Strengthening the Partnership
A MAV Action Plan to assist Local Government
implement Melbourne 2030
PURPOSE
The MAV seeks to establish closer working relationships between state and local government in
addressing planning issues associated with M2030 and to strengthen a partnership approach whilst
ensuring issues of concern to Local Government are addressed.
The objectives are to
 Identify critical issues for local government in implementing Melbourne 2030
 Facilitate discussion and action by the sector
 Share learning among councillors and senior officers
 Improve coordination between state and local government
This paper seeks to take the recent MAV Melbourne 2030 ‘Planning for Change’ forum outcomes
(Appendix 1), resolutions of State Council May 2005 (Appendix 2) and develop an action plan for
consideration by the MAV M2030 Councillor Reference Group and Planning Technical Committee.
The proposed actions are developed through an analysis of issues and activities for key themes in
the context of the over-arching objective of “Strengthening the Partnership’.
The four themes are
 Communication
To assist local government effectively communicate, in the context of differing local
pressures, the drivers and need for a metropolitan framework (to manage growth, address
environmental issues, meet sustainable infrastructure needs and provide for changing
demographics).
 Commitment
A genuine partnership approach, supported by technical and financial capacity, where
Melbourne 2030 implementation is strongly influenced by local government priorities and
circumstances in a supportive external environment.
 Capacity
To improve the operation of the Planning System and the capacity of Councillors and
planning staff.
 Co-ordination
To build effective regional arrangements across government improving interaction with
state agencies and departments.
The analysis tables are found at (Appendix 3).
Appendix 1 also summarises the proposed actions against the forum outcomes.
CONTEXT
The first forum, “Planning for Change” was held in April 2005, attended by Rob Hulls MP, Minister for
Planning, Professor Lyndsay Neilson, Secretary DSE, and Genevieve Overell (Dep. Sec. Built
Environment), as well as Mayors, Councillors and senior staff from the 31 councils working directly
with Melbourne 2030.
8/03/2016
Page 1
The forum was facilitated by Mike Scott and Lisa Riddle from Planisphere and quickly came to
agreement on what was seen as working and where improvement is needed.
Councils unanimously said that the vision was sound, regional collaboration valued, and recognised
that the commitment of local government time and money has been significant.
Specific issues arose around structure planning complexity; effectiveness of the green wedge zone;
design quality of housing and public areas to protect neighbourhood amenity; housing affordability
and alternative transport; but overwhelmingly, the call was for a stronger partnership approach in
explaining and implementing Melbourne 2030.
Improvement in infrastructure and public transport funding; ‘joined-up’ or whole of government
commitment; and stronger and more consistent support from regional offices of DSE were seen as
fundamental to this partnership.
The forum outcomes and State Council outcomes provide the framework for identifying actions for
the MAV, local and state government to build on the perceived strengths to date, as well as to focus
effort where improvement is required.
KEY FORUM OUTCOMES
Local Government identified three priority areas, being
 Infrastructure & public transport funding
 “Joined up” Government approach needed
 Advice to Local Government from DSE and regions.
Improvement in these areas is fundamentally influenced by State Government, is subject to their
annual budget processes and how their program areas are operationalised – that is, improvement
relies on ‘what they do and how they do it’. The priority forum outcomes will only progress through
effective advocacy by the MAV, a commitment by DSE and DOI to improving internal processes and
a shift in funded priorities by DSE and government. Improvements in these areas will contribute
towards the successful partnership approach critical to implementation of Melbourne 2030.
While the forum outcomes may focus on State government action, this report seeks to develop
actions for the local government sector that will improve local government's effectiveness on
implementation of M2030.
A partnership approach can be characterised by four elements that provide a useful framework for
discussion and to considering possible actions to progress outcomes
 Communication
 Commitment
 Capacity
 Co-ordination
COMMUNICATION
The MAV M2030 forum stressed the need for high-level explanation of the underlying drivers
(changing demographic profile and lifestyle choices, more effective use of existing infrastructure,
improved environmental performance of urban populations etc) to a broad community audience. This
should be co-ordinated at a metropolitan or state-wide level and is important to more effective local
area planning processes.
Local Government can contribute towards an over-arching communications objective by highlighting
local manifestations of the broader drivers and the need for a framework to manage growth.
A joint communication campaign needs to be undertaken.
8/03/2016
Page 2
COMMITMENT
A genuine commitment from both State and Local Government to an effective partnership is
paramount. Mechanisms such as a MOU or signed protocol can formalise or strengthen
relationships. The commitment to implementation of Melbourne 2030 depends on allocation of
resources, project funding, priorities, project evaluation criteria, and at a more pragmatic level, Local
Government access to Ministers and senior staff.
The highest priority of the MAV Melbourne 2030 forum related to infrastructure and public transport
funding. Melbourne 2030 integrates sustainable transport planning for a more compact and betterconnected city. It targets a modal shift to public transport from 9% of all motorised trips to 20% by
2020. The recent release of the Metropolitan Transport Plan has been widely criticised for failing to
clearly identify and commit funds for transport infrastructure necessary to achieve M2030 goals,
particularly in the growth and outer areas and for heavy and light rail (tram).
The recent State budget with regard to transport does not sufficiently implement policy directed to
Melbourne 2030 or the ‘20% by 2020’ goal. Although there are additional buses in the growth
corridors there are no direct or obvious links between budgeted projects and desired outcomes, such
as better access to activity centres. Without time effective mass transit alternatives to personal car
based trips, M2030 goals simply will not be achieved. Only the SmartBus initiative as part of the
Eastlink (Mitcham-Frankston) tollway provides an example of integration, with most projects being
single mode developments.
