Archive:   State Planning Policy Framework [SPPF]

Last Updated  22/5/14

State Planning Policy Framework - Submissions Close 23 May

(22/5/14 - P)   Yes, not much notice, but here are the short, main points you can make in a quick submission  

The State government is changing (what until now has been) the State Planning Policy Framework [SPPF] and Local Planning Policy Framework [LPPF] in all Victorian planning schemes, including Macedon Ranges. 

For starters, the State and Local frameworks are being combined to become just the Planning Policy Framework [PPF]. 

In addition, Regional Victoria policy is introduced (courtesy of the eight new Regional Growth Plans, e.g. the unconsulted Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan - now finalised and approved by the State government - applies to Macedon Ranges).  On top of that, 'thematic' regions are introduced (e.g. bushfire or coastal regions), as well as area-specific policy (e.g. the Macedon Ranges' Localised Planning Statement).  Happily, this include identification of policy that applies only in metro Melbourne (which means it can no longer be applied in Macedon Ranges).  Local policy (e.g. policies we make for our Shire) is included after all of the above.  The whole package is all called Integrated Planning and Decision-making.   Hmmm...  might need a bit more work to get there.

Another major change is policy format and language.   The draft PPF introduces a template for how each policy is to be set out (format). 

It also proposes to introduce a 'verb' matrix (page II) to restrict and control what language is used to express policy (e.g. only PPF verbs, such as 'facilitate', 'minimise' and 'avoid') - a challenge even those saying only use these verbs couldn't meet: the draft PPF uses at least a dozen other verbs).  

Draft PPF content is generally a precis of existing State policy, and new policy sourced primarily from the draft Plan Melbourne document and draft Regional Growth Plans.  Although the State government's recent approval of the final versions of Plan Melbourne and Regional Growth Plans potentially makes the exhibited PPF somewhat redundant, it is still important to comment, because it is not known if an updated draft PPF will be exhibited before final approval.  

You can obtain a copy of the draft PPF by going to:

http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/panelsandcommittees/current/state-planning-policy-framework-sppf/draft-planning-policy-framework

To comment you can:

• Send submissions by email to planning.panels@dtpli.vic.gov.au (in MS Word format clearly identifying any clause number that your comment relates to if relevant).
• Complete a brief survey  Please ensure you have reviewed the draft PPF prior to participating in this survey.

MRRA Says:

Key issues you can comment on include:

Good

Putting State, Regional, Specific and Local policy relating to the same subject in the same place. 

Not Good

• The draft PPF deletes all Municipal Strategic Statements [MSS] .  Instead we are restricted to a 2 page 'context' overview to say what makes Macedon Ranges tick - our strategic objectives, values and identity.   No. If we can't define ourselves, who will?
• Only being able to use restricted language.   No.  Most words don't work because they don't let you say what you mean. Language restrictions change policy.
• New PPF Format makes policy dot-points.   The result is policy so 'concise' it's a "reader's digest" of policy.  Often not easy to understand what it means, and doesn't explain how it works.  Facilitate?  What does that mean...
• Use of an "Objectives and Strategies" format.  Is it policy, or strategy?  If it's policy, where is strategy?
• The draft PPF uses 'should' throughout.   Fail.  'Should' never works. Everyone is crying out for more certainty, but the draft PPF provides less. You either are, or are not, required to do something.  
• Policy for Regional Victoria is 'generic', constructed from unidentified Regional Growth Plans.   Fail.  This made-up generic RV policy forces policy on us that, among other things, promotes development at Hanging Rock : "Facilitate tourism development that is: (a) near heritage places or natural features."  (9.09-RV-01, Objective 1, Strategy 1.3).  We were not consulted, we don't want it, and we are not having it.
• Policy conflicts: the draft PPF doesn't say which level of policy has precedence (e.g. State, Regional, specific, local).   Macedon Ranges doesn't need conflicting policies where State policy says one thing, Regional policy another, and the Localised Planning Statement says something else again. 
• Victoria's Settlement Framework (3.01-S-03, page 11) shows Kyneton and Gisborne as peri-urban growth towns ("peri-urban town/district town" and "support medium to high growth").   Delete.  The Macedon Ranges' community has not been consulted and has not agreed.  Having "growth towns" is also incompatible with 'protecting' Macedon Ranges.

Cheap And Nasty State Government "Review" Of The State Planning Policy Framework [SPPF]

(22/5/10 - P)  The very, very lazy Department leaps over proper planning by sliding MELBOURNE 2030 over the whole State! 

