debate and detail where we miss the wood for the trees.

5. If you could change two things about how we plan our cities, towns or regions, what would these be?

Ideally, the gap between what the market desires and what regulation can achieve would not be so wide. It would be easier to deliver high quality, dense, urban environments that effectively blend economic and environmental imperatives with liveability (e.g. walkable, socially interactive, tech-savvy and green, visually appealing neighbourhoods). The trade-off for density would be strong environmental and landscape protection and enhancement where it is warranted. 2. Sometimes, I wonder if some of the fees outlaid in the process of getting a permit could be better spent ensuring high quality materials and finishes to implement architects’ visions for projects.

6. Are you positive or less so about the future of our cities and why?

I think the jury is still out. Globally, cities are becoming ever more important, larger, and more complex. Increasingly, municipal governments lead the way on positive reform, and state level projects can also achieve city-wide structural benefits. But looking at trends, here and abroad, of rising inequality and increased social fragmentation – plus our ever-growing environmental impact – negatives can outweigh benefits at both an individual city level as well as at a planetary level. We need to be vigilant in Australia to capture the best of what cities can offer; and as a species we still need to get our collective act together.

7. Howhaveyoumanagedworking,(andliving)inthe remote/confined ways over the Covid period? Will it lead to longer term changes in how you operate? Better or not better?

Ha. Pass? We went to my parents in the country for Lockdown The garden was good but the coffee was not. Lockdown 2 has been in our inner-city apartment (the desire for good coffee won out!). Working/living from home, confined, with a toddler has been… “interesting”. I think there will be positive lasting impacts once we get through this phase. The temporary absence of things makes you appreciate them more: freedom of movement to open spaces, the zoo, museum, cafes and arts venues, the comradery of chambers, the nuance of face-to-face communication, hugs with your family and friends, childcare, the thrill of a real-life courtroom! Being forced to shift to an electronic file practice is a positive that will last, hand-in-hand with the realisation about how much we all can do remotely by way of technology, and how we can adapt when circumstances require it.

8. Whatadvicewouldyougiveto‘ajuststartingoutinthe professions you’, about a career in the planning and environmental law professional areas?

Good choice! Just remember, it’s a marathon, not a sprint, and you should try to enjoy it all along the way. Oh, and by the way –plan a sabbatical in 2020.

9. What things are key to your life outside of work? There is life outside of work? OK no seriously – I think ensuring you take breaks from work is important. There is a time for work and a time for leisure and to gain perspective. Holidays and travel, reading for fun, good food and beverages, relationships in particular with family and friends, learning different things and skills outside of your core professional skills, are all important.

10. Is there a particular piece of music, a book, a play, or film that has made a lasting impression on you?

Who can ever pick just one? David Bowie’s Labyrinth? Dr Seuss’ The Lorax? Banjo Paterson’s Clancy of the Overflow? Currently, I’m reading Phosphorescence by Julia Baird – and The Very Hungry Caterpillar on repeat. For COVID-19, we have been going through songs from artists starting with a new alphabet letter each day on Spotify which is keeping us amused.

11. OvertheCovidperiodhaveyou‘bingewatched’anyTV series and if so what? What was the attraction?

I’m not sure it’s in the interests of my professional reputation to answer this question entirely honestly (oh, Ciarran!!). I love Shaun Micallef’s Mad As Hell. I inhaled the latest series of West World and Working Moms. I have watched lots of bad Netflix… and I am working my way through apocalyptic movie recommendations from Tweedie…

Emma Peppler is a planning and environment law barrister of 9 years experience

Julian Edwards, City of Whittlesea Photo

1. What and where did you undertake your tertiary education and, what stands out in review?

I completed a Bachelor of applied science (Planning) and Bachelor of social science (Environment) at RMIT in Melbourne and the biggest stand out for me was the work placement and being able to ‘get my hands dirty’ before finishing the degree.

2. What career steps have led you to your current role?

Gaining experience at different Councils (urban, interface, growth and semi-rural) without moving too frequently, learning from everyone and remaining passionate and curious about all facets of planning.

3. In your career, is there a person who stands out as a being a major influence on you as a professional , and why?

There have been so many over the years and it wouldn’t be fair to name just one. I have always and continue to learn from employers, peers, colleagues and industry experts. A special mention to the first Council that ‘knocked me back’ early in my career as I don’t believe I would have succeeded to where I am today without that rejection.

4. How effective do you consider is our planning and development approvals system? It is getting better or going in another direction?

The Victorian Planning System has held its own as one of the best wholistic planning systems in the world for many years, balancing the tension between social, environmental and economic pressures. It is outcome focussed, inclusive, fair and transparent. However, with comprehensiveness comes complexity, entitlement, lengthy durations, inefficiency and arguably over regulation at times. Whilst effective, the system is in need of a bold refresh to prioritise what’s important.

5. If you could change two things about how we plan our cities, towns or regions, what would these be?

We still continually focus on car centric design with gaps in pedestrian, bicycle and public transports networks, accessibility and we haven’t managed to strike the right balance between the integration of mixed uses within residential areas.

The second component is not so much about the planning per se, rather the funding allocation for early infrastructure. Crucial social, environmental, community and public transport infrastructure continues to lag behind demand in our new growth areas, affecting the health and wellbeing of new communities.

6. Are you positive or less so about the future of our cities and why?

I’m generally a positive person and I’m confident in our ability as an industry to grow and pivot in the right direction and ensure our planning evolves with the needs of society. This will require brave decisions from the policy and decision makers, and I feel we’ve already commenced the journey in this direction. Sometimes a crisis can be the enabler needed for change.

7. Howhaveyoumanagedworking,(andliving)inthe remote/confined ways over the Covid period? Will it lead to longer term changes in how you operate?

Better or not better?

The pandemic has presented different challenges (and also some opportunities) throughout the world. I have been really impressed, although not surprised, with how we have all adapted as best as possible. The pressures of the whole family under the one roof, all of the time has brought about stresses, although has also allowed those of us who often work long hours to see more of our families. We’ve demonstrated an ability to work almost exclusively remotely which like anything, brings about both positive and negative aspects. I do think a ‘new normal’ will involve more of a combination in how we operate that ultimately will be better for us all.

8. Whatadvicewouldyougiveto‘ajuststartingoutinthe professions you’, about a career in the planning and environmental law professional areas?

Learn to understand the bigger picture early in your career, don’t get bogged down in the detail and don’t sweat the little things.

9. What things are key to your life outside of work?

Family and spending time outside. I have also developed a passion for landscaping.

10. Is there a particular piece of music, a book, a play, or film that has made a lasting impression on you?

I’m a bit of a movie buff and my favourite of all time would be ‘A Time to Kill’.

11. OvertheCovidperiodhaveyou‘bingewatched’anyTV series and if so what? What was the attraction?

I haven’t managed to find much time for TV series during Covid, however on the odd occasion I have managed to escape reality, I’ve delved into anything with suspense or a thriller theme.

Julian Edwards is currently the Acting Director Partnerships, Planning and Engagement at the City of Whittlesea.

Tyrone Rath, Planning Property and Partners

1. What and where did you undertake your tertiary education and, what stands out in review?

I completed my Bachelor of Arts and Law (with Honours) at Monash University. I was very lucky to complete several international law subjects while living in Copenhagen for an extended period and to also undertake postgraduate honours study in Australian politics with a particular focus on Australia’s strategic place in an increasingly militarised Asia-pacific region. The ability to study and spend an extended period overseas, and the many deep personal friendships and networks that I developed at university remain standouts for me.

2. What career steps have led you to your current role?

In my final year of study, I undertook work experience with Matthew Townsend. I was able to attend several hearings and compulsory conferences with him, and it’s fair to say I didn’t immediately fall in love with what I saw! I decided to take a different path and completed my graduate traineeship at a midtier commercial firm practising in mergers and acquisitions. I realised very soon after starting that practice area was not for me. After a few months off I started at PPP working part time on a large project. After about 4 weeks I asked Mark Naughton for a job and have been there ever since.

3. In your career, is there a person who stands out as a being a major influence on you as a professional, and why?

Although it may sound corny, my dad has had the biggest influence on me professionally. The way that he conducts his legal business is something that has stuck with me. He is a sole legal practitioner and many of his longstanding clients are now his good friends. He taught me that frank, direct and honest communication together with treating everyone with respect are central to building healthy professional relationships.

4. How effective do you consider is our planning and development approvals system? It is getting better or going in another direction?

Our development approvals system is about as effective as it could be without significant structural reform and reconsideration of the nature and weight to be placed on third party rights. Any system purposely designed to strike a balance between often competing interests with broad appeal rights can result in a drawn-out approvals process from time to time. Recent initiatives such as the BVRT and fast track processes being implemented by bodies such as the VPA are proving to be effective and should continue to be refined and implemented in the future to ensure approvals continue to be delivered promptly.

5. If you could change two things about how we plan our cities, towns or regions, what would these be?

The first change would be reform of statutory planning decision making. Decisions on applications should be determined by a State-appointed rotating panel of qualified planners and other professionals at semi-public forums similar internal development assessment committees. This would improve the quality and impartiality of statutory planning decisions, which could in turn potentially reduce the workload on the Tribunal. A second change would be better integration between State transport and infrastructure planning and Council strategic planning to give a far greater sense of certainty to the delivery of key transport and infrastructure projects.

6. Are you positive or less so about the future of our cities and why?

I am positive about the future of our cities because overall I think decision-makers are now required to consider a wider range of future circumstances that results in planning outcomes that are more forward looking.

7. Howhaveyoumanagedworking,(andliving)inthe remote/confined ways over the Covid period? Will it lead to longer term changes in how you operate? Better or not better?

I have been able to adapt quite comfortably to working from home, which is largely due to having a comfortable work setup and sufficient space. I’m acutely aware that for some of my colleagues and many others it’s been an extremely challenging period. In the long term I would probably like to spend the odd day or two working from home if needed, but for the most part will be back in the office. In terms of ‘better or not better’ it’s now evident that it is possible for anyone in our industry to work effectively remotely.

8. Whatadvicewouldyougiveto‘ajuststartingoutinthe professions you’, about a career in the planning and environmental law professional areas?

Read as much as you can – the P&E Act, VCAT Act, VPRs, VCAT decisions. And a copy of any planning scheme, cover to cover, at least once!

9. What things are key to your life outside of work?

I have a large extended family on all sides and most weekends have at least one family engagement/gathering – sometimes with up to 50 people! Whatever time left is spent mostly with friends or getting out of Melbourne to either the Peninsula or Mt Buller (if there is any snow). I managed to sneak in a few weeks

skiing in Canada at Banff and Whistler in February this year. That trip feels like a lifetime ago while sitting at home writing this.

10. Is there a particular piece of music, a book, a play, or film that has made a lasting impression on you?

There are a few, but the most recent film is Uncut Gems. It’s a powerful combination of dark comedy and crime. The plot takes so many twists and is relentless in building suspense. Watching it quite literally leaves you on the edge of your seat the entire film.

11. OvertheCovidperiodhaveyou‘bingewatched’anyTV series and if so what? What was the attraction?

During COVID I’ve re watched two of my favourite series – Ozark and The Wire. The Wire is still up there I think as one of the best series ever made (closely followed by The Sopranos). Watching it again after several years has made me pick up on sub-plots and aspects of the series which I did not notice the first-time round. Ozark on the other hand is addictive with a dark, twisted and totally thrilling plot complemented by brilliant acting.

TyroneRathisanAssociateDirector(Legal)at Planning & Property Partners Pty Ltd.

Lucy Eastoe, Best Hooper Lawyers

1. What and where did you undertake your tertiary education and, what stands out in review?

I completed my tertiary education at RMIT. My undergraduate was a Bachelor of Applied Science (planning) and followed with a Juris Doctor. Seven years later, I graduated as a lawyer, but always at heart a planner.

Over the years I spent at RMIT what stands out the most is the friends I made, many of which I remain in contact with from my undergraduate days. I also enjoyed the relaxed and practical attitude to learning that RMIT and the academic staff had. I recall our second-year ecology tutor grappling with a group who had no interest in the topic or like me had dropped the science subjects pre VCE. With some minor amendments to the coursework we all passed with a little more knowledge on peri urban ecology (informed by a field trip to the Plenty Gorge) than we began with.

2. What career steps have led you to your current role?

Early in my career I worked as a planner across a number of consultancies and also in local government. I completed my Juris Doctor, whilst working as a planner and attending uni after hours/on the weekends.

I have been at Best Hooper now for 6 and half years. I have been fortunate in my career to be exposed to a wide variety of work and business structures. My career progression has been through decisions I made to upskill and through making connections in the industry, and often as a result of a VPELA function or two.

3. In your career, is there a person who stands out as a being a major influence on you as a professional, and why?

I’m not sure there is one particular person who has influenced me but I have been fortunate in my career to have multiple people have invested in me and my career growth, championed my successes but also helped me to build and learn from those “character building” moments.

4. How effective do you consider is our planning and development approvals system? It is getting better or going in another direction?

What I have come to realise is that planning is much more complex than one person’s point of view. Is our system perfect, no, could it be better, yes. Could it be worse, definitely!

5. If you could change two things about how we plan our cities, towns or regions, what would these be?

Growing up in a regional area (Mildura) I have experienced both the city and the country so to speak. It was one of the reasons I was drawn to the planning profession in high school, as the growth of the town was apparent before my very eyes. When I first relocated from Melbourne to Mildura our house was the edge of town, however, when I left home for university, the town had grown some 4km and another 100 plus houses later we were now downtown.

I think two things I would change would be:

1. Implement a review right for preparing an amendment to a planning scheme. I think sometimes change to our planning system/the scheme is sterilised by one person/organisations view. I think there are plenty of great ideas we are yet to hear about simply because the legal process doesn’t allow for a debate to be had.

2. Stick with the plan, whatever it might be, and focus on the implementation. Since I began working in planning, we have had Melbourne 2030 (we are nearly there), Melbourne at 5 Million, Plan Melbourne, Plan Melbourne refresh. There are many glossy structure plans sitting on the shelves across this state which will never see their full potential.

6. Are you positive or less so about the future of our cities and why?

I think a post-Covid norm (if it exists…) presents a unique opportunity for our cities to renew, regenerate and perhaps for the better. Melbourne particularly has faced immense pressure over recent times to manage growth vs the not in my backyard mentality. It is clear our cities won’t be the same for the foreseeable future, it will be interesting to see where our cities go, and how governments (both local and state) react and support the regeneration of businesses, particularly those who have been impacted by long closures and loss of patronage due to the WFH government directives.

7. Howhaveyoumanagedworking,(andliving)inthe remote/confined ways over the Covid period? Will it lead to longer term changes in how you operate? Better or not better?

I think the thing I have missed the most in COVID is the buzz of the office and the routine of the work week.

What I have enjoyed is the more relaxed dress code, longer sleep-ins (I am not a morning person) and convenience of the zoom call. I don’t think we will ever have a situation where we meet with multiple consultants in person from a logistical and cost perspective.

8. Whatadvicewouldyougiveto‘ajuststartingoutinthe professions you’, about a career in the planning and environmental law professional areas? Do something you enjoy. Work is a big part of your life. If you don’t

have a passion or interest for what you do for a job, you need to find another one.

9. What things are key to your life outside of work? Friends, family, good food and wine!

10. Is there a particular piece of music, a book, a play, or film that has made a lasting impression on you?

Anything Taylor Swift (shamefully).

11. OvertheCovidperiodhaveyou‘bingewatched’anyTV series and if so what? What was the attraction?

Little Fires Everywhere – Reese Witherspoon – highly addictive.

Lucy Eastoe is a Senior Associate at Best Hooper Lawyers

Carlo Morello, Traffix Group

1. What and where did you undertake your tertiary education and, what stands out in review?

Bachelor of Engineering/Bachelor of Science at Monash, Clayton.

I double majored in chemistry for love of it and at the beginning, had no idea what Engineering was. I originally had dreams of becoming a teacher (which I later studied).

I worked a lot during Uni – either stacking produce, running a Wedding Band, pouring beers, or working part time at Cardno (my first industry position).

I look back and think, “I could have made more friends and enjoyed the time and freedom more”, but actually don’t regret it at all because really most of my major life experiences come from those extracurricular ventures.

2. What career steps have led you to your current role?

This is a hard one to distil it out, but I’ll single out three:

- Picking up the phone in my final year of Uni and cold calling Cardno (Grogan Richards) and asking them to give me a chance (luckily Chris Butler did!). I went on to work at Cardno for over 7 years and I don’t think I’d be where I am if that hadn’t happened.

- Joining VPELA YPG about 3 years into my career (at Aaron Walley’s insistence) and then subsequently convening the YPG (with Jenellle Cramer) and now sitting as a Board Member.

- Obviously the more recent move to Traffix Group solidified all the groundwork to get me where I am now.

3. In your career, is there a person who stands out as a being a major influence on you as a professional, and why?

It would have to be Jason (yes, my current boss – not to blow smoke up his ‘you-know-where’). It’s not just me, I know a lot of Traffic Engineers who would put Jason as an influence.