The “policy” conflict of alleviating congestion by adding to the road system remains, which ignores
the inevitable impact of more road space generating more and longer car trips, until congestion is
reached again. The budget justifies new road projects on the grounds that ‘investing in new roads
and upgrading existing roads relieves congestion’ (Budget Overview page 20).
This reflects poorly on Governments commitment across departments to Melbourne 2030.
A realistic, long term, funded program of transport infrastructure improvements needs to be
developed. Local government can play a role in identifying priorities on a regional level and build on
the positive regional collaboration local government experienced as part of the Regional Housing
Working Groups. Transit ‘corridors’ must operate more efficiently by PT than private vehicle to be
attractive and is seen as a fundamental first objective. Reliance on bus networks for connectivity in
the outer and growth areas alone may be more readily achievable, but ultimately will not provide
sufficient levels of service.
Levels of service provision (transport and other services) is a function of dwellings (population) and
jobs per hectare, as well as historical factors. In terms of commitment the nature of growth and
significant investment in public transport are the most critical factors.
CAPACITY
The current planning system is resource hungry and local government continues to question the
significant investment required for strategic work, given its status, influence and that policy may not
gain support at VCAT.
The MAV's Planning Advisory Group (PAG) and MAV Board recently considered a report on planning
system reform based on suggestions identified by Trevor Budge, president of the Planning Institute of
Australia (Vic. Division) in a recent edition of “Planning News” in which he urges the state
government to consider fundamental reform of the planning system. He describes the context as
“Councils are required to invest considerable resources into developing strategic frameworks; yet the strategies
and policies are merely used as “guidelines” instead of definitive statements of what is acceptable or not
acceptable. With the long list of discretionary uses in each of the zones, many applicants see such open ended
zones as a signal that a Council has to demonstrate why a use should not be allowed rather than the applicant
8/03/2016
Page 3
having to justify the use; and the vagueness of wording and lack of specific direction from State Policy in
particular means that Councils must often examine a bewildering complexity of unquantifiable provisions for
even relatively minor proposals.
On top of all this, significant numbers of planners are leaving local government planning. The day of a life of a
local government planner is typically not forward planning, visioning and place making; but excess workload,
development control, and conflict and triviality. (Source: Planning News October 2004)
PIA’s has identified current problems of the planning system and the MAV intends to work with PIA
and urge the State Government for reforms to ensure local government capacity to effectively and
efficiently administer the planning function.
The planning profession struggles to attract and retain staff. Nationally, the shortage remains a key
issue. The National Inquiry into Planning Education & Employment recommends:
 An increase in fully-funded places for planning students
 Inclusion of planning on the list of migration occupations in demand
 Sharing or pooling planners in rural and regional Australia.
The Jobs for Young People and the PIA cadetships/traineeships schemes under consideration by
DIIRD will help provide some short-term relief.
The regional arrangements and interaction with DSE staff associated with Melbourne 2030
implementation initiatives may present opportunities to trial alternative models to improve staff
retention.
The new “Creating Better Places’ program could include flexibility to ensure capacity building of DSE
and local government staff through more flexible staff exchange, co-option and employment models
during the projects and a clear capacity building component requiring sharing of knowledge gained
during the project, among local government.
CO-ORDINATION
Co-ordination across government departments is important, but for local government, co-ordination
between state and local government and between local governments, spatially and on issues of
common concern is of value.
Local government found regional co-operation, such as through the Regional Housing Working
Group process to be positive and wanted regional collaboration to continue.
Whilst the resources being made available to the MAV to assist local government with M2030
implementation have enabled greater information exchange and opportunities for the sector to be
engaged, this is a small part of what is required.
The forum called for a ‘joined –up’ approach to government decisions at a funding, policy and
implementation level. ‘Across government’ co-ordination by the DSE Melbourne 2030 team will
improve working interfaces and is required.
This will also allow for improved information flows and learning so that system and process
improvements can be identified and implemented. The support shown by local government for the
Melbourne 2030 framework can be used to assist DSE with its own advocacy across government.
Active sharing of learning among local government and a ‘continuous improvement’ approach needs
to be taken towards Melbourne 2030 implementation. DSE ‘one stop shop’ or gateway to government
concepts could be explored to assist local government deal with the multiple government agencies
and stakeholders required by Melbourne 2030.
8/03/2016
Page 4
DEVELOPING THE ACTION PLAN
The action plan will assist the Councillor Reference Group and Planning Technical Committee to
progress issues of concern to Local Government and build an effective partnership with the State
government and improve the advocacy of the MAV.
MAV advocacy should focus on ‘strengthening the partnership’ so that progress in explaining and
implementing Melbourne 2030 is improved. Some of the actions proposed are within the capacity of
the MAV or other joint working groups to progress, whilst others require active State Government
support.
It is worth noting the similarity of many of the forum and State Council outcomes with the issues and
actions arising from the Melbourne 2030 Implementation Reference Group’s two reports published to
date, the Priority Issues Report and Activity Centres working group Challenges for Implementation
report.
The following diagram explains the methodology used to develop an action plan to progress priority
areas for Local Government.
INPUTS
(April/May)
MAV Melb 2030
Forum outcomes
Appendix 1
Sort into themes
“Strengthening the partnership”
 Communication
 Commitment
 Capacity
 Co-operation
ANALYSIS
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
MAV State Council
resolutions
Appendix 2




