Housing Forum Highlights Concerns Over Victorian Government’s Planning Process

Critics Raise Alarm Over Rushed Planning Regulations

At a recent housing forum organized by the Whitehorse City Council, a leading planning lawyer criticized the Victorian government for not following its standard planning processes when introducing new regulations for transport hubs. The lawyer highlighted that critical analyses—such as population growth, infrastructure capacity, and transport needs—were either not conducted or not made public. These concerns come as the state government prepares to finalize new planning rules this month, which will fast-track the development of townhouses and apartment buildings between three and 20 storeys in 10 transport hubs. Critics argue that this approach lacks transparency and could lead to poorly planned developments that fail to address community needs.

Expert Calls for Improved Planning in Next Phase of Development

While the first 10 transport hubs are being fast-tracked, experts like planning lawyer Fensham are hopeful that the government will learn from these initial steps and improve its approach for the next 50 activity centres. Fensham emphasized that the first 10 hubs were part of a pilot process, which may have required quick decision-making to address the housing crisis. However, he stressed the importance of incorporating lessons learned into future planning. “The opportunity exists to get the next 50 right,” he said. Fensham also highlighted that changing planning controls alone will not solve the housing shortage. Instead, he called for clear short- and long-term plans for health, education, and transport infrastructure to support the state’s goal of building 2.24 million homes by 2051. “What’s the sequence of provision of infrastructure that will provide a signal for where housing goes first, next and in the long term?” he asked.

Lack of Livability in New Developments Sparks Concern

Urban Design Forum co-president Katherine Sundermann echoed these concerns, stating that the first 10 activity centre plans felt rushed and lacked essential elements that make a place liveable, such as parks, community services, and pleasant streets. “We have 50 activity centres to go,” she said, urging the government to adopt a more comprehensive approach. Sundermann also pointed out the need for economic modelling to determine how much floor space is required for housing, offices, and retail—a step that has historically been part of structure planning processes. She suggested that such modelling could be done quickly and would provide a more robust foundation for decision-making.

Minimal Community Engagement and Feedback Opportunities

One of the most significant frustrations expressed by councillors, planners, and community members is the lack of meaningful engagement with the government’s planning reforms. Many feel that they are learning about the changes at the same time as the general public, with little opportunity for feedback. For instance, the first 10 activity centres were only open for public submissions during a four-week window, which coincided with the caretaker period during last year’s council elections. This limited timeframe made it difficult for councils and communities to provide input. In contrast, the planning process for the Suburban Rail Loop station precincts has included more consultation and public hearings, setting a better precedent for future projects.

Calls for Greater Collaboration in Future Planning

Municipal Association of Victoria president Jennifer Anderson called for the state government to better involve council planners and residents in the planning process for the next 50 activity centres. “People are more inclined to be happy about increased development if they are brought along for the discussion and can see that what is being planned is not a threat to what makes their place special,” she said. Fensham also stressed the need for collaboration, stating, “The process needs to allow for a to-and-fro of discussion and testing.” This collaborative approach would not only address community concerns but also ensure that developments are well-planned and sustainable in the long term.

Government Defends Its Approach, Emphasizes Housing Crisis

In response to these criticisms, a government spokesman defended the planning rules, stating that they were based on extensive urban design and technical analyses tailored to each area. He argued that the engagement process for the first 10 activity centres would inform the planning of the next 50. “There is only one way out of the housing crisis—build our way out,” he said. The spokesman emphasized the importance of creating more homes for young people and workers close to jobs, transport, and services, allowing them to live where they want, near the things they need and the people they love. While the government’s commitment to addressing the housing shortage is clear, critics remain concerned that the rushed and opaque planning process could undermine the quality of these developments and the livability of the communities they impact.

In conclusion, while the Victorian government’s efforts to address the housing crisis are commendable, the concerns raised by experts, councillors, and community members highlight the need for a more transparent, collaborative, and comprehensive planning process. By incorporating feedback, conducting thorough analyses, and prioritizing livability, the government can ensure that its ambitious housing targets are met in a way that benefits both current and future residents.