He’s extremely knowledgeable, approachable, respectful, thoughtful, has integrity and is very measured in both his personal and work lives.

4. How effective do you consider is our planning and development approvals system? It is getting better or going in another direction?

Quantify what’s ‘better’ and what’s ‘worse’! I consistently have varied experiences on different projects.

I think there are great improvements to the planning system taking place all the time, but there are definitely areas that need some improvement.

I’d say to improve, as an industry we need a greater focus on resourcing, improving technical knowledge, forward thinking and making good evidence-based decisions. Not just ticking boxes or towing the line of a previously agreed position.

5. If you could change two things about how we plan our cities, towns or regions, what would these be?

I’d say the narrative around change and how the public is brought along with that change. I feel like the communication around what that change actually looks like (or could look like) needs to be improved. Often the narrative is negative or combative, rather than thinking collaboratively and positively about the outcomes and what could be acheived.

6. Are you positive or less so about the future of our cities and why?

I’m very positive. My experience has been overwhelmingly one that sees opportunities and potential brought to light by development, community engagement and change.

7. Howhaveyoumanagedworking,(andliving)inthe remote/confined ways over the Covid period? Will it lead to longer term changes in how you operate? Better or not better?

The lack of physical social interaction with colleagues and missing the VPELA Ball are all unfortunate outcomes to my day to day.

Being at home with the family and having more time with them is definitely a positive.

The evolution of our industry into digital workplaces, however, has been amazingly positive.

I feel like there will be long lasting changes to the way we operate day to day once everything settles back to ‘normal’ and I think overwhelmingly the changes will be very positive (but maybe I’m just an optimist).

8. Whatadvicewouldyougiveto‘ajuststartingoutinthe professions you’, about a career in the planning and environmental law professional areas? Be optimistic, get to know people, don’t take things personally, have integrity and remember you can’t ‘fix’ it all. Working in the Planning industry is exciting and uplifting. You get to be part of the change, so even if you think your contribution isn’t significant on one project, it can be on another. Learn about the other consultants and their contributions and try and contribute in any other ways that you can.

9. What things are key to your life outside of work?

In order….? Family, Eating, Exercising (so I can keep eating), Music & Playing Saxophone.

10. Is there a particular piece of music, a book, a play, or film that has made a lasting impression on you?

I absolutely love musical theatre and made some of best friends (including my wife) by playing in musicals at school and Uni. The most memorable musical that I played in was Les Miserables –the story and the music make it as one of my favourite musicals to listen to/watch.

11. OvertheCovidperiodhaveyou‘bingewatched’anyTV series and if so what? What was the attraction?

We signed up for Disney+ in part for our son (Ice Age and the Lion King are on repeat), but it was actually to watch Hamilton. When we were in London last year we didn’t get a chance to see it and we have been hooked on the soundtrack since being exposed to Lin-Manuel Miranda from Moana when we watched it a couple of years ago. If COVID restrictions let us, we’re heading to Sydney next year to see it in person!

Another couple of very good watches that we’ve discovered: “Years and Years” and “The Salisbury Poisonings”, both on SBS on Demand.

Carlo Morello is a Senior Associate at Traffix Group and a VPELA Board Member

Julia Bell, Urban designer, Associate, kinetica

1. What and where did you undertake your tertiary education and, what stands out in review?

I completed a Bachelor of Urban Planning and Development at Melbourne University in 2007. About 6 years after obtaining my degree I was desperate to get some design in my life. So, I went off to Oxford Brookes in the UK and obtained my Masters in Urban Design. Going into urban design was a great decision and gave me direction and fulfilment.

2. What career steps have led you to your current role?

Step 1: Started as a statutory planner learning the ropes but knew quite quickly it wasn’t for me.

Step 2: Moved into strategic planning at Council to enable more lateral thinking and creativity.

Step 3: Realised that strategic planning and urban design together would be a useful and interesting combination of skills.

Step 4: Wanted to get my hands dirty in design so went back to the dark side (DLA).

Step 5: Continued to expand, grow and be constantly challenged in my role as an Associate at Kinetica.

3. In your career, is there a person who stands out as a being a major influence on you as a professional , and why?

It has to be Mark Sheppard. He’s a real clever clogs and has taught me most of what I know. He has also supported my progression to an expert witness in the urban design space which hasn’t come without its setbacks and a whole lot of hard work and angst at times. There has never been a point he has not believed in me.

4. How effective do you consider is our planning and development approvals system? It is getting better or going in another direction?

Let’s just say I think there is room for improvement…..

5. If you could change two things about how we plan our cities, towns or regions, what would these be?

1. Provide a clear and equitable system for the delivery of affordable housing

2. Greater flexibility in how and where we provide public open space – in dense environments we should be gaining public open space wherever we can find it

6. Are you positive or less so about the future of our cities and why?

I am positive about the future of our cities and love having a role in shaping them. But I think we have some big challenges around getting the balance right between density and liveability.

7. Howhaveyoumanagedworking,(andliving)inthe remote/confined ways over the Covid period? Will it lead to longer term changes in how you operate? Better or not better?

I haven’t suffered too badly from working at home. In fact, I find I can get my work done more efficiently with less interruptions. That said, I miss the interaction and collaboration with my colleagues. I think innovation is suffering the most right now. The balance for me would be 2-3 days in the office, the rest at home. I certainly love seeing the city skyline with no pollution on it!! What a beauty!!

8. Whatadvicewouldyougiveto‘ajuststartingoutinthe professions you’, about a career in the planning and environmental law professional areas?

a. Find a mentor – someone that inspires you

b. Make haste slowly – It took me 6 years to find my path – and remember it may not be linear

9. What things are key to your life outside of work?

Friends, food, wine, music, film, hiking, dancing, reading and travelling – probably in that order

10. Is there a particular piece of music, a book, a play, or film that has made a lasting impression on you?

Film: Empire Records – one of my favourite all time movies and a great coming of age film

11. OvertheCovidperiodhaveyou‘bingewatched’anyTV series and if so what? What was the attraction?

Letterkenny – crude and hilarious

Julia Bell, is an Urban designer, and an Associate at kinetica

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 Business Meeting the challenge of housing for all Australians

Welcome to the first of our 12-part series which will attempt to explore the role that housing can and should play within Australian society and why it is important to our economy that we house all Australians, rich or poor.

This series intends to draw on a range of perspectives centred around housing and homelessness. We will hear a range of views from business, the not-for-profit sector and hopefully government, as to why they believe housing is an important social and economic building block for Australia’s future prosperity.

Let me start by saying I do not believe that housing is a human right. That is a decision for an entire society to make. And if half the population agrees with that view, there is the other half that doesn’t. This causes dissent and arguments and no conclusion. To get action, we need to achieve a consensus. And to get consensus, we need to ask the right question.

However, while housing may not be a human right, no one can deny that the provision of shelter is a fundamental human need. And without that need being met, we have unintended social and economic consequences that span generations.

Based on learnings over my career, I have come to a clear and unambiguous view that we are leaving a future society with a significant economic and social burden as a consequence of not investing in sufficient public, social and affordable housing. These consequences manifest themselves through the development of mental and physical health issues, family violence, policing, justice and then long-term welfare dependency. We need to invest in initiatives that prevent future social and economic consequences.

There is no silver bullet in solving this housing challenge. That is why, as the convenor of this column series, I am always open to hearing other people’s perspectives as I believe we should always be open to new thoughts and ideas while having ours respectfully challenged. And in doing so, we need to be open to having our collective views evolve. No one has all the answers. And when we live in such a diverse society that is rich in opinions, consensus will always involve a degree of compromise.

I will also be approaching this topic with a commercial lens. Having been a residential property developer for my entire career, I have a reasonable understanding of what drives the market to deliver appropriate housing typologies. The shortfall in public, social and affordable housing is so significant that unless the market is involved with the solution, we will not achieve the scale needed to service the entire population and prevent the long-term consequences mentioned above. But there needs to be compromises. The housing needs to be funded.

The coronavirus pandemic has made us all realise that we are equal and all vulnerable to this invisible enemy that has declared

war on humanity. The virus does not discriminate. Whether you are black or white, rich or poor – if you are exposed, you get infected.

To their credit, all our governments have reacted quickly and even the homeless that were inhabiting our streets were housed. The business community also responded with Quest Apartment Hotels, through the Salvation Army, offering access to their serviced apartments at 140 locations, nationally, at cost. No profit. The Master Builders and the Unions issued a joint press release encouraging the creation of jobs through the construction of more social housing. This is a time where ideological differences need to be put aside so we can all work through this crisis together.

On the topic of homelessness, we have all heard that governments around the country are saying that we should not return to seeing homeless people on our streets. That sounds sensible but that means we need to build more housing, and that does not happen overnight. So, what is the plan?

As a society we have to face the facts – there is a current chronic failure that results in people being out in the cold, being vulnerable and isolated. The reality is, when an individual faces challenges in their life their purpose of being is tested.

Without a safe place to gather your thoughts and without people around you that care about your wellbeing, those dreams and possibilities have nowhere to go. You become lonely and isolated. Without a stable and safe place to call home, how can an individual form a productive life? How can they work, study or raise a family properly? To continually fund the services needed becomes a very expensive burden for society as a whole. People need to be housed. Whether they are rich or poor.

So, we hope the series will result in different perspectives being presented and potential new solutions emerging. Nothing significant has been done for decades and doing nothing now is NOT AN OPTION! We need to act and we need to act now. All of us need to be part of the solution so please feel free to write to me with your thoughts: info@housingallaustralians.com.au

About Housing All Australians

A private sector for purpose organisation that believes it is in Australia’s long-term economic interest to provide housing for all its people; rich or poor. It was established to facilitate a private sector voice and to reposition the discussion with an economic lens. It advocates that the provision of housing for all Australians is economic infrastructure, just as the provision of roads, schools and hospitals.

Any proceeds generated through this column series will be made as a donation to Housing All Australians to help end the fight against homelessness.

Rob Pradolin founder ‘Housing All Australians’

The Business Housing for all makes “good business sense”

Welcome to the second in our series of Housing for all Australians. This month we have asked Peter Mares to explore the role that housing can, and should, play within Australian society and why it is important to our economy that we house all Australians, rich or poor.

Homelessness takes many forms and has many causes: an abusive partner forces a mother and her children to flee to a refuge; a teenager couch surfs because his parents won’t accept that he is gay; a casual worker gets injured and is evicted for rent arrears; an older woman sleeps in her car after a marriage breakup leaves her destitute; an older man with a mental illness ends up on the streets.

Yet despite its diverse manifestations, homelessness is a problem with one simple solution — a decent, safe, affordable home.

To reduce homelessness, Australia needs an increased supply of long-term rental housing at prices that people on low incomes can afford. Key workers in low-wage sectors like childcare or aged care need a discount on prevailing market rates; tenants on government payments like the aged pension need rents set at no more than 30 per cent of their income so they still have enough money for essentials like food and heating.

We know from Anglicare’s rental affordability snapshot that the private market doesn’t provide sufficient housing of this kind, and we cannot expect it to. Landlords won’t lease properties at rents that don’t cover costs like rates and interest payments. Developers won’t build apartments that don’t generate enough rent to turn a profit.

This is not a new insight. It was recognised in 1942 by two Melbourne social reformers, accountant and lay Methodist preacher, F. W. Barnett and solicitor and company director Walter “Ossie” Burt. Their book Housing the Australian Nation, remains remarkably relevant almost 80 years later.

“Everyone knows there is a housing shortage,” they wrote. Today, we might say, “everyone knows there is a housing shortage, for Australians on low incomes”.

From this Barnett and Burt drew two conclusions. First, that private enterprise had been “unable to overtake the housing shortage” and second, that if people are too poor to give private enterprise the financial inducement to build homes, “then the government must come to the financial aid of the people …”.

We can draw same conclusions today. Business cannot end the current shortage of housing for Australians on low incomes because they cannot pay enough rent to give the private sector the incentive to build.

Where the market fails, government should intervene. Barnett and Burt called for a national housing scheme, which is what we got after World War II. The current crisis demands a similar level of ambition.

But tackling homelessness is not just a worthy cause — it is sound economic policy that benefits the entire society.

Large-scale public investment to build homes people can afford is an ideal way to help the economy weather the COVID-19 downturn. The federal government’s Homebuilder package may assist tradies and contractors who do renovations or build new houses on city fringes, but it will do nothing to save jobs in higher density residential and commercial development, a sector that is facing collapse. Master Builders Australia and the construction union CFMEU don’t agree on much, but both think that government investment in social housing is the right policy for our times.

The not-for-profit community housing industry has a detailed $7.7 billion plan to build 30,000 new affordable homes for renters. SHARP (the Social Housing Acceleration and Renovation Program) would create 18,000 full time jobs every year for four years.

While Canberra says housing is a state issue, only the federal government can finance a package of this size.

Besides, funding for affordable homes should be seen as an investment, not a cost. Finland, for example, has all but eradicated homelessness, partly by converting crisis accommodation into permanent housing. Why go to the expense of putting people up in overnight shelters or hotel rooms, when it’s cheaper to find them a permanent home? According to a recent study, moving someone out of homelessness in Finland saves an average of €15,000 (A$25,000) per person per year, including through reduced spending in the health and justice systems, and pays for itself in seven years. If secure tenure in an affordable home helps people into the workforce, the savings are even greater.

Now that makes good business sense.

I hope you found the above perspective by Peter interesting and insightful. While what was said may not align with our view of the world, we all need to listen and digest what is said by others in order to find common ground. This is why we are focusing on the fact that the provision of shelter is a fundamental human need (not human right) and without that need being met, we have unintended social and economic consequences that will span generations. As I said in my first article, doing nothing is NOT AN OPTION! We need to act and we need to act now. All of us need to be part of the solution so please feel free to write to me with your thoughts: info@housingallaustralians.com.au

Rob Pradolin and Peter Mares founders ‘Housing All Australians’

The Business A new solution to ending homelessness

Throughout these last few months, I have been grateful to be isolating from this pandemic safely and securely. Like many, I have been resting comfortably with family, secure in the knowledge that despite the uncertainty of our futures, I have a place to lay my head each night.

For 116,000 Australians, this is not the case.

Homelessness is one of the biggest social issues in Australia, one that I can predict will heighten in a post-Covid future as the economic consequences of this pandemic are revealed. With 1.5 million Australians already living in housing stress and a projected deficiency of 1 million social and affordable houses by 2036, we are in dire need of a solution to house the most vulnerable in our society. Homes for Homes recognises this challenge and has created a community-led solution to solving homelessness.

Homes for Homes – a promise to help end homelessness

Homes for Homes, created by social enterprise The Big Issue, is a simple, sustainable and collaborative solution which raises funds for social and affordable housing through donations from property sales. It’s a promise that property owners make – when a home registered with Homes for Homes sells, 0.1% of the sale price is donated. These funds are pooled and granted to community housing providers to increase the supply of social and affordable housing.

Registration is so simple, it can be done online and only takes a few minutes. Once the property is registered, Homes for Homes lodges a caveat on the property. It’s a caveat for good, simply acting as a gentle reminder that when it comes time to sell, a tax deductable 0.1% donation of the sale price will be transferred to Homes for Homes. For example, a home sold for $750,000 would make a tax deductable donation of $750. The caveat remains on the property title so that future donations can be made from the same property and generations can benefit from your promise. The donations are pooled and granted to social and affordable housing providers, with money raised in a state or territory creating housing in that state or territory.

High impact

Thanks to the support from homeowners, organisations and governments, we are thrilled to have already granted $940,000 to eight social and affordable housing projects that will house

Steven Persson, CEO Homes for Homes

32 people. We have worked with trusted organisations such as Habitat for Humanity Victoria, Women’s Property Initiatives, HousingFirst and Community Housing Canberra (CHC), with grant funds contributing to projects that will provide social and affordable housing to a wide range of people experiencing disadvantage and marginalisation, including people experiencing homelessness, poverty, family breakdown, physical and mental illness, disability and more. Our third grant round of funding has just closed, and will see us grant a further $200,000 to create housing in the ACT.

I recall our first housing handover in 2019 to a young family in Yea, Victoria. The young couple Jema and Romel with their daughter Isla had faced incredible danger and housing stress in their everyday life, but thanks to Homes for Homes and our supporters the family were able to start a new life in a modern three-bedroom house. Having our funds contribute to providing a home for this family was an incredibly gratifying experience, and we are committed to providing more opportunities like this.

Planners, councils, developers and the community

Thanks to the support from the community, developers and governments, we anticipate Homes for Homes to raise more than $1 billion to increase the supply of social and affordable housing in the next 30 years. We currently receive support from 19 developers, including Mirvac, Capital Airport Group,

Luke Howarth, Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services, Andrew Hannan, CHC CEO and Louise Gray, Homes for Homes at the presentation for the 2020 grant recipients. Photo: Brenton Colley

Development Victoria, Balcon and Toga. These developers have registered projects which represent a property pipeline of over 11,000 dwellings. Donations from these projects alone will exceed $40m over the next 30 years.