For each theme identify
clear objective
Issues – (Risks /threats/barriers to improvement)
Relevant M2030 projects
Possible actions
CHECK ACTIONS
AGAINST FORUM
OUTCOMES
(table for CRG)
Appendix 1
CURRENT STAGE (June)




DEVELOP ACTION PLAN
Clear action and key tasks
Lead agent
Timing
Deliverables /KPI
STAGE 3 LATE JUNE
8/03/2016
Page 5
APPENDIX 1 - MAV Melbourne 2030 Forum Outcomes and Actions Proposed
Vision is
sound
Regional
Collaboration
between
Councils
FORUM OUTCOMES

General consensus about the principles and direction

Urban Growth Boundary is gaining acceptance and understanding,
and is valued


Regional Housing Statement processes brought Councils together
and generally provided a valuable regional forum

Shared vision and regional perspective

Collaboration with DSE has been positive
ACTION

Explore MoU or charter with State Government to assist implementation

Contribute to five yearly M2030 review particularly to strengthen economic
aspects.





Local Gov’t
commitment
and action

Infrastructure
& public
transport
funding




Local government has generally been responsive to M2030 aims and
has committed significant resources to implementation
This needs credit and recognition

Lack of firm & coordinated implementation programs - dates, budgets
etc
Review pricing (zones), routes and priorities to support M2030
Make public transport more attractive, then consider strategies to
bring about behavioural change






“Joined up”
Government
approach
needed



Link land use and transport planning within Government
Improve process to require whole of government budget commitment
Better cross department and vertical commitment throughout gov’t
departments to ensure M2030 is a priority and to achieve a whole of
government approach (including hospitals, schools etc)

Advice to LG
from DSE and
Regions


Lack of consistent advice between officers, regions and head office
More staff resourcing, with experienced long term advisors and
improved strategic advice (noting shortage of skilled and experienced
staff, particularly in growth areas)
More timely decision making by DSE and more collaboration at the







Continue regional working groups and broaden scope
Annual Melbourne 2030 Priority Statement for Local Government as part of
MAV Annual Budget submission
Explore skills exchange program
Integration of capacity building component into “Creating Better Places” funded
projects.
Develop leadership capacity of local government through information sharing
Acknowledgement of Local Government commitment and action through a
“Beacon Project’ type initiative where best practice examples are identified by
local government
Contribute to processes that identify best practice and good built examples to
show what the framework can deliver
Pursue integrated transport outcomes through MAV Transport and
Infrastructure Advisory group who are currently developing a Transport Strategy
Planning Technical Committee to explore models for funding, management and
delivery
Identify incentives for activity centre investors (eg waiver of bulk of car parking
requirements to fund public transport) to encourage investment
Explore higher fees, Developer Contribution Plans and other funding or value
capture options to deliver infrastructure and public benefit outcomes of M2030.
DSE continued support of transit cities, leading with infrastructure provision,
and for principal activity centres.
Improve access of local government to M2030 cabinet sub-committee
(presentation annual budget submission)
Mirror cabinet sub-committee at third level and convene (2pa) CEO’s briefing
Continued support by DSE of regional forums to look at transport, social and
civil infrastructure priorities and provision
Collaborate with Planning Industry Association on the Planning System Reform
agenda
Progress outcomes of the Whitney committee and Better Decisions Faster
Contribute to improving planning tools and mechanisms
Promotion of debate of Melbourne 2030 by DSE participation in community



