Archive:   Victoria Planning Provisions

Last Updated  26/9/07

Major Changes Mooted To The Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs)

(21/6/07 - P)  Councils and residents may get more control over the high-rise, 'medium' density tsunami that is swamping most neighbourhoods

Age journalist Royce Millar reported on 18th June on an as-yet unreleased report prepared for the State government.  The report was prepared by a working group headed by former VCAT boss Stuart Morris, assisted by current VCAT Vice President Helen Gibson, and representatives from local government groups.  The working group apparently started out looking at how to make local policies more effective but also found State policy not only needed some work but also created problems of its own.  It seems "Melbourne 2030 is frustrated by a 'disconnection' between the state policy and the reality of planning".  A new set of residential zones may be on the way that will "allow for apartments to be actively encouraged, carefully encouraged or disallowed".  In other words, the new residential zones will allow as many as you like, provide for some to be considered, or prohibit them.   Click here to see Royce Millar's report

MRRA Says:

Painful.  It's a bit like watching the wheel being reinvented, isn't it?  We could have told the government (probably for a much lower fee) much the same thing.  MRRA last year put forward suggestions to the Liberal Party about making residential zones more prescriptive and resident-friendly.  Anyway, it looks like the light may be about to finally go on, and the day the powers-that-be realize the Victorian planning system needs more prescription just may be at hand. 

Now for two chillers: 

The Age report also says the working group thinks that up to 90% of a planning scheme "could probably be scrapped".  Now why did they come up with such a really lousy idea?  MRRA would need an awful lot more information before we could have a bar of this concept, particularly when it has come from a group of people who probably don't usually have to live with their decisions, like the rest of us do.  Huge changes to the planning system would be needed - such as being able to 'design' all zones to fit the land they are applied to - before most of the rest of the scheme is ditched.

And here we go again - another report that seems to be looking at planning from Melbourne's perspective; poor, old rural and regional areas can just sod off.  Perish the thought that we end up with Melbourne's leftover policies - again. Can we ask everyone to help on this?  The next time you bump into the Minister for Planning, or the Premier, please, please ask nicely for some dedicated rural policies and real recognition that places outside Melbourne are different to Melbourne. 

Finally, the last paragraph of Royce Millar's article probably says it all - what we've known for years:  "Developers have called on the Government to stand by Melbourne 2030 and have cautioned against conceding ground to councils and residents".  As you do, of course... 

Time for the government to listen to the majority, we say (er, we're assuming ordinary people still outnumber developers in Victoria).  We look forward to hearing some more about these (and hopefully other) proposed changes that will give communities a hell of a lot more say and certainty about what's likely or not likely to happen next door.  Viva more prescription!  Boo to greedy developers.