Homes for Homes doesn’t mandate that developers donate (although many are choosing to), but simply help to increase the pipeline of participating properties by registering their housing stock with Homes for Homes once built. This model means that participating in Homes for Homes isn’t a barrier for developers, but instead complements any existing affordable housing initiatives that the developer may already be undertaking.

In Victoria we have seen great support from developers and community. Victoria’s Moreland City Council is the first council in Australia who has formally endorsed support for Homes for Homes. Homes for Homes is embedded within their design

excellence scorecard, meaning developers who commit to Homes for Homes via the scorecard will be fast-tracked through the planning process. This is a terrific example of local council taking a leading role to further enable the creation of social and affordable housing in their municipality and embedding this in the planning process.

In 2019, Homes for Homes won the Planning Institute of Australia (Victoria Division) prestigious President’s Award. PIA celebrated Homes for Homes as an inspirational example of innovation in increasing the supply of social and affordable housing. The award is a recognition of the success and excellence of Homes for Homes in the planning industry, and we thank PIA for the accolade.

Having a place to call home is fundamental to a healthy sense of wellbeing. It enables us to lead a positive life, to do things such as wash and cook meals, hold down a job or attend school. It impacts how others see us and how we see ourselves.

In these challenging times, we have seen the importance of housing keeping us safe, healthy and protected in a new light. Our focus has always been to ensure that every Australian, regardless of disadvantage, has the opportunity to share in the freedom, independence and stability of secure housing that many of us take for granted. As we move into a new normal where the need for more social and affordable housing will grow, we remain committed to solving homelessness in Australia. Homelessness is not a problem that one person, organisation or government can solve, but I believe Homes for Homes is the long-term, sustainable, collaborative platform that will allow the entire community to act and be part of the solution.

Welcome to our new members…

Cameron Algie Kellehers Australia

Jayden Bath MinterEllison

Ansuya Bhat Ratio Consultants

James Binkhorst Avisure

Brianna Bowell Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications

Alfred Carnovale Kingston City Council

Stephanie Cimino Equipe Lawyers

Danielle Cull Kinetica

Arnold Dix Victorian Bar

Charlotte Glossop Glossop Town Planning

Aaron Goldsworthy Australian Strategic Services

Caroline Graham Tract Consultants

Kayla Gregg Davis Advisory

Kelly Grigsby Wyndham City Council

Chun Guo Ratio Consultants

James Hamilton Urbis

Jane Hanna City of Stonnington

Daniel Herrmann Tract Consultants

Leigh Hogarty-Langston

Penny Holloway Penelope Holloway Consultancy

Sam Jiang Keen Planning

Darren Kosh Geocentral Engineering

Rick Liu City of Casey Council

Scott Matheson Ratio Consultants

Michael Meyer Urbis

Melanie Montalban Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

Roger Munn Spiire

Tim Nicholls Marshall Day Acoustics

Tim Nichols Kinetica

Suganya Pathan Victorian Bar

Ruth Redden Context GML

Natasha Reifschneider ESA2 Pty Ltd

Melanie Savage Jacobs

Mitch Seach Ratio Consultants

Fatemeh Shahani Center for Urban Transitions

Elizabeth Spanjer City of Boroondara

Ben Thomson Ratio Consultants

James Tighello Sherwell Harrison Munro Lawyers

Krishna Keerthi Tirumalachetty Kinetica

Claire Toole Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

Sonia Turnbull HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Lachlan Waddell University of Melbourne

Tom Zhou Monash University

Xin Zhou THUPDI

Andrea Zohar SJB Planning

Couple Jema and Romel with daughter Isla outside their new home. Homes for Homes contributed $40,000 towards the build of the home, built by Habitat for Humanity (Victoria).

Photo: Mark Avellino

The Business Getting the ‘G’ into the RGZ (Residential Growth Zone)

Overview

This publication often has a strong focus on the ‘meatier’ greenfield developments around the fringe of Melbourne and the sexier large scale urban renewal projects in inner urban areas. I felt it was time for a piece on the heartland of Melbourne, suburbia. Whilst each project has much less yield than of the duo above, the sheer volume of them makes them just as important in relation to the overall puzzle of housing supply along with affordability, diversity, amenity, and character. Part of this jigsaw is the contribution made by lots in the RGZ. We are now 6-7 years down the track since the inception of this truly new Zone into Planning Schemes and it is appropriate to reflect on the outcomes occurring. I have some fear that the opportunity intended to be created is being either undersold or restrained that may have generational consequences.

Policy context

Let us start with some policy context. The purposes of the RGZ relating to housing and built form are:

• To provide housing at increased densities in buildings up to and including four storey buildings.

• To encourage a diversity of housing types in locations offering good access to services and transport including activity centres and town centres.

• To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and other residential areas.

Last December the Government published Practice Note 91 which gives ‘information and guidance’ on how to apply the residential zones. About the RGZ it identifies the following as a principle underpinning the selection of this Zone:

While the Residential Growth Zone promotes greater housing intensification up to four storeys, it can also be used to facilitate taller residential development by specifying a maximum building height greater than 13.5 metres in the schedule to the zone.

By way of contrast the same document says the following about the principles underpinning the General Residential Zone (GRZ):

The General Residential Zone should be applied to areas where housing development of three storeys exists or is planned for. It is inappropriate to apply the General Residential Zone to areas where a planning authority seeks to respect the existing single and double storey character of an area.

Economic, design and market realities v policy aspirations

In the middle to outer rings of Melbourne the RGZ is applied around existing activity centres. Specifically, I am referring

Andrew Clarke Director, Clarke Planning

to places like Clayton, Glen Waverley, Ringwood, Boronia, Heidelberg, Reservoir, Pascoe Vale and Broadmeadows. Think, generally beyond the ‘tram line’ radius of Melbourne. Yet, getting the growth into these areas is at times proving challenging. In general terms there is a policy push for lot consolidation and apartment buildings sitting atop basement carparks in a lushly landscaped setting. Numerous Reference Documents contain exciting ‘artists impressions’ of what the future streetscape is to look like under this vision.

Unfortunately, these visions are somewhat divorced from the economic realities, which are critical when the housing system we have essentially relies on the private sector to provide it. Clearly, the private sector will only do so if the exercise is profitable and it should not be villainised for such a mindset, itself a reality of any ‘capitalist’ economy.

Single blocks in these suburbs are mostly in the 600m2 range and regular rectangles in shape around 15m in width. Clearly apartment buildings with basements won’t work on such lots due firstly, to their narrow widths. Whilst consolidation can be encouraged, (and rewards given), it must be expected that housing growth will occur on single lots in the RGZ.

That said, consolidated lots will produce wider buildings that are more imposing on a streetscape and more challenging for internal daylight via having a broader perimeter. The single lot approach naturally creates building spacing for streetscape relief, daylight penetration and potentially landscaping.

Then there is the matter of basements which are not cheap. A 400m2 basement would cost around $600,000. You do not need a policy directive to achieve a basement in RGZ areas like South Yarra, Brunswick, or St. Kilda. 1kg of cement costs the same where ever it is poured. But the return on the construction cost is very different. The decision on whether to ‘basement or not’ is one of the very first planks in the formation of any design with profound impacts flowing from this.

Of lesser importance, whilst there might be a policy desire for apartments, there is a still a very strong consumer desire for ‘townhouse’ style housing in these middle/outer suburbs. Apartments are still seen as the domain of the ‘city’ or at the very least ‘within’ the activity centres, not around its fringes. Planners might prefer one typology, but citizens prefer something else, an interesting disconnect given the primary role of planning at its most basic of levels.

So, if single lot owners in this area don’t want to consolidate, say basements are not viable and say townhouses will sell better, do we wait an unspecified time in the hope the market will mature or do we take the best growth we can get in the RGZ now? And if the latter, and we do not just let RGZ land lay indefinitely idle, what should the basic bones and typology of such a module be?

Crumbling of unpinning strategic visions

Aside from the obvious that we may never get there, one of the more immediate problems with the (wait and hope) approach is that nearly all of the Municipalities in this middle to outer ring have recently completed Housing Strategies that have informed Zone selection. These are largely predicated on assumptions about getting growth in the RGZ. But if the type of growth that is desired is not desirable to the private sector providing it, then we have a problem. The problem manifests itself with new sets of more restrictive provisions to limit growth that are rightly granted in creek corridors, ridge lines, foothills, areas with a bushy character or places more remote from activity centres and transport. But if the growth is not occurring in the RGZ then things start to fall apart in a macro sense.

Another challenge in many of these RGZ areas is that they are logically well located and thus already have some lesser quantum of units on them making them harder to redevelop again. Think single storey villa style homes or 2 unit double storey townhouses from previous policy regimes over the last 50 years. The uplift arising from collective acquisition is rather demure.

Getting uplift beyond just GRZ outcomes

A basic 2 unit townhouse module on a 600m2 and 15m wide lot is more akin to the GRZ (or even NRZ) so we must be asking and expecting something more of single lots in the RGZ than just this. The lined up and semi-attached reverse living module of ground level parking, first floor living areas and 2nd floor bedrooms is an emerging typology in these middle/outer RGZ’s. It ticks the diversity and growth boxes and is a module the private sector is willing to provide in these suburban settings. It is more intense than you would expect in a GRZ and would typically deliver 5-6 dwellings per standard lot. In fact, one wonders if densities would be much greater anyway for an apartment form on a consolidated lot. Yet, it comes with its own challenges and at times disdain.

Indeed, in some areas the same development has been argued as being both an overdevelopment and an underdevelopment. In other areas the detached 2 storey townhouse remains the outcome expected in the RGZ. Context of course plays a role, so outcomes ought not be identical. But the premise of growth implies change and the disparity within the same zone is alarming.

In some areas the 3 storey reverse living outcomes occur in the GRZ due to a differently phrased and structured hierarchy of those Planning Schemes. With this re-shuffle though the substantial buffer/constraint (depends on your perspective) of the garden area requirements then come into play.

Reverse living townhouse modules in the RGZ; whose amenity should prevail?

The main challenge for the reverse living module is primarily about amenity impacts on abutting lots and internal amenity, specifically screening of the balconies. The two are intrinsically linked.

In order to avoid overlooking impacts, it is generally accepted that balconies at first floor level that are situated a few metres from a side boundary and screened to 1.7m high whilst ticking the ‘overlooking box’ are a poor outcome for internal amenity. Remove the screens, and internal amenity is fine, but overlooking is severe. It is not possible to have balconies 9m in from either side boundary on a 15m wide lot. Roof decks are perhaps an underutilised space and a possible solution. For over 20 years, roof decks have been accepted under Rescode as a permissible form of open space. It is accepted that they would not be perfect in terms of connectivity to the first floor living areas.

Then there is the interim amenity to the abutting as yet undeveloped lot to consider. The incoming more intensive building can be expected to stand for 80 or so years. Do we compromise its internal amenity and its yield/housing contribution in the name of ‘preserving’ amenity for an existing resident next door from visual bulk, shadowing and overlooking? Alternatively, if it is accepted that amenity impacts on the abutting lot should be tolerated this might lead the owner to sell up (cash in). This outcome can surely only aid in the advancement of the espoused strategic planning policy. Adopting this approach would provide e.g. balconies which could be unscreened at first floor. While these would allow significant overlooking in the interim, they would deliver good amenity for the occupiers that will outlast the incumbents. This can easily be done without impinging on equitable development rights too, with preference given to balcony orientations to the north and then east for ESD reasons.

Will we pass by these areas in 10 years’ time and see that abutting site developed anyway and wonder why we bothered? The rules we applied have locked in compromised design outcomes and produced lower quality housing outcomes on the earlier developed lots. These impacts will last for decades. They

were the result of pandering to no longer existent abutting single dwelling residents. It seems we are having an each-way bet on this front. Some courage is perhaps required by policy writers and the decision makers here. The concept of net benefit must inform the pathway selected.

Conclusion

We are now 6 years down the track of having the RGZ in our Planning Schemes. Its uptake has been cautious and rather limited. But in places where the RGZ has been applied, it is

time to adopt a more practical and wholehearted approach, if it is to deliver its actual purpose. While I do not profess to have answers to every conundrum about the RGZ, the issues seem serious enough to pen this piece in the hope it might act as a conversation starter.

Andrew runs his own sole practitioner planning company. He is a town planner with over 10 years’ experience in the local government sector and over 10 years’ experience in the private sector. Andrew Clarke can be contacted at andrew@clarkeplanning.com.au

Examples of non-basement reverse living 3 storey townhouses being pursued in middle/outer RGZ areas. Typically ground level parking and pedestrian entry, 1st floor living areas with balcony and associated issue of screening and 2nd floor bedrooms.

The Business

Overlooking or Isolating?

I never knew there were so many nudists in Melbourne!

That is, until I became a town planner. Maybe I had a sheltered upbringing. In my 19-20 years as a town planner, I don’t think a month has gone by where I haven’t read an objection from a neighbour highly concerned that he or she might be seen walking around naked in their backyard from a new development. Thank goodness for Standard A15/B22 of ResCode!

In case it wasn’t readily apparent, there was a huge amount of sarcasm in that last sentence. As planners, one of our fundamental objectives is to build and foster communities. Yet, in my opinion, the overlooking standard is the one requirement in our Planning Schemes that goes directly against this notion.

I make this statement based on my personal experiences. I think of where I grew up in the middle-outer Melbourne suburb of East Doncaster. A number of old orchards had been subdivided in the late 70s to early 80s to create the Milgate Park Estate. Our family home was on the hilly side of Landscape Drive, which meant our neighbours could look directly into our backyard and living room and vice versa and it was great.

I remember being in the backyard with my brother and sister and having our neighbours pass over fruit and veggies grown in their yard, my parents sharing a beer with them on a summer’s afternoon, our neighbour Bill yelling at me and my brother to jump the fence so we could stomp on his grapes when he was making wine. It was also as simple as saying g’day while hanging out the washing. They were good people, so much so that long after my parents moved, they remained friends decades later. At no stage did it cross my parents’ mind that these people were paedophiles or intruding on our privacy. Quite the opposite. My parents took comfort knowing that our neighbours could see us in case we hurt ourselves in the backyard or could see our house in case it was being robbed. If we were ever in our living room and wanted privacy, we simply shut the sheer blinds that allowed views out, light in and provided that privacy.

I move forward some 20 years and think of where I was living in Ringwood North. Every house around us had obscured glass to 1.7m high and the fencing was 1.9m high with an additional 300mm trellis on top. In the four years we lived there, I can count on one hand how many times I saw my neighbours.

The one thing that separates the two scenarios mentioned is the ability to overlook neighbours’ yards. It got me thinking, why do we have an overlooking objective/standard and where did it come from?

Looking back, the Good Design Guide Element 7 ‘Visual and Acoustic Privacy’ brought in the ‘overlooking objective’. It was at this time we start to see the inclusion of a provision of 1.6m high screening, 9m separation and 25% transparency, which also forms the basis of the current standard.

Sam D’Amico Director, Ratio Consultants

The move to ResCode raised the screen height to 1.7m, perhaps because the hormones contained in chicken was making people taller. Who knows?

However, I cannot find any rationale why the arbitrary line in the sand was drawn at 9 metres and/or 1.7 metres high.

So why do we have it? I assume it’s because the same nudists were raising objections to their loss of privacy and the State Government of the day decided to set a measurable standard. Since then, it has been easy to comply with a setback or provide a screen of some nature and so no one really questions it. There is always debate and often acceptance about varying a number of the quantitative standards of ResCode such as side and rear setbacks, overshadowing, walls on boundaries etc. But heavens forbid a variation to Standard A15/B22!

Whilst protecting peoples’ amenity/privacy is important, the reality is that if someone is determined to invade someone’s privacy, they will find a way. In my opinion, screens are there to avoid the perception of overlooking rather than overlooking itself.

Peek-a-boo, I can’t see you!…

Figure 2: Overlooking Standards taken to the extreme. Source: www.shuttershop.com.au

Figure 1: Diagram A4/B4, which is the same as what was contained in the Good Design Guide.

Why is it an issue? Well in this crazy COVID world we are all living in at present, we already know that people are feeling more and more isolated at home than ever before, disconnected from their community and the people that surround them.

A 2004 study conducted by Dr Philip Hughes titled Insecurity in Australia, found that one-third of Australians say they trust their neighbours1 Does that mean that two-thirds of neighbours are untrustworthy? As Hugh MacKay (Honorary Professor of Social Science, University of Wollongong; Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Arts, Charles Sturt University) opines, “what it must mean is that most people in our society don’t know their neighbours well enough to have learnt to trust them…

What I am suggesting is that when we lose sight of our role as neighbours, the health of the neighbourhood suffers. And when the health of the neighbourhood suffers, we all suffer”. 2

Now, I can’t oversimplify loneliness and social isolation to be just about whether or not one can overlook their neighbours’ yard. It is obviously a much more complex issue. But we can look at how we force people to be separated from their neighbours. I’m also not advocating that people have no right to privacy in their own properties, there has to be a balance. But maybe it is time to review Standard A15/B22 and re-evaluate what we are trying to achieve and how we can do it better than we have been over the last 20-odd years.

