5th of February 2025, 5:48pm
Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan):
I welcome the opportunity to speak to this petition. I guess I speak informed by my 13 years as the president or secretary of the Kensington Residents’ Association, so I have certainly experienced the utter frustration with the propensity of the department of planning to simply walk away from extended consultations between residents and local government and unilaterally overrule both.
The petition before the chamber is not without merit, but I guess somewhat misses the mark in places as well. Firstly, it is not just the activity centres or centre programs that are removing third-party rights and deeming certain types of development to comply, meaning that they will not be subject to advertising and a full planning assessment if the cookie-cutter planning controls are adhered to. So it is a bit disingenuous, if I may say so, to single out the activity centres as the thing that should be reviewed. I suspect it is actually much broader.
Secondly, the loss of thousands of irreplaceable heritage properties is perhaps a bit of a stretch, but hey, let us just put a pin in that. Victoria is facing enormous population growth in the years ahead and we need to plan for it, and we need to build a lot more homes within established urban settlement boundaries.
While we are broadly supportive of the government’s objectives, I would caution the government against implementing policies that alienate communities and ignore local knowledge. How these objectives are executed will make the difference between communities that are well serviced, with decent amenity, open space and infrastructure, and communities that are not great places to live.
This concern is well founded; let us face it, our city is littered with lost opportunities and planning disaster stories. Southbank is a concrete canyon, overshadowed and lacking amenity; Docklands, an extraordinary opportunity to engineer community, is a largely lifeless failure; and perhaps most recently the Joseph Road precinct in Footscray, which is still a work in progress, is a planning disaster, with closely stacked high-rises, no meaningful open space and a streetscape that is reminiscent of a war zone.
In this context of the abject failure of the Department of Transport and Planning to be able to craft community-rich precincts, the concerns of the petitioners are entirely reasonable. The connection they feel for the neighbourhoods where they have made their homes is something the government must consider and must understand.
Across Victoria communities want to know that their values and the things that make each community special will be included in structure plans and activity centre planning controls and pieces of public policy, for that matter. In my electorate there is one activity centre slated so far – that is the Niddrie Keilor Road and North Essendon activity centre – although there are two more flagged in Plan for Victoria as well as three metropolitan activity centres, 25 or so other activity centres and one day perhaps – that is a long way away – three or more Suburban Rail Loop precincts. I do not think that will be my problem.
How these precincts are planned is important. The government’s greatest asset is the local knowledge held in these communities, and when those things that make local communities special are recognised and built on it adds great value to the planning process. That means real consultation, giving local residents and community groups access to the process as well as councils and traditional owners. It means draft proposals with details that can be meaningfully engaged with, not just cookie-cutter planning controls.
The government’s plan for Victoria and target for 70 per cent of new homes being built inside established areas is a massive change, but it is possible and it is desirable. But will it be done in a way that retains the diversity and individuality that make our communities different and special and matches housing growth with infrastructure and amenity? Only if the planning is done with, not to, local communities.
With a bit of time and openness and a lot more detail these precincts could be a great success. If communities feel some ownership and connection to the plans, it will pay dividends in the long term, both politically and in terms of policy implementation.
I encourage the government to ensure that this round of planning for the next 50 activity centres is more open than for the first 10. Bring locals along; listen to locals and listen to their local councils and planners, and you will build great places and great communities.
[Motion agreed to]