The State government called for submissions over the Christmas period on changes it was proposing to the State Planning Policy Framework [SPPF].  The SPPF sits in the front of all planning schemes and provides State policy for planning decisions.

The Department's 'changes' were publicized and touted as 'policy neutral', basically just a bit of housekeeping.  That's not what MRRA found when we did a word for word comparison of the 'old' and 'new'!

Hidden amongst all of this supposed 'neutrality' were some knock-out and distinctly non-neutral characteristics: for example, the policy statements that restricted Melbourne 2030 to the metropolitan area had been deleted, meaning - oops - M2030 now applied everywhere, and additionally, Melbourne 2030 policy statements were suddenly splattered across all sections of the SPPF.  And some of the results this produced were laughable.  For example, the Melbourne 2030 AIRPORTS policy was included in the existing SPPF policy for Airfields - an uneasy mix of Tullamarine policy being applied to informal airstrips across the State.  As MRRA pointed out in its submission, Kyneton airfield is NOT Tullamarine.  Trying to work out what Melbourne 2030's reference to 'fringe areas' meant in a Macedon Ranges' context produced mega head-shaking and shoulder-shrugging...

The State Heritage policy was decimated with, as it turns out, a garbled version of the Planning and Environment Act's objectives for planning in Victoria substituted as 'new' State Heritage policy. 

Attempts to 'streamline' the SPPF has left it totally without context or explanation - and in some places, it doesn't really make sense.  Add to that the stripping away and mish-mashing of references to documents or policies or other standards that development was, until now, required to comply with, and...

A step or two too far, we think.  If you aren't already familiar with the SPPF, you will have no hope of understanding it if these 'thousand cuts' go ahead.

There were also some insidious changes, such as making it State policy that development in Activity Centres would only be high density instead of the existing 'mix that includes high density', and of course the clanger that sees the existing reference to Macedon Ranges as an area of State level significance deleted. 

MRRA Says:

Neutered rather than neutral. 

This whole exercise really is an insult to people's intelligence.  We hope it's just laziness and/or incompetence which can be overcome with a little thought, effort and improved work practices - oh, and an adherence to the principles of sound and orderly planning.

We thought about sending in a comprehensive typed submission detailing everything we found, but hey, the Department is paid to get it right and we aren't paid at all.  So we just sent a short overview and a pdf of our working copy of the SPPF covered in extensive hand-written annotations.  Let's see if anyone listens...

State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) Review - Draft Now On Exhibition

(11/12/09 - P)  State government moves to drop Macedon Ranges as an area of high conservation values - last vestige of recognition for State significance of Macedon Ranges gone. Submissions due February 2, 2010 - you will be working over Christmas. 

The Department of Planning and Community Development is claiming the new draft State Planning Policy Framework [SPPF] has been "modernized" with new themes and an improved structure.  There is change, and in some areas these may be seen as an improvement over the current SPPF, but not for Macedon Ranges.  The current SPPF says Macedon Ranges is an area of high environmental, conservation and recreational values, the new one does not.  Perhaps it's not a coincidence this important document is being exhibited over the Christmas period, which action is often seen as a desire that people not know what is being proposed. 

You can access more information and the draft documents by going to DPCD's website

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenpl.nsf/LinkView/0436D4C4963BB7E9CA25767A00194859069B9BE247B6F12DCA25731B000FC7F4

MRRA Says:

We still have to take a really hard look at what's being coughed up as future State policy but we know Macedon Ranges is being screwed by what's being proposed. 

Others might like to take a closer look at Green Wedges, the urban growth boundary and areas, regional cities, transport corridors, coastal areas, and metro activity centres. 

More about this later...

Government Survey Wants Comments On State Planning Policy By 5th April

(28/3/07 - SG)  Some might say 'burn it', but this is an opportunity to try to get some changes to State level policy

You can register your comments by going to www.dse.vic.gov.au/planning SPPF Review and Audit - Survey.

MRRA Says:

You might want to think about the issues - and read current State policy in the State Planning Policy Framework section of planning schemes - before you make any comment. 

Stronger (if not definitive) State policy on protecting 'open' drinking water catchments and groundwater reserves would be a good start, hotly followed by some new policies that recognise the differences between suburbs and rural towns so rural areas don't have to keep 'making do' with Melbourne's policies... 

Of course, MRRA would also like to see some specific policy recognition of Macedon Ranges as an area of State level significance which doesn't currently have any strategic, statutory or policy protection at State level.  Hey, we don't even have a finished planning scheme, and despite our planning scheme now being 7 years old we are still working towards our first three-yearly Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) Review...  Give us a break, please.