1 NCLS Occasional Paper 04 – Insecurity in Australia

2 https://theconversation.com/hugh-mackay-the-state-of-the-nation-startsin-your-street-72264

Sam D’Amico, Director of ratio: has 20 years’ experience as a town planner at both local government and in private practice. samd@ratio.com.au

Figure 3: If someone wants to peer into their neighbours’ yard or window, they will find a way.

Figure 4: A classic European building that allows people to interact and build strong connections.

Places Rory’s Ramble

Both sides of government have been trying to find a solution to the problem of getting people to live in peri-urban areas.

COVID-19, with its new regime of working from home, often well outside the city, may be proving itself a solution.

Back in the late 2000s, then-Planning Minister Justin Madden was famously critical of McMansions, referring to them as ‘housing obesity’, and calling for an end to them.

“At a time when we need to minimise our consumption of energy and water, many of us are living in houses that consume more power or water than we need,” he said.

Then the Global Financial Crisis hit and solved the Planning Minister’s conundrum. Post-GFC, people started to accept, and build, more modest homes on smaller, more affordable blocks.

You can draw property activity parallels with the current COVID era and efforts to get people to better utilise the infrastructure of peri-urban towns, to entice people to work in these towns –in particular, enticing immigrants to Australia to work in periurban cities and towns.

The Government has been trying to encourage people to live in peri-urban areas for a long time, and now COVID-19 has solved that problem. People are seeing they don’t need to go to the office.

Last year, the Federal Government tried to increase incentives to get professionals such as doctors and engineers to live and work in regional cities.

Those policies have had limited success. Certainly, in the case of Geelong – where the NDIS, Worksafe and other government agencies have been decentralised – they have made a positive impact on growth.

Sometimes a force majeure event, such as COVID, is a much stronger incentive than all the government policies to awaken people to the benefits of regional living.

While demand in Melbourne has oscillated since March, areas like Bendigo and Ballarat have seen a surge in sales. People are realising they can participate in meetings and service clients in their own home via Zoom, Teams and many other platforms. Employers are accepting the workability of home offices and are considering post-Covid options.

In regional cities such as Geelong, the secret is already out, families are flocking there in droves. The Armstrong growth corridor is out-performing some Melbourne corridors. Two of our own staff, and one of our planners, have purchased at our Armstrong Geelong community as first home buyers.

Rory Costelloe Executive Director, Villawood Properties

Our media buyer is selling up in Brighton to live the dream in Clunes, and plans to just train to Melbourne a day or two a week.

As I mentioned last article, there is presently a lull in immigration. When we have a vaccine available and feel safe again, I believe the Federal Government will open the floodgates to large-scale immigration to boost the economy.

It’s very important a portion of these immigrants be offered incentives to work in peri-urban and regional areas so that growth is enjoyed across the country.

KPMG’s chief economist Dr Brendan Rynne says net overseas migration gives us a demographic dividend that enables us to reinvigorate our population with younger people into the workforce.

KPMG says that without a vaccine in the next two years, Australia’s population in 10 years could be 28 million – rather than the 29 million the Australian Bureau of Statistics expected before COVID-19 struck.

It argues this would hit the economy to the tune of $117 billion over the period and boost the age of the workforce. This equates to an $80 billion drop in household disposable income —$2800 a person.

This underscores yet again the importance of looking after our peri-urban and regional areas and their economies with incentives targeted to attract more migrants.

Smiti Singh and husband Karan, both architects, are moving from suburban Melbourne to Villawood’s periurban Rathdowne community at Wollert, north of Melbourne, with their two teenage sons. “It is much more pleasant and green,” says Smiti.

The Business PSP Planning in a post-Covid world

The unprecedented change wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic will have far-reaching changes for where and how Victorians live and work. For many people, living in a more suburban environment like our greenfield developments will have a new attraction.

It seems likely that many more of us will be working from home and when we can’t work from home we will be more inclined to work locally.

We may want different housing forms to ensure we can integrate home and work. We may want more services locally, we may seek to use open spaces differently, and we may feel differently about living at high-density.

So how can we plan for new communities when we face potentially significant changes in the urban aspirations of tomorrow’s Victorians?

The answer is to get the fundamentals right and keep the options open.

The Precinct Structure Planning process has been central to the VPA’s methodology generally but perhaps most importantly in Melbourne’s greenfields. Experience in its application over the past few years has led us to the necessity for a refresh. We want to enhance our collective ability, with councils and the development industry as our partners, to deliver the key objectives set out in the original principles.

Guidelines for Precinct Structure Planning in Melbourne’s Greenfields

The former Growth Areas Authority released Precinct Structure Planning (PSP) Guidelines in 2009 which has guided and shaped development in Melbourne’s growth areas precincts.

The review of the PSP guidelines is a key action (Action 20) for VPA and DELWP under the Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 Implementation Plan.

A review has been underway with the aim of updating the now decade old guidelines to ensure they build on lessons learned and are facilitating a flexible and innovative approach to growth in our precincts.

This approach has also allowed for integration between a number of VPA’s key innovation projects including PSP 2.0, Small Lot Housing Code, ‘Generally in accordance’ and better alignment of planning and infrastructure delivery.

An Expert Review Panel was engaged to challenge standards and pathways and provide advice to ensure the updated Guidelines deliver best practice.

Stuart Moseley CEO, Victorian Planning Authority

The draft Guidelines have been approved by the Minister for Planning and are now being taken forward for consultation.

In particular, the revised guidelines will:

• Represent a whole of government approach – that is striving for agency endorsement early in the process through policy integration

• Signal increased expectations for growth area outcomes (next generation PSPs)

• Provide innovation pathways at different stages throughout the planning and development process

The guidelines will do this by:

• Aligning with the Government’s established 20 Minute Neighbourhoods Framework and UN Sustainable Development Goals

• Setting meaningful performance targets that deliver improved outcomes as a minimum

• Define and incentivise alternative pathways to achieve innovations during PSP preparation and development delivery

Aligning with the Government’s established 20 Minute Neighbourhoods Framework and UN Sustainable Development Goals

The Guidelines align with new policy frameworks that provide guidance on vision and outcomes for the future through a hierarchy from global to local level. At the State Government level, Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 sets key policy directions and principles to guide urban planning across the state.

Plan Melbourne includes the key principle of 20 Minute Neighbourhoods, which focusses on the importance of living locally. The 20 minute neighbourhood is all about giving people the ability to meet most of their daily needs within a 20-minute walk from home, with safe cycling and local transport options.

The 20 minute neighbourhood concept of hallmarks and features provides a clear framework for living locally, living sustainability and social connectedness.

Setting meaningful performance targets that deliver improved outcomes as a minimum

The Expert Review Panel challenged the VPA to lift the standards of our PSPs. Taking on this challenge, the new guidelines seek to increase some of our performance targets and better align ourselves with the aspirations of state government policy, particularly the hallmarks of 20 minute neighbourhoods.

Some of the key performance targets are:

• A 1ha park within 800m of dwellings and a local park within 400m.

• A minimum target of 10% nda for open space and minimum 30% canopy tree coverage within the public realm and open space (excluding areas dedicated to biodiversity or native vegetation conservation).

• A target of one job per dwelling.

• 90% of dwellings within 800m of an activity centre.

• 70% of dwellings within 800m of a government primary school and 100% of dwellings within 3200m of a government secondary school.

Define and incentivise alternative pathways to achieve innovations during PSP preparation and development delivery

A re-occurring theme that emerged throughout engagement with the Expert Review Panel, Local Government and the development industry was the need for balance between certainty and flexibility. The updated Guidelines seek to address this by providing two different pathways for the preparation and delivery of PSPs. Depending on the right settings and circumstances, a PSP now has the option to take an alternative pathway that will allow innovative and placed-based responsive outcomes for the future community.

This new pathway will encourage collaborative leadership, forging partnerships and providing space for stakeholders to think differently to deliver unique and innovative outcomes.

The first of the two pathways proposed by the Guidelines is the Coordination Pathway. It provides for a collaborative PSP approach to coordinate high quality development outcomes and infrastructure delivery. Options are available for some placespecific variations to targets, where it will advance the vision for the PSP, and where variations meet the intent of the Principles.

Providing flexibility for leadership and innovation is the Innovation Pathway, which enables different solutions where there is a need for a substantially different approach to the form, process or format of the PSP to achieve that vision.

This pathway is available where there is a commitment to the delivery of 20-minute neighbourhoods through significantly elevated objectives in one or more areas, such as environmental

performance, housing affordability and diversity or community and infrastructure service delivery.

Innovation PSPs should implement most of the General Principles contained in the PSP Guidelines, but may require substantial variation to some or all of the Performance Targets. This pathway will require agreement from the outset from council, VPA, state agencies and landowners to implement throughout the entire planning and development approval pipeline for the area – that is from the PSP stage right through to the detailed permit stage. Ultimately, the updated guidelines will establish a new approach to preparing PSPs for greenfield areas in Victoria.

Importantly, this new approach will provide for both a minimum standard pathway that will produce a more predictable spatial layout and a new innovation where a specific solution is required. The innovation pathway will provide incentives for those willing to try something new to ensure our new communities are diverse and respond to the local needs of their future residents.

We are excited to bring this new approach to our stakeholders for consultation. We want to hear from you about whether we have addressed the issues in the original approach that needed fixing. While precinct structure planning cannot deliver a universal resolution to all growing pains experienced by new communities, these Guidelines aim to provide best practice support to “lift the bar” in planning outcomes in the greenfields.

We believe at the end of this process we will have a better, clearer way forward that will deliver great new places for Victorians to live in.

Stuart Moseley has more than 30 years’ of experience in urban management and project delivery, and has held senior positions in three State Governments, the private sector and local government. Stuart is a reformer and a strong advocate for outstanding urban environments and practical planning solutions. In his VPA role he has driven the repositioning of the Authority as a broad-based State-wide growth planning agency and is now working to deliver the organisation’s largest-ever project portfolio.

The Business

Charter Group 29

A multi-disciplinary group of planning and environment professionals, researchers and academics, calling themselves “Charter 29”, has just released a report titled Growing Pains: The Crisis in Growth Area Planning . Maxine Cooper, a social planner and longstanding Fellow of VPELA, has been one of the contributors to the report. The report calls for a major rethink in the way new suburbs and their housing are designed. It focusses on our burgeoning growth corridors and raises serious concerns about the way that Victoria’s urban growth areas are being developed.

Compelling evidence is presented that the rules and guidelines for the development of new residential suburbs are not being adhered to, and that most of what is being built fails to meet the most basic requirements of good urban planning.

Key factors

It is self-evident that we have to provide accommodation for everyone. While lower socio-economic cohorts are often relegated to sub-standard housing or aging public housing (a challenge increasing in urgency and numbers), it is the provision of new housing that is the source of much debate. This debate is not about whether such accommodation is needed but it is about factors such as:

• Location

• Affordability

• Adaptability

• Long-term environmental sustainability

• Providing a range of housing types that reflect a wider demographic profile

• Timely provision of infrastructure.

About 38 percent of Melbourne’s new dwellings are built in fringe growth areas. The Report notes that, over the next 30 years to 2050, total planned development in outer urban corridors will extend the metropolitan area by about one-third. This vast expansion will provide some 422,000 new dwellings for up to 1.19 million people.

Walkable neighbourhoods

Growth area planning should result in neighbourhoods that are walkable, provide efficient access to jobs and local services, include sustainably designed housing, promote social connection and a strong sense of community, and are well served by public transport. These basic attributes of a residential area are, for the most part, not being delivered.

The report describes how current growth areas suffer from the disadvantages of being poorly connected to employment

locations necessitating high levels of car dependency, a very limited range of houses on offer to new home buyers and no option for modest or adaptable options, detached houses occupying a disturbingly high proportion of allotments, housing which rarely takes account of orientation and solar access, and community facilities and effective public transport which are non-existent or inadequate.

Failure to deliver

The Report looks into why we are designing and building new housing estates that are bound to fail when measured against almost all evaluation criteria. There is no simple or single answer as to why this is happening but it is clear that the steps that occur in the development process from greenfields paddocks to occupied housing fail to deliver housing and community facilities that serve the purchasers, and instead serve the various players in that process.

In nearly every fringe development the local and arterial road patterns are focussed on facilitating the movement of vehicles rather than people. The high level of car dependency is readily seen in seriously congested local streets and main roads during commuter times and above-average levels of household car ownership.

Houses occupy disproportionate amounts of their allotments and areas of secluded private open space are minimal while internal spaces are beyond the real requirements of young families who make up the predominant buyer group. The basic social needs of a new community are not integrated with land use and infrastructure planning, resulting in physically and socially isolated communities, raising the spectre of poverty and limited social connections.

The VPA’s guidelines

The Report explores the role of the Victoria Planning Authority, the government body charged with oversight of the State’s growth areas. The key document is the VPA’s Precinct Structure Plan Guidelines: Overview of Growth Area Planning which sets out seven Objectives, with several elements that describe and support each Objective. These are the criteria designed to ensure high standards of planning and construction of growth areas in Victoria. The Report studied two recently developed growth areas and assessed how these areas perform against the Objectives. Of the total of 31 elements, both Merrifield West (8 kilometres north of Craigieburn) and Clyde North (5 kilometres east of Cranbourne) demonstrably fail on 21 counts, with only seven elements being achieved very well or partly. The Report notes that these two areas are not unique; they are typical examples of most other residential precincts in the growth areas on the fringes of Melbourne and regional centres and which incorporate the same inherent shortcomings.

Melbourne’s growth area planning: We can do better than this!

Interestingly, the Report looks at an inner-urban Victorian-era suburb and a typical inter-war suburb and notes that, despite being established with fewer planning controls or guidelines than apply today, they achieve the VPA’s Objectives better than new growth area suburbs.

What needs to change?

The Charter 29 Report describes what needs to change, and stresses that change must be radical and must happen urgently if social, environmental and employment problems are not to be perpetuated. While the need for change has been evident for some time the lifestyle changes recently imposed by COVID-19 serve as a valuable catalyst for action. This current experience provides planners and State and local governments with a rare opportunity to re-evaluate how people live, work, socialise and move about and to plan accordingly.

The Report identifies five fundamentals that need to change if outer urban sprawl is to be halted and a more sustainable model introduced. The five are:

• Transport planning must be driven by factors other than road and traffic requirements

• The uplift value of urban development must go to community infrastructure

• Regulatory regimes must be re-focussed to be fit for purpose

• Better relationships are required between residential areas and hierarchies of town centres and local services

• The housing mix must be broadened to suit a wider demographic.

VPELA, the Planning Institute of Australia, et al, and the wider media are awash with articles and opinions about how we are currently housing Victoria’s growing population. If we were doing it successfully, this topic wouldn’t elicit as much debate as it does.

TYPICAL: An example of the type of dwelling common in growth areas: large house, small private open spaces, random orientation

POSSIBLE: living areas face larger north-facing private open space, adaptable design, higher overall density

(Drawings: Geoffrey Falk, architect)

Charter Group 29: The Report’s lead authors and editorial team:

Emeritus Professor RMIT Michael Buxton, BA, DipEd, BEd, PhD, Hon Fellow PIA

Jim Holdsworth, architect and urban designer, BArch, Reg’d Arch (Vic) Hon Fellow PIA

Mike Scott, planner and urban designer, BA (TP) Hons, Fellow PIA Steve Thorne, architect and urban designer, BA, BAS, BArch (Hons) MA(UD), MPIA

Geoffrey Falk, architect and artist, BArch, Reg’d Arch (Vic), MAIA, MAustAssnArchillustators

Contributing authors

Maxine Cooper, social planner, BA (Urban Sociology), GradDipOrgBeh, Fellow VPELA

Bruce Echberg, architect and landscape architect BArch, GradDipLD,MA (UD, Reg’d Arch (Vic), FAILA(ret), Hon Sec UD Forum

Stephen Pelosi, transport planner, BEng. Copies of the Report can be downloaded at info@charter29.com

The Charter 29 Group welcomes comments and feedback.

Charter 29 can be contacted via Jim Holdsworth, jim@planningcollaborative.com.au https://www.charter29.com/run

Housing in Merrifield West is typical of Melbourne’s growth areas. Note the size and orientation of private open spaces, the level of site occupancy and streetscapes dominated by garage doors (photo: Nearmap)

The Business Growing jobs and community at Merrifield

Recently, I received the report titled ‘Growing Pains: The Crisis in Growth Area Planning’ written by a group of environmental professionals under the banner of Charter 29 who believe that planning in Victoria is failing in many of its fundamentals, specifically growth area planning.