forums etc
Encourage DSE involvement / clarification prior, during and at panel regarding
planning scheme amendments


DSE could take a stronger role in promoting and defending benefits of
M2030
Celebrate successes
Combat cynicism and encourage open debate about issues
Branding of M2030 needed (eg roads and water campaigns) to raise
awareness of tangible actions resulting from the strategy
Need to complete and release Regional Housing statements asap
Affordable
housing

Practical tools are needed to deliver affordable housing objectives

Delivery and integration of accessible and affordable housing choices within
M2030 deliverables
Green Wedge
Zone

Use of long term leases and ‘lifestyle’ resorts to get around GW zone
restrictions on residential uses
Need to tighten definitions and prohibit some defined activities to
prevent inappropriate uses
GW zone implementation issues differ in predominately urban
municipalities to those faced by the 'Interface Group' of Councils

Identification of issues that undermine the purpose and application of the Green
Wedge Zone.



Protect amenity in established residential areas
Need to improve housing design
Councils want to ensure quality design (building & public realm)

Work with professional and industry associations (PIA, Urban DIA, HIA, RAIA)
to improve quality, accessibility and siting of built form outcomes in the public
and private realm.
Improve understanding of amenity, character and alternative density scenarios.
Forum on amenity and design; integrated transport and investigate bus tour for
site inspections
Structure
Plans

Very expensive, absorbing significant proportion of Council budgets
and staff time
Burden of proof applies to Councils in preparing the Plans
More active help from DSE and Government

Utilise the Planning Technical Committee as working group to review structure
planning processes and outcomes to date and develop some best practice
guidelines to improve structure planning process and product
Walking and
cycling

Should be given a higher priority in implementation of the Plan by
State Government

Incorporate the provision of facilities to support walking and cycling into
structure planning
Community
understanding
and
ownership

‘front end’
Faster Planning Scheme amendment process within DSE is required;
better advice, assistance, communication, and decision making (i.e.
‘better decisions faster’)
The State government needs to join local government at the coalface
in implementing the plan - a real partnership approach.