While never a fan of project advertorials within the industry, given the Merrifield project is reviewed in the Charter 29 report and in the interests of helping improve outcomes for growth area planning, the additional information about the project provided here hopefully illustrates a somewhat more positive outcome at Merrifield (and growth area planning generally) than the Charter 29 report depicts. No doubt, the journey in growth area planning and delivery at Merrifield is not unlike many other growth area projects in Melbourne.

The Charter 29 report assesses the Merrifield West Precinct Structure Plan (which is being developed by MAB and other developers) however a more rounded appreciation of the planning framework should have regard for the North Corridor Plan, together with the planning approvals for the adjoining 130 hectare Merrifield City Centre and the 415 hectare Merrifield Employment Precinct which provide the context of the corridor and the broader Merrifield vision including the connection of jobs and residents, integrated planning, place-making and housing diversity.

Merrifield is a very large project spanning 900 hectares and is located along Donnybrook Road in Mickleham (between Hume Freeway and Mickleham Road). Key outcomes of the project include:

• An “employment led” development that has been planned with capacity for 30,000 jobs and 25,000 residents.

• The ability to accommodate a diversity of housing outcomes, from single level detached dwellings through to high density development (apartments) within the proposed Merrifield City Centre.

• Provision of multi-modal transport options (including high-capacity bus rapid transit) fit for purpose, without reliance on heavy rail.

• Access to community services and facilities, as early as possible, due to direct community development initiatives, capital investment and/or collaboration with relevant agencies.

David Hall MAB Corporation

Merrifield – what’s been delivered to date?

• 250 jobs at Merrifield Employment Precinct (Dulux, D’Orsogna and Steritech) and following the completion of Ford Distribution Facility by the end of 2022, there will be approximately 1,000 people employed in Merrifield.

• A 4 kilometre duplication of Donnybrook Road to a 4 lane, separated condition, together with 5 signalised intersections. Importantly, MAB’s direct involvement and advocacy with Government has resulted in the early delivery of these critical road upgrades many years ahead of schedule

• Operation of a local bus service (Route 525) by Public Transport Victoria (PTV), following successful 2 year operation of a MABfunded community bus service (‘Merrifield Connect’). MAB funded its own bus service for residents over an 18 month period to fill the public transport gap which helped fast-track the commissioning of a PTV service.

• Stage 1 of Merrifield City – comprising full-line Coles Supermarket, Chemist Warehouse, medical centre and over 20 specialty stores – to commence trade by the end of 2020.

• Passive open space network (totaling 110 hectares), with the first local park constructed prior to the first residents moving in. A 9.5 hectare active open space reserve currently being delivered under a Land / Works in Kind Agreement, forecast for completion in mid-2021.

Merrifield Integrated Planning and Delivery Model

• The largest Community Activity Centre ever built in Hume City Council (at a cost of $12.9m) to open in mid-2021 together with Gaayip-Yagila Primary School (scheduled to open Term 1 2021) and a Catholic Primary School (planned to open 2022).

Planning alone cannot deliver communities and to that end, like other master-planned developments, MAB has developed an integrated planning and delivery model to guide the timing of the necessary interventions. The model is our planning tool for the interim and end-state delivery of retail, education, health, employment, open space, environment and connectivity.

Some key examples of the implementation of the model include the facilitation of interim outreach services and programs operated by local community service providers. The provision of grants by MAB though the Merrifield Community Partnerships Program has facilitated the early establishment of local community initiatives and projects. These initiatives have led to a strong sense of community in Merrifield, with residents benefiting greatly from the availability of local services and programs well before delivery of the planned community infrastructure. This work has meant that the Merrifield Community Hub (currently being constructed by Hume City Council) will be fully activated, with over 20 community groups ready to begin utilising the space almost immediately. Similarly, Merrifield’s own locally established sporting association initiated by a team of community volunteers, is poised and ready to become the lead tenant in the Sports Reserve pavilion being delivered in 2021.

Merrifield City Centre comprises a total of 130 hectares of which 30 hectares is set aside for a shopping centre and includes both street-based nodes and internalised retail formats. There is approximately 1.5 kilometres of street-based activation expected to be achieved but with much needed enclosed retail spaces to enable a comfortable user experience.

Charter 29 engages in the tiresome planning debate that “streetbased, multi-use, employment-rich, sustainably accessed places with opportunities for urban living should henceforth become models for growth area activity centres, in place of private shopping malls”. We say that good design and placemaking can far outreach the importance of the architectural form (“streetbased” or “mall”) and seriously challenge the inference that “private shopping malls” cannot deliver great urban outcomes that meet the needs of the community. Great cities in the world (including the Melbourne CBD) embrace all forms of development including active street-based uses and internalised spaces.

We have not been contacted by the authors of the Charter 29 report, however we would be happy to explain our vision and share our experience in planning and delivering growth area communities for people and businesses.

For more information visit: www.mab.com.au

Email: dhall@mab.com.au

The Business City Structure 2.0

The future of cities post-Covid

The recent VPELA webinar City Structure 2.0 – The future of cities post Covid explored the conceptualisation of cities as labour markets, and through this lens what effect Covid-19 will have on the shape of our cities and the role of planning.

Chaired by Mark Sheppard, Principal of kinetica and author of Essentials of Urban Design, the event featured Alain Bertaud, New York based international Urbanist and author of Order Without Design – How Markets Shape Cities, Sally Capp, Lord Mayor, City of Melbourne and Peter Seamer, former CEO of the VPA and author of Breaking Point – Future of Australian Cities

It is a widely observed and acknowledged truth that land value and density patterns in a city largely respond to the proximity and availability of jobs, and that housing choice is primarily a function of commute time and affordability. A shorter commute is the trade-off for the smaller home that is affordable, given higher land values near employment concentrations, while a longer commute to areas of lower land value provides opportunity for a larger house or property. With the event of Covid-19, that counterbalance has been disrupted. Those with longer commutes that are able to work from home are enjoying the benefits of greater work-life balance, and those with smaller living spaces are now realising the difficulties of accommodating dedicated work spaces without compromising the primary role of the dwelling as a home. However, for the large part, we have discovered that working from home is not only largely achievable, but often provides significant upsides as well.

If the city is indeed the physical manifestation of a labour market, how will shifts unlocked by the pandemic such as the finallyrealised flexible work arrangements and working from home alter the shape of the post-Covid city? And, what is the role of planning in managing or responding to this change?

The role of the city

Bertaud began by stating that planners do not design cities. The labour market is the essence of the city; people trying to sell their labour to companies, and companies looking for the best and brightest available in the area. The standard urban model that is observed in large cities globally, with land values and density increasing toward the centre, is the physical manifestation of this market.

Melbourne follows this model, with increased densities around the CBD, and a sharp drop-off beyond the inner ring suburbs. Similarly, the largest concentration of jobs is within and adjacent to the CBD. There are notable emerging exceptions, such as Box Hill, though it must be noted that decades worth of policies attempting to create a more polycentric city have had little success. Bertaud’s conceptualisation of the city as a labour market offers an explanation for this.

Tim Nichols Kinetica

This monocentric model of both density and jobs is reflected in the radial-centric transport systems of Melbourne, particularly public transport. As noted by Lord Mayor Sally Capp, pre-Covid Melbourne had over 1 million people coming in and out of the city daily. The city is currently being ‘devastated’ by the effects of over 800,000 people working from home and as a result not visiting the city every day and supporting its restaurants, retail, and cultural institutions. Noticeably this has led to empty streets, with the lowest pedestrian count being recorded in some 41 years of data collection. Looking ahead to 2021, Capp noted that this is only expected to return to around 64% of pre-Covid rates.

A significant market signal that the pandemic may lead to a more permanent shift in work and commuting patterns is commercial vacancies, which Capp noted have increased from an all-time low of 1.9% to around 6%, and are likely to get up to around 10-14% in 2021. Major commercial developments are being cancelled or put on hold. 39,000 jobs have been lost already in the city centre. Fewer city workers equals lower foottraffic volumes, which has a devastating flow-on effect for the service sector within the CBD.

While Bertaud and Capp focused largely on the role of the city and CBD in terms of labour, jobs and commuting, Peter Seamer took a contrasting stance that set up an enticing discussion with the keynote speaker Bertaud. Seamer started with the observation that (in the pre-Covid condition) the standard urban

Figure 1: Population density and distance from a city centre (source: Order Without Design: How Markets Shape Cities, Alain Bertaud, 2018)

model requires review. More specifically, he considers that the role of CBD, while essential, should not be expected to do everything. He advocates a focus on tourism and cultural uses in the centre, rather than such high volumes of workers moving in and out every day.

Seamer sees emerging changes that suggest a vision of a postCovid city. Small apartments are a problem, and crowded city streets and public transport systems are not particularly safe environments. Working from home and more flexible working hours will continue, at least to some degree. These will change the shape of our cities, especially with the dispersal and localisation of densities.

The shape of the post-Covid city

The flow of daily commuting – the ‘tide’ of cities and their labour markets – reflects the city’s role as a labour market. Bertaud showed that as a city grows to be a large city, the classical monocentric model shifts to a hybrid model accommodating some dispersal of jobs throughout the wider city. In a blow to those who for, decades, have seen the ‘urban village’ model (of numerous dispersed centres providing housing within close proximity to jobs) as the post-Covid future, Bertaud shows that this does not actually exist in the real world. He asserts that this is because it contradicts the role of the city as a labour market; namely that employers position themselves to be within reach of the greatest number of potential employees.

Either of Bertaud and Seamer’s visions of a post-Covid city may prove to be accurate, and each may be implementable. However, each vision of a post-Covid city appears to correspond to its speaker’s planning truth: what the role of the planner is in the contemporary city.

The role of planning post-Covid

Within Bertaud’s prism of a city as a labour market, the job of a planner is to ‘keep an ear to the ground’ and know what is happening; what is changing. Market signals in the form of prices are a good indication of this, and the role of the planner is to allow the market to shape the city through private land development and follow the signals sent by the market, intervening as required or responding by further modifying the underlying structure. At the same time, Bertaud sees an important role for top-down design and city planning, which must shape (though not necessarily build) the city’s public realm: its streets, parks, utilities, infrastructure. However, this must be balanced by being bold enough to step back and consider the private lots of a city as space for the private market ‘to play’.

This approach shouldn’t be interpreted as a withdrawal of planning from the city shaping process, but rather that by removing the focus from the daily minutiae of planning approvals, planning and planners can look more to the long term strategic goals of a city. An example of a critical role of planning in this market led process described by Bertaud is to prevent the

In contrast, Seamer promotes the more ‘localised city’ approach of a polycentric city, the 20-minute city of state policy and strategy. He sees covid-19 as the strategic window for planning to step in and deliver the ambition of more localised live/work/ travel scenarios. While Bertaud concedes that there is likely to be an increase in working from home he sees this as stretching the monocentric city model, rather than a dispersal of jobs. (For example, 3 days a week at home, with an arrangement that would facilitate a longer commute for the other two days – shifting the balance towards housing choice for some.)

Figure 2: The spatial distribution of jobs and population (source: Order without Design: How Markets Shape Cities, Alain Bertaud, 2018)

fragmentation of labour markets, which Bertaud describes as occurring when limited affordable housing is paired with travel times of longer than one hour across a city. It is up to planners to ensure regulation is not increasing housing costs, and the transport systems provide efficient movement.

The efficient functioning labour market set out by Bertaud requires:

• Land use flexibility to allow affordable housing within 40 minutes from job locations; and,

• The possibility of travel to any part of the city within 1 hour.

The Lord Mayor described how the City of Melbourne hopes that a slower rate of growth post-Covid will enable the City to be more ‘thoughtful and considered’ about how to manage growth. This perhaps reveals an anxiety within the Melbourne planning profession about a market-led approach, and the ability to respond to market signals and maintain an efficient functioning labour market in the face of such rapid growth. Capp notes that in the past the City has achieved incremental change to the structure of the city, and that has been in the context of massive growth in private development, hoping that covid might allow instead for transformational change in the vein of Postcode 3000.

Seamer sees the role of planning as continuing to guide growth in a top-down manner and, in particular, to start planning for and investing in a shift to the suburbs. He notes that the CBD has historically seen a great deal of higher-level investment and believes that this needs to change post-Covid. In agreement

with Bertaud, he advocates for a freeing up of planning systems; decentralising to allow a greater number of planning systems to co-exist, particularly for development and redevelopment of suburban centres. This shift would reallocate spending of infrastructure dollars on projects that exacerbate CBD congestion to those that instead spread activity around the metropolis. Seamer called on the government to use this time of crisis to review lame-duck political promises such as the airport rail.

Short of a massive societal or political upheaval it is likely that post-Covid Melbourne will continue to be shaped by the forces of the neoliberal economy where growth is not only assumed but the goal itself, even if this approach takes on a decidedly more local or national focus. Too often in this city, planning finds itself choosing between the two extremes of either ‘managing growth’ (to mitigate or minimise its negative impacts) or cutting through ‘red tape’ (to facilitate growth and development). Bertaud provides us with an approach that enables planning to get out of the way and facilitate a market-led growth paradigm, while also harnessing this growth to ensure that it works for the people of this city; strategically navigating toward a desired social and economic vision of the city, with less emphasis on the physical representation of that city.

Tim is an experienced planner and urban designer with over fourteen years of professional experience working for the private sector across a broad spectrum of strategic and statutory planning, and urban design projects

Tim Nichols can be contacted at timn@Kinetica.net.au

Vale Annabel Viner

It is with tremendous sadness that we inform you of the unexpected and tragic death of one of our members, Annabel Viner.

Annabel has been a long term VPELA member who practiced as an environment and planning solicitor for over 25 years.

Annabel grew up in Perth and studied both there and in Darwin. She moved to Melbourne in 2000 to work for Mallesons and has subsequently worked at a number of other firms including Moray & Agnew, Maddocks and most recently Burke Lawyers.

Annabel was widely admired as a bright, intense and energetic lawyer who, like many, sought to juggle a professional career while also spending time with her young daughters.

She will be missed by many friends in the industry. We send our sincere condolences to her family, particularly her parents Ngaire and the Hon. Ian Viner AO. QC and her daughters Mia (14) and Bridget (11).

This news may raise particular concerns for you or someone you know. If it does, can I urge you to remember that there is never ever no-one to turn to, and to encourage you to reach out to a fellow member of the VPELA family, or to one of the many support services available at:

www.ruok.org.au/how-to-ask www.beyondblue.org.au/who-does-it-affect www.oneinfive.com.au/our-story/how-we-began

Tamara Brezzi, President, VPELA

The Business Municipal Matters

Is possession nine tenths of the Law?

This theme has emerged from recent Supreme Court and Court of Appeal (VSCA) decisions. Just because you are the registered proprietor of land, doesn’t mean that you are immune from part of it being “possessed” by another to your exclusion. In the case of easements and adverse possession, if you are aware that an adjoining owner has encroached onto your land and you do nothing about it, beware (see the Whittlesea City Council decision below). Compulsory acquisition of land for a public purpose by an Authority can also lead to dispossession, without a right to be heard.

Easement by prescription/doctrine of lost modern grant

Laming v Jennings [2018] VSCA 335: Jennings had claimed adverse possession over adjoining land (the disputed land) owned by Laming at Ferny Creek. If that claim was unsuccessful, then Jennings sought an easement over the disputed land. The matter was heard at first instance by the Victorian County Court1 (VCC) which found that the claim for adverse possession was not made out. However, the Judge upheld a claim for an easement for recreation over the disputed land.

Laming appealed to the VSCA against the VCC decision to grant an easement over the disputed land. The legal fiction on which the principle of lost modern grant depends is that the paper owner (the title holder) has conferred a right by way of a grant of that right, but that the grant is lost.

The VSCA2 found that: “Essentially, an easement arising by a presumption of lost modern grant will be found where there is an open and uninterrupted enjoyment of land for at least 20 years that is not explained by an express grant of an easement or permission to use the land”.

Back to basics

The requirements for a valid easement as set out in the VCC decision3 are:

a. There must be a dominant and servient tenement

b. The easement must accommodate the dominant tenement

c. The owners of the dominant and servient tenements must be different from each other; and

d. The right or claim must be capable of being the subject matter of a grant

and the matters necessary to create an easement by prescription were identified 4 as:

• The doing of an act by a person(s) upon the land of another;

• The absence of right to do that act in the person doing it;

Julie Davis Barrister

• The knowledge of the person affected by it that the act is done;

• The power of the person affected by the act to prevent it; and

• That person’s failure to do so.

The VSCA observed that in the case of both adverse possession and an easement by prescription, although the common law recognises long-established de facto enjoyment of property, it was as much the lapse of time which barred an owner from asserting ownership; or alternatively giving rise to a presumption that the owner had done something which conferred title in the person in de facto possession.5

Knowledge of the owner of the disputed land

The knowledge or lack thereof of the owner of the land that is the subject of a claim is a matter which must be given considerable weight in the decision making process. This could take the form of both actual knowledge and, in certain circumstances, some forms of constructive knowledge.

Actual knowledge may include the knowledge of agents of the principal. Constructive knowledge on the other hand is more difficult to establish and requires knowledge that a reasonably diligent owner would have obtained exercising reasonable care in protecting its own rights and interests. The acts of the claimant, and the response of the owner must both be considered. The assertion of a right must be evident; and it must not be by way of violence, stealth or by request.6

It was found that Jennings was never in ‘possession’ of the disputed land; and had offered to buy the disputed land which of itself constituted acknowledgement that another person owned the land (it follows that Jennings occupation of it was not therefore “adverse” to that ownership).

Insofar as an “easement for recreation” over the subject land was concerned, such an easement had been found in Jennings favour by the VSC. The VSCA held however that, although such an easement is a recognised and permissible form of easement, the contexts in which easements for recreation had been upheld previously were very different to that in the present case. Easements in other cases were created over land which had a common or communal character. The disputed land in the case of Jennings could not be said to have been used in a communal manner; or dedicated for the purposes of communal recreation.7 In addition Jennings relied on evidence that Telstra (a prior owner of the disputed land) had knowledge of the use of the land by him and his predecessors. That evidence was not accepted. The decision of the VSC was therefore overturned.

Adverse possession

Whittlesea City Council v Laurice Abbatangelo [2009] VSCA 188: Note that in this case, Council owned land was the subject of a

claim in adverse possession. The Limitation of Actions Act (LAA Act) excludes claims against Water Authorities, Victorian Rail Track, PTC and common property in addition to Council land registered under the Transfer of Land Act.8

Section 8 of the Act is familiar to most people, and provides that:

“No action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of fifteen years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or, if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that person”.

In this case a claim for adverse possession was made with respect to Council owned vacant General Law land (the disputed land), a claim which is not excluded by the LAA Act. The Supreme Court9 at first instance had found that the Abbatangelos had acquired title to the land by adverse possession. The Whittlesea City Council appealed this decision. The decision was upheld by the VSCA. An abridged version of the basic principles applicable to adverse possession claims as set out by the VSCA ([9]) is:

• the owner of land with the paper title is deemed to be in possession of the land unless there is evidence to the contrary;

• A person claiming possession of land must have factual possession and an intention to possess (an intention to exercise exclusive control; enclosure of the land is the most cogent evidence of adverse possession);

• Factual possession may be evidenced by the possessor dealing with the land in question as though it were his own;

• The intention to possess to the exclusion of others must be made clear to the world;

• Periods of possession may be aggregated, so long as there is no gap in possession; and

• Acts of possession with respect to only part of land claimed by way of adverse possession may in all the circumstances constitute acts of possession with respect to all the land claimed.

The VSCA set out additional principles that were relevant to this case. It is clear that each case very much depends on its own facts and circumstances; and that a person seeking to establish the requisite possession must provide a thorough record of the elements on which they rely.

“In considering whether the putative adverse possessor has factual possession, a court has regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature, position and characteristics of the land… Each case must be decided on its own particular facts….. previous cases .. should be treated with caution in terms of seeking factual analogies by reference to particular feature of a person’s dealings with land. Acts that evidence factual possession in one case may be wholly inadequate to prove it in another.“10

With regard to an intention to possess land, it is helpful to consider the VSCA’s findings11 that the use of the disputed land must amount to more than casual acts of trespass (for example occasional grazing of cattle, occasional sporting activities, and the like). But in the case of the Abbatangelos’, they had used the land over a considerable amount of time for a variety of uses which together amounted to more than mere use, or mere casual acts of trespass. Those acts constituted the taking of exclusive possession and manifested an intention to do so.

This decision is essential reading if you have an adverse possession claim you need to consider.

Compulsory acquisition

Melbourne Water Corporation, & Yarra Valley Water Corporation v Caligiuri [2020] VSCA 16: Compulsory acquisition – the acquisition of land for a public purpose subject to payment of compensation – will divest a land owner of his or her land. The Caligiuri decision is a departure from the usual contest over the amount of compensation that should be paid. Novel arguments were raised with respect to the acquisition process and procedural fairness.

It is important to bear in mind in this case that the subject land had not been reserved for a public purpose. The Governor in Council had certified that reservation was ‘unnecessary, undesirable or contrary to the public interest’ as provided for by s 5 (3) of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (LAC Act). This reservation excluded Caligiuri from being heard prior to the acquisition being effected. The Victorian Supreme Court12 (VSC) considered whether this amounted to a failure to accord procedural fairness.

The VSC had held that a precondition of an order to effect a transfer of land pursuant to s. 19 (service of a Notice of Acquisition of the land – NOA) of the LAC Act was that the land owners should be afforded an opportunity to be heard. If that proposition was correct, it could have had far reaching consequences for all future acquisitions under the LAC Act. (The steps taken under ss 5 and 6 were not expressed to be conditional on such a right).13

Interestingly, the parties subsequently came to an agreement to overturn that decision and jointly asked the Court of Appeal to determine that the VSC was wrong; and that there was no right to be heard by the owner of the acquired land. The VSCA considered the process involved in a compulsory acquisition under the LAC Act commencing at s. 5 including requiring the reservation of the land for a public purpose by way of a planning scheme amendment. This process (under the Planning and Environment Act) raises a number of opportunities for people to make submissions, that is, be heard, about the proposed amendment. However, s. 5(3) enables a certification by the Governor in Council that reservation of the land for a public purpose is not required, which of itself removes any right to be heard.

The VSCA acknowledged that there was a right to be heard at the outset if the land was reserved for a public purpose by way of a planning scheme amendment (s. 5(1) LAC Act). The VSCA observed14 that:

“The reservation of land for a public purpose creates what is referred to as ‘planning blight’. It inhibits the use and development of the land. In recognition of this, Part 5 of the Planning and Environment Act provides for compensation to be paid where the owner or occupier of land suffers loss as a result of the land being reserved for a public purpose……The service of a notice of intention to acquire also has dramatic consequences for a land owner … “

Notwithstanding that a person whose land has been “certified” under s. 5(3) LAC Act has no right to be heard, the VSCA

determined that s. 19 did not open the door to that opportunity. S. 19 it was said is “a machinery provision. It contains the mechanism to effect the transfer of the land to the Authority … it does not impliedly re-open the question as to whether the acquisition should take place …”15

Adopting the wisdom of the High Court of Australia in Annetts v McCann16 that

“… when a statute confers power upon a public official to destroy, defeat or prejudice a person’s right, interests or legitimate expectation, the rules of natural justice regulate the exercise of that power unless they are excluded by plain words of necessary intendment”

and Kioa v West17

“To ascertain what must be done to comply with the principles of natural justice in a particular case, the starting point is the statute creating the power. By construing the statute, one ascertains not only whether the power is conditioned on observance of the principles of natural justice but also whether there are any special procedural steps which, being prescribed by statute, extend or restrict what the principles of natural justice would otherwise require”.

and upon careful consideration of s. 8 (containing provisions with respect to the form and content of a NOITA), the VSCA found that s. 8 was designed to elicit information relevant to the assessment of compensation prior to the publication of the NOA, and did not invite comment about whether the land should in fact

Future trends

The first two storey 3D printed building

Dubai is laying down foundations for the future of its construction industry, after unveiling the largest 3D printed building on the planet. Officials said 3D printing techniques would transform how the construction sector operates.

Standing 9.5 metres tall and with a total area of 640 square metres, it has been built using onsite 3D printing equipment with local components.The process works by layering a fluid material along a predetermined route mapped out by computer, similar to an inkjet printer.

“This project is a major turning point in the construction sector,” said Dawoud Al Hajri, Dubai Municipality Director General. “3D printing technologies in construction will increase the speed of execution and [lead to the] completion of buildings in record time. This will significantly reduce construction and waste costs and contribute to the development of solutions to demographic challenges.”

be compulsorily acquired. That decision had already been made and the NOITA was the public expression of that intention.

The VSCA did not support the conclusion of the VSC. The VSCA found instead that the VSC had read into s. 8(1) words that were not there. That is, if the legislation had intended a right to be heard, then s. 8(1) would be expected to require the NOITA to inform the recipient of the right to make submissions and adduce evidence as to whether the acquisition should proceed. It did not do so.

JulieDavisLLB;MasterofBusiness(CorporateGovernance), Barrister experienced in Environment, Land, Water, Planning and Local Government Law. e: julie.r.davis@vicbar.com.au

1 Laming v Jennings [2017] VCC 1223

2 [81]

3 [37]

4 [41] Sunshine Retail Investments Pty Ltd v Wulff: [1999] VSC 415

5 R v Oxfordshire County Council; Ex parte Sunningwell Parish Council[2000] 1 AC 335, 349

6 83

7 [145]

8 Sections 7 – 7C Limitation of Actions Act 1958 – “LAA”

9 [2007] VSC 529

10 S. 6(c)

11 [98]

12 Caligiuri & Anor v Attorney General on behalf of the State of Victoria & Ors (No. 2) [2019] VSC 365

13 S.5 – Reservation or certification of the land required before acquisition; s. 6 – Service of a notice of intention to acquire the land

14 [65]

15 [66]

16 (1970) 170 CLR 596

17 (1985) 159 CLR 550

Places

Distinctive Areas & Landscapes: A question of value

What is landscape assessment?

Landscape assessment is a field of expertise, typically undertaken within Australia by Registered Landscape Architects, which seeks to identify, describe and analyse landscapes in order to inform the preparation of strategies and policies for their ongoing management. Within Victoria, these strategies and policies are typically prepared for or by Local or State Government and are reflected within Planning Schemes through State and Local Planning Policy and implemented via planning controls, most typically Significant Landscape and Environmental Significance Overlays.

Visual impact assessment – whilst intrinsically related to landscape assessment – differs as a field of expertise in that it is a reactionary process which seeks to analyse and assess the impact of specific development proposals upon the inherent values or significance of the landscape within which they are proposed to be located.

Both landscape assessment and visual impact assessment require an understanding of landscape character and landscape value (or significance).

What is the difference between landscape character and landscape value?

Landscape character – like neighbourhood character – is a descriptive construct. Identifying and describing landscape character types involves the description of homogenous patterns of characteristics such as landform, vegetation, water form and land use as well as individual features which make an area identifiable. Landscape Architects are trained to understand and appreciate landscape as a composition of definable elements, based on their own expertise, and through reference to recognised ‘best practice’ guidelines.

There is currently no national level guideline document for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) in Australia. Landscape Architects in Australia have instead relied on guidance offered by other international Landscape Architecture Institutes and Government bodies. Many assessments undertaken in Victoria have referenced Guidance for Landscape and Visual

Steve Schutt Director, Hansen Partnership

Impact Assessment (GLVIA) (2013) prepared by the British Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.

Landscape value (or significance) is a qualitative construct. Values or preferences refer to the value placed on a landscape or landscape feature by the community, based primarily on its perceived visual quality. The manner by which community values are elicited typically involves engagement with those communities along with reference to pre-determined ‘visual landscape preference indicators’, which are typically developed by Landscape Architects using community preference research to identify criteria that are relevant to community evaluation of landscapes.

The Victorian context

The seminal work on landscape character assessment within Victoria is Landscape Character Types of Victoria, with Frames of Reference for Scenic Quality Assessment, written by Leonard, M. and Hammond, R and published in 1984 by the Forests Commission of Victoria. Following that, a number of key State Government publications were prepared in the early 2000’s:

• Great Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study (GORRLAS) in 2003, and

• Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study (CSLAS) in 2006. Both include an assessment of ‘landscape character’ and an assessment of ‘landscape significance’ based on varied criteria. The GORRLAS assessed landscape significance based on landscape features, landscape edges, scarcity, and visitation. The CSLAS built on this methodology to include an appreciation of views.

The Planning and Environment Amendment (Distinctive Areas and Landscapes) Act 2018 enables better management of the periurban areas around metropolitan Melbourne and Victoria’s regional cities. According to the Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (DELWP), it strengthens the process for protecting social, environmental and economic values in these key areas.

The legislation enables a distinctive area and landscape to be declared by Government, based on criteria outlined in the Act. A declared area requires Government to prepare a Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) in partnership with Traditional Owners, local councils and communities to provide long-term certainty about how the area’s state significant values will be safeguarded, while providing certainty for managed growth.

Within this context, DELWP has determined that the methodology for determining landscape value has evolved since 2003 and 2006, and a more rigorous approach to determining landscape value is required, particularly in relation to ensuring that planning controls for the protection and management of landscapes are justifiable, defendable and evidence based.

Macedon Ranges was the first area declared under the legislation in 2019, and DELWP is now proceeding with work in three other locations:

• The eastern section of Surf Coast Shire;

• The Bellarine Peninsula (comprising parts of the City of Greater Geelong and the Borough of Queenscliff), and

• Bass Coast Shire.

Planning & Environment Division

COVID-19 Digital Response Program Phase 2

Since July 2020, the Planning and Environment Division (PED) is managing all new applications as digital case files. This means VCAT has been able to continue to progress matters in PED through audio visual platforms in a COVID safe environment. I am pleased to announce some further enhancements to our digital processes.

New web multi-step online forms

The following improvements and additions have been made to our online forms in PED:

• New web multi-step format for an enhanced user experience

• Ability to save draft online forms

• New integrated payment functionality for application fees and statement of grounds fees

Addition of five new online forms:

• Practice Note 9 Form A - Notice of an Amendment of an Application

• Practice Note 9 Form B - Statement of Service

• Statement of Grounds by a Respondent (Enforcement)

• Statement of Grounds by an Affected Person (Enforcement)

• Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit

Bookmark our new online forms so that we can process your applications faster and more efficiently - Planning List Online Forms

What are the implications of DAL for landowners?

The primary implication of the DAL Program for owners of peri-urban and non-urban land is the imposition of additional planning controls, some of which have the potential to change or limit the range of future use and development opportunities for that land.

Community and landowner engagement are proceeding on the basis of publicly available Discussion Papers in each of the three locations, with late-2020 targeted for the finalisation of Statements of Planning Policy for each. Opportunities for engagement are available via the project website;

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/distinctiveareas-and-landscapes

Land owners within Surf Coast Shire, the Bellarine Peninsula and Bass Coast Shire – and the legal and planning professionals who advise them on planning and development issues – should ensure they take adequate steps to prepare for the arrival of the DALs, including advice from Registered Landscape Architects on the potential significance of the landscapes within which their land sits. To be forewarned is to be forearmed, and – with respect to land management and future development opportunities – having a clear, evidence-based understanding of landscape value could likely have a direct benefit in the protection of future land value.

Steve Schutt is a Director of Hansen Partnership and Registered Landscape Architect with over 25 years professional experience.

e: sschutt@hansenpartnership.com.auDistinctive Areas and Landscapes Program (DAL)

New Notice of Decision online form for Responsible Authorities

• Responsible authorities are strongly encouraged to use our new Notice of Decision Online Form

• An automatic email will now be sent to the Responsible Authority when an objector application (section 82) has been filed

• The new process will assist both VCAT and responsible authorities manage this important process

Naming conventions

• A list of naming conventions for use when corresponding to VCAT and parties has been prepared

• The naming conventions will automatically map certain correspondence to our case files

• Utilise our standardised naming conventions when sending correspondence and documentation to increase response times. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list

• Refer to the naming conventions on our website

New format Parties List

• The new format Parties List makes it easier to identify the parties and representatives in a proceeding. The new Excel format also assists in managing service of multiple party proceedings

The Division will provide updates about any further changes to our processes as we continue to build on our digital capability. Check the latest news and updates on the VCAT website and LinkedIn

People

Sharing our journeys on wellbeing and mental health

Editor’s Note: In the wake of losing members to deaths in 2019 and 2020, VPELA member Cazz Redding tells her own story; to raise awareness and understanding. VPELA cares for its member and we would welcome members contributions on this topic in following issues.

I have a serious mental health illness called bipolar disorder. This affects your mood and is characterised by periods of mania or hypermania followed by periods of clinical depression. It can be managed with a combination of medication, therapy and lifestyle choices, but not cured.

When I am manic, I have enormous amounts of energy, elevated mood, I talk too fast and too much, I can be impulsive, delusional and indiscrete. I can go for days with only two or three hours sleep a night. There are other symptoms, but they are too embarrassing to talk about!

Clinical depression is much more familiar to most people. For me it manifests as lack of motivation, sadness, feelings of hopelessness and an excessive need for sleep. I can find it hard to see the purpose of life. Sometimes I experience overwhelming anxiety and panic attacks.

I was diagnosed fifteen years ago and that is when and why I started my own business. I realised I was unable to work in highly structured and political environments and stay well. The organisation I was working with at the time was unable to accommodate someone like me. I was completely devastated at having to resign from what was my dream job, but I had to. I knew if I stayed my life was at risk. I do not write this lightly.

I now specialise in policy drafting which provides flexibility and not too much pressure. I have been able to operate my business remotely which has allowed me to move to a much lower stress environment in North East Victoria. I have been very fortunate. I have been embraced by organisations like Planning Panels Victoria and the PIA PLANET Program

which provide flexible work options, valuable mentorship and allow me to make a meaningful contribution to our industry. Almost all of my clients have been extremely supportive when I have needed to take a break.

My bipolar disorder it is managed very well, but I am conscious that statistically speaking I am most likely to die from suicide. This extremely confronting knowledge guides every single decision I make in my life (as a sole parent) in order to protect myself and my son.

I know it is hard for people to gauge when I am becoming unwell. I tend to appear to perform at my very best just as I am entering a state of unwellness. It is almost impossible for people to pick up when I am sick and most in need of help. This is not uncommon. I share this story to help people who have not experienced mental illness get some insight into what it means and how tricky it can be to both recognise and support someone who is mentally unwell.

I think organisational processes have improved since those dark days for me in 2005. The Covid-19 experience has shown us workplaces can actually be far more flexible and accommodating than perhaps it was thought they could be. And this approach, along with kindness and empathy, is exactly what people living with or experiencing mental illness, like every other type of illness, need to remain well and at their most productive.

Cazz Redding is the Principal of Redink Planning, a town planning consultancy specialising in strategy development and policy drafting based in Bright, Victoria. She has been planning since 1999 and has also been a sessional member of Planning Panels Victoria since 2009.

Cazz Redding cazz@redinkplanning.com.au

NOTE: If this article has raised issues for you, please contact a friend, or organisations such as Beyond Blue 1300 22 4636, or Lifeline 13 11 14.

Caz Redding Redink Planning

The Business Legal World

Permits the power to cancel, unusual condition and other restrictions

Skabal Pty Ltd v Boroondara City Council [2020] VSC 532

An unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of VCAT that it lacked power to cancel a permit. The appellant held the benefit of a carriageway easement, which was considerably reduced in size via the planning permit and subdivision process. Notice of the easement variation application failed to come to the attention of the appellant until after the variation had been registered on title. The appellant ultimately wanted the easement restored to its original dimensions.

In Skabal Pty Ltd v Boroondara City Council [2020] VSC 532, the appellant, Skabal Pty Ltd (Skabal) sought leave to appeal against the earlier decision of the Tribunal, and if granted, sought an order setting aside the Tribunal’s decision and either an order directing the Registrar of Titles to cancel the variation of the easement, or an order remitting the application to be heard and determined by a differently constituted Tribunal. Justice Richards dismissed the application, confirming VCAT’s earlier decision that it had no power to cancel a planning permit that allowed for the variation of an existing easement in circumstances where the easement application had already been registered by the Registrar of Titles.

Skabal Pty Ltd (Skabal) Skabal owned a commercial premises that had the benefit of a 42.67m long carriageway easement that encumbered adjoining land owned by the Bonomos. The easement ran along the entire length of the boundary between the two properties. In late 2017, the Bonomos applied to the Boroondara City Council (the Council) for a planning permit to vary the easement by reducing its length from 42.67 metres to 16.46 metres largely on the basis that this portion of the easement wasn’t utilised by Skabal or its tenants. Under clause 52.02 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required before a person can create, vary or remove an easement under clause 23 of the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic).

In processing the application, Council mailed out written notice to persons it considered affected by the variation of easement, including Skabal and its tenants of the benefitting land. However, due to a combination of administrative errors and sheer bad luck, the notice was never brought to the attention of Skabal. In the absence of any opposition, Council granted the Bonomos’ permit application, and the plan of variation of easement was registered on 14 February 2018. Skabal was alerted to the variation of easement upon receiving a letter from the Bonomos’ solicitor asking the tenants of Skabal’s property to cease use of the portion of the easement that had been removed.

In October 2018, Skabal applied to VCAT to have the permit cancelled. In Skabal Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2019] VCAT 1160,

Senior

the Tribunal ordered that it did not have the power to cancel the permit as ‘the variation of an easement is a form of development. Once the variation has occurred and it has been registered on the relevant Certificate of Title, the Tribunal has no power to consider cancellation of the permit’ [59].

Justice Richards agreed with the Tribunal in its findings that it did not have the power to cancel the permit under section 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The ‘development’ to which the permit related was substantially carried out when the plan of variation of easement was registered on the title to the encumbered land in February 2018. By the time Skabal requested the Tribunal to cancel the permit, the permit was spent and could no longer be cancelled under s 88(b).

Section 88(a)-(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 sets out three circumstances in which the Tribunal may exercise its power to cancel or amend a permit. Unless paragraph (a), (b) or (c) applies, the Tribunal has no power to cancel or amend the permit. Her Honour held that a permit to remove or vary an easement does not fall within the operation of section 88(a), which ‘concerns a permit relating to the construction of buildings or the carrying out of other works’ [58(c)], nor does it fall within section 88(c) as the variation of an easement does not relate to the use of the land, but rather it ‘authorises an alteration of proprietary interests in land’ [58(d)]. Her Honour agreed with the Tribunal’s reasoning in categorising the removal or variation of an easement as the ‘development of land’ under section 88(b).

However, the balance of section 88(b) stipulates that where the ‘development of land’ to which a permit relates has been substantially carried out, the Tribunal no longer has the power to cancel the permit. In this case, upon registration of the plan of variation of easement, the permit was spent and the ‘development of land’ carried out. At that point in time, Council was unable to cancel the permit under section 88(b). Her Honour noted that despite this application failing, it was open to Skabal to make its own application to Council for a permit to vary the easement to reinstate it to its original length.

Regional Billboard Co Pty Ltd v Surf Coast SC [2020] VCAT 735

Electronic Promotion Sign condition, which restricted advertisements to only those which contained ‘materials/imagery that complement the surf and beach culture of Torquay ‘etc. held to be invalid.

The Tribunal considered the validity of Condition 4 of a planning permit granted by the Surf Coast Shire Council (Council) to Regional Billboard Co Pty Ltd for the installation and display of an Electronic Promotion Sign at a Torquay site. The Tribunal found the condition to be vague and uncertain, and accordingly invalid.

…continues over page

Tess Kerridge

Associate, Holding Redlich

The Tribunal, constituted by Member Kerrie Birtwistle, reviewed Condition 4 of the permit that read, ‘The sign hereby permitted must only contain materials/imagery that complement the surf and beach culture of Torquay through the dominance of images and pictures of surfing and the coast, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority’. Regional Billboard Co submitted that the condition was unworkable, lacked clarity and unreasonably restricted the visual content of the sign.

Council submitted that the purpose of Condition 4 was to ensure that anything displayed on the Electronic Promotion Sign directly linked to the Torquay Surf Centre. Condition 4 reflected both the design objectives and decision guidelines of the DDO7, which provide for a clear direction on signage imagery. The condition was a prerequisite for their support for the issue of a planning permit.

The Tribunal held that in order for a responsible authority to impose conditions on planning permits, they must meet the common law tests for validity. Broadly, these relate to relevance, certainty and reasonableness. Where a permit condition is too vague or uncertain, it can be declared invalid.

Council listed a number of examples of what types of signage would not be consistent with Condition 4 (tourism, local land development, TAC advertising, CFA advertising) however the Tribunal found that each of these advertisements could meet Condition 4 merely by containing imagery/materials that complement the surf and beach culture of Torquay (subject to Council’s satisfaction, per condition 4).

Despite Council’s submission that Condition 4 was intended to ensure that any images displayed on the sign were linked to the Torquay Surf Centre, the Tribunal found that Condition 4 did not provide for this. Condition 4 as read did not refer to the Torquay Surf Centre at all.

The Tribunal found that the condition required an assessment of terms that are not defined under the Planning Scheme, such as ‘surf and beach culture’ and ‘dominance of images and pictures’. These words required a subjective assessment that provided no certainty to the parties. Council was unable to articulate with any certainty what nature of signage would be supported by it, leaving the permit holder with very little clarity as to its obligations and rights under the permit.

Condition 4 was ordered to be deleted from the planning permit on the basis that it lacked clarity.

Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd v South Gippsland Shire Council [2020] VSC 512 (18 August 2020)

Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd sought judicial review of the South Gippsland Shire Council’s resolution that the wind farm produced noise constituting an ‘intermittent nuisance’. Bald Hills Wind Farm’s application was unsuccessful.

Five local residents (the Complainants) submitted noise complaints to the South Gippsland Shire Council pursuant to s 62 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) (the Act), which the Council investigated. The Council did not to take

administrative action against Bald Hills Wind Farm or attempt to prosecute under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) (as it is empowered to do), but instead passed a resolution in March 2019 to the effect that the noise transmitted from the wind farm constituted an ‘intermittent nuisance’, adversely impacting on the health and wellbeing of the individual complainants.

Bald Hills Wind Farm sought judicial review of the Council’s resolution on the basis that its decision was subject to jurisdictional error. It sought an order of certiorari to quash the decision or seek a declaration that the Council’s resolution was invalid and void. The defendants, made up of the Council and five local landowners, opposed the application.

This was a judicial review proceeding, that is, the Court did not consider the merits of the Council’s resolution as to whether the wind farm was in fact creating a nuisance. The Complainants have brought their own proceedings in nuisance against the wind farm operator seeking damages and injunctive relief (as yet unresolved).

Bald Hills Wind Farm was held to have standing to bring the application based on the fact that the Council’s finding of nuisance adversely affected its reputation. Bald Hills Wind Farm argued that the Council did not give consideration to the ‘reasonableness factors’ that are relevant to a determination of nuisance at common law:

‘To constitute a nuisance, the interference must be unreasonable. In making that judgment, regard is had to a variety of factors including: the nature and extent of the harm or interference; the social or public interest value in the defendant’s activity; the hypersensitivity (if any) of the user or use of the claimant’s land; the nature of established uses in the locality (eg residential, industrial, rural); whether all reasonable precautions were taken to minimise any interference; and the type of damage suffered.’ (Southern Properties (WA) Pty Ltd v Executive Director of the Department of Conservation and Land Management 2012] WASCA 79)

The Court found that those reasonableness factors were not mandatory considerations, and even if they were, the wind farm operator did not establish that the Council disregarded any matter put to it, or that it overlooked anything that was material to its finding.

In response to the application to quash the decision, Her Honour held the Council’s resolution had no legal effect or consequence therefore there was nothing that could be quashed. A finding of reputational damage is not a legal effect that can be quashed by an order in the nature of certiorari.

Importantly, the Court held that a council would not fall into jurisdictional error just because it made a finding of nuisance that was later found to be wrong. While a council must address itself to the right question and take into account mandatory considerations (i.e ‘tick’ all the administrative boxes), a wrong answer to the question is nonetheless and error made within its jurisdiction.

The Business Land use characterisation always real,

It is interesting how concepts that are quotable, or have a memorable name seem to be those that ‘stick’ and become very important. In Victorian planning law, we have terms such as, a ‘planning unit’, ‘secondary consent’, ‘transformation’,’ futility’, ‘piecemeal’, ‘premature’, ‘warehousing’, Kantor, Reichert, Tashounidis, ‘agent of change’, ‘reverse amenity’, ‘innominate uses’, ‘non-conforming uses’ and ‘seriously entertained planning proposals’.

Within this lexicon – not to mention ‘quotability’ – stands Ashley J’s analysis of the ‘real and substantial purpose’ test in Cascone v City of Whittlesea (1993) 11 AATR 175. For interest, we are going back to 1993 to discuss this decision, to get underneath Ashley J’s quotable but somewhat opaque 6 points of principle (not unlike His Honour’s seven-point list in Kantor). Whilst ‘real and substantial purpose’ are the words that have stuck, we’ll see that Ashley J only gave tepid support to this phrase. Nonetheless, now adopted as a term of art, the phrase embodies a meaning not fully captured in its words, hence our interest in going back to basics in this article.

Cascone

A video cassette wholesaler who sold to stores like Movieland etc. operated from a warehouse in an industrial estate in Thomastown. Google Street View shows that the subject site looks like this in 2020:

1. The ancillary misdirection

The Tribunal thought that a Section 1 or 2 use could be an ancillary use, but a Section 3 prohibited use could not. Whilst this is a pretty specific point, it underpins a more important misunderstanding of ‘use’ and ‘ancillary use’, as the Court found. The error is that an ‘ancillary use’ is not in fact a ‘use’ for characterisation purposes at all. Rather, an ‘ancillary use’ is merely a sub-component of activity that forms part of the ‘real’ use. Under planning schemes, ‘use’ is characterised by reference to the purpose being served, not the activities being undertaken per se. For example, one business renting out ‘20 videos per day’ might be running a shop, because the real purpose of the operation is to retail videos to the public. Another business might be undertaking the same activity, yet for a different purpose (e.g., as was argued in Cascone, a ‘market research’ type purpose supporting wholesaling activities). Thus, it all depends on purpose.

2. The ‘real and substantial purpose’ test

A question on the appeal was whether the Tribunal was bound to apply the ‘real and substantial purpose’ approach to characterisation. The genesis of this ‘test’ comes from Shire of Perth v O’Keefe (1964) 110 CLR 529 (an existing use rights case, but subsequently adopted in characterisation cases too) where Kitto J said:

The business was itself set up like a video store so that retailers could come in, ‘get the full experience’ and pick out movies that would be successful in their stores. However, the wholesaler also rented and sold some movies direct to the public. This accounted for about 28% of its turnover. It said that this part of the business was a type of ‘market testing’, to help it ‘talk the talk and walk the walk’, so to speak. ‘Shop’ was prohibited. Did the retailing activity mean the use impermissibly included ‘Shop’?

The Council thought so – it brought enforcement action. The Tribunal agreed. It thought several types of use were occurring, one being a prohibited ‘shop’. The Court didn’t determine what the answer was, but did find two errors in the Tribunal’s reasons, as follows:

“First it is required that a purpose be identified as the end for which it can be seen that the premises are being used at the date of gazettal of the by-laws. Then the provision is made that the land may continue to be used for that purpose: not that the precise manner of use for that purpose may alone continue but that use generally for that purpose may continue. The application of the by-law in a particular case has therefore not to be approached through a meticulous examination of the details of processes or activities, or through a precise cataloguing of individual items of goods dealt in, but by asking what, according to ordinary terminology, is the appropriate designation of the purpose being served by the use of the premises at the material date. This question being answered, it remains only to inquire … whether that use is really and substantially a use for the designated purpose.”

The Tribunal didn’t apply this test. Instead, it focussed on whether the activities occurring on the land did or did not fall within the definition of the prohibited land use, ‘shop’. As noted, the question was whether the Tribunal was bound to apply the ‘real and substantial purpose’ test. Ashley J’s answer to this was (our words) ‘kinda’. You can say ‘real and substantial’ or you can just say ‘purpose’ – provided you know what you mean! However you express it, the enquiry centres on purpose, not activity.

Michael Pavlidis and Sean McArdle

sometimes substantial

The quote

Thus, we come to the highly quotable 6 dot points Ashley J wrote at the end of his lengthy decision and add our commentary in the right hand column:

Ashley J Us

(1) In characterising the proposed use of premises, it is always necessary to ascertain the purpose of the proposed use.

(2) Whilst intended use of premises, in the sense of activities, processes or transactions to be undertaken, will be useful in casting light upon the purpose of the proposed use, it is wrong to determine the relevant purpose simply by identifying activities, processes or transactions and then fitting them to some one or more uses as defined in a scheme.

(3) It is wrong to approach the ascertainment of purpose of proposed use on the footing that it must fit within one (or more) of the uses defined in a scheme; at least that is so where there is provision for innominate uses in the scheme.

(4) The ascertainment of purpose of a proposed use may yield the result that the purpose revealed very largely falls within a defined use. The extent to which it does not may be so trifling that it should be ignored. In that event the purpose as revealed should be taken to fall within the defined use.

(5) The ascertainment of purpose of a proposed use may yield the result that more than one separate and distinct purpose is revealed. In that event the question initially arises whether one is dominant. The further question that may arise is whether the lesser purpose or purposes are ancillary to the dominant purpose. If the answer to both questions is ‘Yes”, and the dominant purpose is available as of right or is permitted, the lesser purpose or purposes are legitimised. Then, in planning terms, there is but one purpose. But if the answer to the first question is “No”, each revealed purpose must be available as of right or permitted, else there will be a breach of the scheme. The mere fact that one purpose is authorised will not prevent other revealed purposes from being prohibited.

(6) In resolving the problems of characterisation raised in the preceding paragraphs(1) to (5) the preferable view, in my opinion, is that the adjectival phrase “real and substantial” qualifying “use” will always be nominally present But it is unlikely to be of practical importance in many cases. It will always serve to emphasise that there is a distinction between “purpose of use” and “use” in the sense of activities, processes or transactions. It should not be used to cloud the potential for more than one purpose being revealed. It should not be thought to provide a basis for treating a combination of activities, processes or transactions as necessarily attracting the appellation of “innominate use”. (our emphasis)

Purpose not activity!

Activities – e.g. ‘drive trucks to site with dirt and dump it’ –sheds light on purpose of use but is not determinative. You could be ‘driving trucks to site to dump dirt’ to fill a hole, or to offload unwanted soil. Same activity, different purpose and therefore different land use characterisation.

Self-explanatory

Self-explanatory

Ancillary should be understood to mean something like ‘helping’ or ‘assisting’, not ‘big v small’.

Similarly, dominant does not mean ‘biggest’ per se. In our view, it should be looked at more like a Venn diagram or as described by Kitto J in O’Keefe, a question of genus or class. As His Honour said: “If the activities, processes or transactions are capable of being treated as all or the majority of a species of a genus, then that genus may properly be regarded as describing the purpose of the use of the land. If they are not, then it may be that the only conclusion is that the land has been used for more than one purpose”.

‘A

rose by any other name.’

It doesn’t matter if you use the phrase “real and substantial purpose” or not, and in some ways it can be seen that focusing on the ordinary meaning of these words rather than understanding them as a term of art might lead to error (especially in the context of dominant and ancillary uses).

Michael Pavlidis is an aspiring planning lawyer, recently graduated and looking for future opportunities as a planning solicitor. He assists various planning barristers with planning law related research tasks. Michael Pavlidis michaelgpavlidis@gmail.com. Sean McArdle is a planning barrister at the Victorian Bar. sean.mcardle@vicbar.com.au

The Business Stress testing a Restrictive Covenant

When construing a restrictive covenant, a careful analysis of its various components is needed to understand its true effect, and indeed, whether it is effective at all.

For example, one covenant in Toorak dating back to the 1960s, purported to prevent part of the land from being developed to more than one storey. The sole beneficiary was the neighbouring land to the south. The dwelling had been constructed on the assumption the covenant was valid. However, close consideration of the chronology revealed that the purported covenantee had already sold the benefitted land by the time the covenant was signed and registered. The Supreme Court therefore agreed that the covenant was unenforceable, given that the covenantee had lost his ability to enter into the agreement at the time the covenant was purportedly made.1

In another case, a restrictive covenant in Altona had been the subject of extensive advertising in an application to modify what was believed to be a single dwelling restriction. However, closer examination revealed that the covenant suffered from the same flaw that was the subject of the following comment by Morris P in Thornton v Hobsons Bay City Council:2

11 In the present case the transferor has sought to identify the land to be benefited by reference to land remaining untransferred in a particular certificate of title. That method of identification purports to be a precise method. It follows, as Ms Tooher submitted, that there is less scope in such circumstances to use surrounding circumstances to identify the benefited land. The problem is that, at the time the transfer was made on 25 April 1953, certificate of title volume 6836, folio 089 was no longer in existence, it having been cancelled on 15 September 1952. Thus at that time there was no land remaining untransferred in that certificate of title. Hence notwithstanding the exactitude with which the draftsman of the covenant sought to achieve, in fact all he has achieved is a nonsense.

The Supreme Court agreed that the restrictive covenant was a nonsense and declared the restrictive covenant unenforceable.3

A degree of uncertainty now also surrounds relatively common covenants that purport to require plans to be approved by a now deceased person or deregistered corporation. In Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister 4 the approval of the vendor, in that case a company, was required for any construction on the subject land. The vendor company had subsequently been dissolved, and given the lapse of time could no longer be reregistered. Neuberger J noted that reading the restriction as now absolute, conformed with its strict literal interpretation. However, his Honour found that the restriction was discharged now that the vendor could not consent. Crest Nicholson was said to be “strongly persuasive” in 196 Hawthorn Road Pty Ltd v Duszniak 5

It should not be assumed that you will necessarily need to apply to the Supreme Court to have a covenant removed for reasons of defects or express limitation. For example, a covenant on the Mornington Peninsula was said to be for the benefit of the original vendor, its successors and transferees. The Covenant did not identify the land to be benefitted by the restriction contained in the Covenant and a letter to the Registrar of Titles was sufficient to have the covenant removed through the exercise of the Registrar’s powers under section 106 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958

1 Re Thaqi: S ECI 2020 01338.

2 [2004] VCAT 383.

3 Re Tran S CI 2018 02425.

4 [2003] 1 ALL ER 46, [52] (Neuberger J).

Matthew Townsend is a member of the Victorian Bar and maintains Restrictive Covenants and Easements in Victoria: a website providing cases, precedents and materials about modifying or removing restrictive covenants and easements

Matthew Townshend Barrister

A covenant from the Coonil Estate in Camberwell, the neighbourhood

The Fast Lane with Henry Turnbull

While we are all heartily sick of articles about Covid-19, it is timely to consider what might be some of the impacts on future travel patterns for Melbourne.

While it would be great if we were able to rid ourselves of the virus completely, this is most unlikely. Even with the administration of vaccines, we will still expect the virus to be around in some form or other for the foreseeable future.

During the pandemic, we have been constantly told to practice social distancing. The change in mindset resulting from the call for social distancing is likely to have significant long-term impacts on public transport use as commuters are going be to much less prepared to accept being jammed together during peak travel periods. The future design of public transport vehicles may well need to revert to the provision of more seated accommodation rather than tending to favour standing room as has occurred more recently.

It is significant that prior to the most recent lockdown, the use of public transport fell by more than 70% while the use of private motor vehicles fell initially, but then returned nearly to pre-Covid levels.

While public policy has been pushing for a reduction in the reliance on the motorcar, especially for commuter travel, the pandemic has changed the ground rules. Commuters feel safer in their car.

Henry Turnbull Consultant, Traffix Group

Similarly, we can expect to see an increase in bicycle use for commuting leading to an increased demand for end of trip facilities and a battle for road space. This is already happening in inner Melbourne.

It is reasonable to expect that there will be an overall reduction in commuter demands in the short-term as a result of people seeking to continue to work from home following the mandated work from home requirements. Many businesses and government departments have found that a portion of their work can be successfully done off-site. However, not all employees have found working from home an easy transition. There are many distractions and impediments to working from home but the improvement in the quality and availability of video meeting software together with the travel to work time savings for employees has somewhat offset the disadvantages. In particular, long distance commuters are attracted to the idea of working from home and will in many cases resist a return to daily office attendance.

It is likely that the post-Covid workplace will incorporate some working from home options where feasible. This might mean that instead of attending the office five days a week, an employee may only come in two or three days per week. In the longer term, working from home is likely to significantly impact on promotion and career opportunities so I expect that it will not be taken up universally.

So, what are the conclusions for future travel patterns that we might contemplate from our limited exposure to the pandemic so far?

I believe we will see:

• a continuing reliance on private car travel to work;

• an increased demand for parking in and around the CBD;

• a spread of travel times as commuters try to avoid excessively crowded public transport;

• a call for more seated accommodation in public transport;

• increased bicycle commuting and consequent demand for end of trip facilities; and,

• an increase in work at home arrangements in many administrative and professional service industries leading to a decrease in overall peak period commuter numbers, especially to the CBD from outer suburbs and regional centres.

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

The Business Sound bites What do acoustic consultants do during lockdown?

Never did I imagine that during 2020, there would be a global pandemic or that I would be writing a provocative piece for the VPELA Revue. As with most of 2020, everyone is learning to adapt and try something new. Hopefully writing this will not be as disastrous as my first attempt at sourdough or sewing facemasks!

Everyone has noticed a reduction of activity during lockdown periods within Victoria. There seems to be less traffic, less aircraft, and less people wherever you go (within your 5 km radius between the hours of 5 am and 9 pm of course!). I have seen various LinkedIn articles floating around discussing what changes Covid-19 has had on traffic flows and impacts on people using public spaces, but what does this mean for noise?

This reduced activity has started a healthy debate between acousticians around whether noise measurements conducted during lockdown are representative of usual traffic and background / ambient noise levels. Are noise levels recorded during lockdown representative of our ‘normal’ noise environments? Will noise levels ever be the same again? Did my neighbours enjoy my rendition of ‘It’s Because I Love You’ by The Master Apprentices on guitar as much as my mum did over zoom? The answers to these questions remain a mystery for now.

With everyone working from home, ambient noise levels from traffic may be at the lowest they have been for many years or could noise levels be higher during peak periods as cars are travelling faster due to lower traffic volumes. Has the influx of bored children and anguished parents increased the levels experienced in suburban areas? I am sure everyone is as eager as I am to answer these burning questions about their local noise environment. I personally have noticed both of the above scenarios while working from home, as well as learning the names of the local neighbourhood dogs while they are being scolded by their owners. And from the last count we currently have four (4) houses within 50 m being renovated during the pandemic (as I am writing this, I have been listening to the lovely sound of someone planing wood for the last 45 minutes from across the laneway).

Lucky for us the Victorian Division of the Australian Acoustical Society (AAS) has begun the process of coordinating a noise monitoring project. AAS members have commenced measuring noise levels in Melbourne during the lockdown and will repeat measurements again once restrictions have been lifted (whenever that may be). Finally, we may have some answers about the impact of Covid-19 on local noise levels. It is true that

Edward Griffen Marshall Day Acoustics

real heroes don’t wear capes, some hold sound level meters instead!

Victorian members of the AAS have volunteered their front yards, patios and Balinese inspired tropical gardens to help collate the required noise measurements to fulfill this project while abiding with the restrictions that are currently in place. Similar studies have also been commissioned in Paris and Lyon in France, and a similar campaign is being initiated by the UK Institute of Acoustics.

This project has caused me to think, what happens if things don’t go back to normal? What if noise levels do end up lower forever? What will this mean for industry, the planning fraternity, and the everyday Joe/Joelene. Will my local pub all of sudden have less patrons in the beer garden due to excessive patron noise levels rather than social distancing requirements? Will regional areas be experiencing higher noise levels due to the trend of people escaping to the country? Do my neighbours want me to start using headphones while playing the guitar?

It will be interesting to see the impact of Covid-19 on our future noise environments. Noise levels are generally one of the few things that are perceived subjectively between people, and which can add to the complexity of determining a reasonable outcome from a planning perspective.

For some, the sound of jets flying overhead may bring a smile to signify that travel is not that far away, the roar of happily revellers may cause you to reminisce of the AFL Grand Final at the MCG, or the sound of the bobcat next door digging your neighbours new pool may make you understand why noise legislation for industry is important.

It may be a long time before the post lockdown measurements are conducted and this study can be finalised, but just remember that your friendly acoustic consultants are always here and sounding out the answers to your burning questions.

Footnote: My neighbours prefer The Rolling Stones over The Master Apprentices.

Edward is a consultant based in Marshall Day’s Melbourne Office. He graduated with a Bachelor of Mechanical and Sustainable Energy Engineering from the University of Adelaide in 2015 and is part of the Marshall Day environmental team.

Edward Griffen EGriffen@marshallday.com

YPG Young Professional Group 2020 event wrap up

2020 has been a year like no other. The year saw a rapid forced change from the usual face-to-face environment to a new online-only world with people largely confined to the comforts of their own home.

Like all sectors of the industry and the wider community, VPELA’s Young Professional Group responded to the challenges of 2020 by adapting its usual suite of seminars to webinars in order to continue to deliver a range of educational, informative and often unique content for the benefit of VPELA’s young professional members.

The YPG thanks all hosts, panellists, participants and attendees of its events/webinars throughout the year and of course its sponsors Biosis, Traffix Group, Urbis and Taylors for their continued support. It was genuinely enthusing to see such a significant and enthusiastic uptake of participation in the new online environment that truly demonstrated the passion and motivation of our industry.

The YPG looks back on a truly unique year.

Speed networking (February)

The VPELA YPG kicked off the year with their first (and only) face-to-face event by hosting their annual Speed Networking event at Cardno. The event once again demonstrated its truly unique ability to enable participants to meet a wide range of professionals with multidisciplinary backgrounds and from various allied professions.

With an attendance of nearly eighty participants and held during mid-February, the weather was spectacular allowing the attendees to take full advantage of the views from Cardno’s balcony while enjoying drinks and canapes.

Special thanks to Cardno for hosting the event for the second year in a row.

As always, the event was so well received that the YPG will be investigating techniques for adapting the concept to a virtual event in the not too distant future… (watch this space).

Seminar: meet the project team (April)

Meet the Project Team was the YPG’s first foray into the strange new world of online events. The webinar was aimed at helping participants understand different disciplines within the planning industry and gain insight into how collaboration can ensure a project runs smoothly.

Participants heard insights from Gillian Lee (Marshall Day Acoustics), Lindsay Richardson (SD Consultants), Renee Muratore (Trethowan Architecture), and Val Gnanakone (onemilegrid). The panel discussed what their key roles as consultants were throughout a project and shared some common challenges they have encountered. Unique insights were provided into how different disciplines could collaborate to deliver a quality outcome for the project, as well as some thoughts on how to improve the planning system!

A Q&A session at the end allowed participants to engage with the panel to ask about common misconceptions of their respective disciplines, as well as providing some helpful tips and tricks.

Master Class 1: Behind the planning counter (May)

The first cab off the YPG Master Class series rank for the year was billed ‘Secrets from Behind the Planning Counter,’ where the YPG audience was treated to our panel’s insights into their experiences on both sides of the planning coin.

To ensure a discussion littered with anecdotes and wisdom, the YPG enlisted the services of Tim Biles of Ratio Consultants as our chair. Unsurprisingly, Tim adjudicated our panellists’ discussions with his trademark charm and curiosity, prodding our panellists for scoops with a Tony Jones-esque diplomacy.

Our panellists each had a unique take on their experiences on both sides of the planning counter. Alexandra Wade of City of Monash spoke about the inventory of skills she developed in private practice, that have now afforded her a more balanced approach to her work at Monash. Now a planner at City of Port Phillip, Angus Bevan described declining bribes (lifetime coffee supplies) from enthusiastic applicants, while advocating the personal and professional benefits to be gained in making a difference in a government role. Anna Barclay of Urbis closed the gap between private and public practice, highlighting the many common threads that weave through both sides of the planning equation. In a similar vein, Michael Henderson of Contour Consultants proffered that while working in private practice may have crystallised a more direct mode of communication, experience as a council planning coordinator afforded him a unique perspective toward his current work.

The session left a lasting impression that a balanced approach to planning can be truly achieved in working on both sides of the planning counter, as well as how VPELA’s young professionals can better understand the other side to efficiently collaborate and achieve great planning outcomes on their first (or only) side of the counter.

Master Class 2: How to write a Brief (June)

Second in the Master Class series was the ‘How to Write a Brief’ webinar with guest speakers Alex Gelber of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers, Angela Ash of Contour Consultants and Brett Young of Ratio Consultants.

Our presenters outlined the key considerations for preparing an effective brief, and discussed what they consider to be a poor

brief. Some of the key take-home tips from the presenters were:

1. Take your time. We are all busy and preparing a brief can be time consuming, but if the time is spent upfront to collate the necessary information within the brief, it will make the job of the person you are briefing that much easier.

2. Tailor your brief to the audience, with consideration to:

• Who are you briefing and why?

• What is their role and what information do they need to undertake their role?

3. Direct their focus to key issues for the project. Consider what provisions are relevant to the consultant’s area of expertise and don’t provide excess information which isn’t relevant to their field.

4. File organisation is key. COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of electronic file management; significant time can be lost if files need to be hunted down in various inboxes.

Master Class 3: How to successfully build your personal brand (June)

The final Master Class of the season, “How to successfully build your personal brand” was an engaging and informative session involving a panel of highly acclaimed professionals. Emma Peppler (Barrister, Victorian Bar), Kristian Cook (Coordinator Urban Planning, Glen Eira City Council) and Jessica Noonan (Principal Town Planner, Tract Consultants) discussed their personal journeys and gave insight into navigating their personal brand.

Through seeking out mentors, management of juniors, starting a podcast and going out on your own, the panel offered great insight and tips to the listeners on self-awareness in the workplace, the importance of putting yourself out there and how to engage with your peers in the wider community.

JackChiodo(ManninghamCityCounciland YPG Co-Convenor) on behalf of the YPG.

WithcontributionsfromfellowYPGcommitteemembersCharlieWurm(Maddocks),CharlottePhillips(Urbis), EdwardGriffen(MarshallDayAcoustics),LinaInglis(Ratio)andSonjaVanNieuwenhoven(CaseyCityCouncil).

VPELA hard at work

The Samuel Verdict – EPBC Act not fit for purpose

23 September 2020

Participants: Aaron Harvey – Director, Biosis, Simon Molesworth AO QC – Victorian Bar and Meg Lee, VPELA Board member and Partner, Hall & Wilcox

PO Box 1291

Camberwell 3124, 9813 2801

www.vpela.org au

Online hearings – insights, tips and tricks

30 September 2020

Participants: Greg Tobin, Principal, Harwood Andrews, Tamara Brezzi, VPELA President, Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright, Colleen Peterson, Director, Ratio Consultants and Mark Sheppard, Director, kinetica

Going Carbon Neutral

6 October 2020

Participants: Euan Williamson, ESD Advisor, City of Yarra, Tim McBride Burgess, VPELA Board member and Director, Contour Consultants, Jeremy McLeod, Sustainable Architect, Breathe Architecture

VPELA – A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

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.