Amenity and
design






Advocate for completion of Regional Housing Statements and clarify their
purpose and how they will be used, by community, council and VCAT
Advocate for improved communication by DSE to explain drivers, principles and
directions of M2030
Develop a broad suite of communications tools to assist local government
explain M 2030 drivers to community
APPENDIX 2 - RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS FROM STATE COUNCIL May 11 2005
MELBOURNE 2030
That the MAV actively support the principles of Melbourne 2030 which aim to constrain urban sprawl and create a more
amenable city, whilst accommodating the projected population
AND
That the MAV seek the following undertakings from the State Government to facilitate effective implementation of
Melbourne 2030:
1. A commitment to providing the necessary state infrastructure required, particularly relating to the public transport
network, and traffic management and drainage capacity in and around activity centres;
2. A commitment to providing improved and proactive mechanisms to facilitate a "joined up government" approach in
working with Councils to deliver Melbourne 2030 projects at the local level;
3. A commitment to supporting local government structure plans prepared in consultation with local communities
4. A commitment to recognising the pre-eminence of neighbourhood character and liveability in determining the
appropriateness of proposals for new development
PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKET ZONING
That the MAV support the overhaul of the current public transport ticket zoning system to create a fairer system that
discourages public transport users from driving to a neighbouring (lower fare) zone to save money. That the MAV mounts a
campaign to ensure that the State Government adopts a public ticketing system in 2007 that is fairer, more practical and
discourages the use of private vehicles and that the State Government funds the appropriate physical infrastructure, systems
and services to facilitate this.
EASTLINK
That the MAV call on the State Government to ensure that adequate sustainability principles are embedded into the design
and construction stages of EASTLINK, Australia’s largest public infrastructure project.
INTEGRATED TRANSPORT
That the MAV advocate to the Victorian State Government to substantially increase its investment in public transport to:
1. Achieve its goal of having 20% of all motorised trips in the metropolitan area made by public transport by 2020; and
2. Avoid the costly impacts of increased traffic congestion that will arise from the consolidation of metropolitan Melbourne
envisaged by Melbourne 2030 if appropriate levels of infrastructure and service improvements to public transport were
not to be implemented.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
1. That the MAV provide a report on its actions in pursuing with the Victorian Government, public transport initiatives sought
in previous State Council motions for the MAV to:
a. make representations to the Minister for Transport to develop and adopt in partnership with local government a
strategy for integrated public and private transport in regional areas to complement the improved rail services
planned for the major rail corridors” (14 May 2003);
b. request the Minister for Transport “to advise details of the State Government initiatives to achieve their 20%
public transport target by 2020” (14 May 2003);
c. request the Minister for Transport “to advise how the “Public Transport poor” interface councils are to be
supplied with adequate public transport services and when this will occur” (14 May 2003);
d. “publicly and directly advocate to the State Government to fully fund the public transport policies and objectives
set out in the State’s Melbourne 2030 policy document” (19 May 2004);
e. “request the Federal Government to make substantial funding available to enhance, upgrade and extend public
transport services” (9 September 2004)
2. Further that the MAV request the Minister for Transport to:
a. develop rapid transit public transport measures in the Doncaster Corridor to overcome increasing traffic
congestion resulting from freeway expansion; and
b. advise details of State Government initiatives to achieve 30 per cent of all freight transported to and from ports,
to be by rail.
3. That the MAV request the Federal Minister for Transport and Federal Treasurer to achieve reversal of the bias towards
cars in the taxation system in both Fringe Benefits Tax and allowable deductions, towards supporting public transport.
NB - Other resolutions were made regarding the operation of the planning system more broadly.
APPENDIX 3 – ANALYSIS AGAINST PARTNERSHIP THEMES AND IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE ACTIONS
THEME 1 – COMMUNICATION OBJECTIVE
To assist local government effectively communicate, in the context of differing local pressures, the drivers and need for a metropolitan framework (to manage growth, address environmental
issues, meet sustainable infrastructure needs and provide for changing demographics).
ISSUES
RELEVANT M2030 PROJECTS
COMMUNICATIONS
 Generally negative and defensive public coverage.
 Alternative scenarios not challenged or explored.
 Comms recipients opt-in, no way of assessing impact /
value or targeting.
 Communications, marketing and promotion are required –
all needing different strategies
 Branding / badging of projects or M2030 initiatives not
easily done
 Local government not equipped or prepared to champion
M2030.
 M2030 seen as an agenda and nota framework
 M2030 perceived as driving a high density agenda ie
drivers not well explained
COMMUNICATIONS
 Email updates – 2000+ subscribers
 M2030 website
 Structure Planning Advice website
 Quarterly Stakeholder bulletins
 Annual Community Update
 Community workshops held for growth
areas
 Fact sheets/brochures such as
‘Protecting the Suburbs’
 LG Briefing/forums (eg Nov04
Protecting the Suburbs)
 Urban Development Program forums
and annual report
 Demographics/population brochures/
bulletins, eg Research Matters
OUTCOMES
 Despite some improvements to the management of in-fill, it
is still contentious, often poorly located, designed and low
quality – and highly visible, undermining outcomes M2030
promised.
 Loss of established or preferred neighbourhood character
still a critical issue.
 Little common understandings of amenity and density.
 No mechanism to identify and
 celebrate best practice or successful initiatives ie ‘beacon
projects’ Community and LG ownership of ‘best practice’
necessary for credibility
 Planning outcomes often have high public scrutiny, are
divisive and not welcomed
 Character and design poorly understood and meaning
something different to everyone
 Delay and processes not running as agreed
OUTCOMES
 Minister’s M2030 PIA Planning Award
 Additional Tools such as Res 3 zone,
Neighbourhood Character and DDOs
 Guidelines for Higher Density
Residential Development – Dec 2004
 Design Guidelines for Activity Centres –
due out mid 2005
 MAV M2030 Liaison Officer and forums
 MAV Councillor Reference Group
 MAV Planning Technical Committee
 M2030 Implementation Reference
Group
 VLGA / RMIT Councillor Training
Program
POSSIBLE ACTIONS







Development of a broad suite of
communications tools to assist local
government explain drivers of
Melbourne 2030 to the community
Advocate for improved communication
by DSE to explain drivers, principles
and directions of M2030
Develop leadership capacity of local
government through information
sharing
Promotion of debate and defence of
Melbourne 2030 by DSE participation
in community forums etc
Improve understanding of amenity,
character and alternative density
scenarios.
Acknowledgement of Local
Government commitment and action
through a “Beacon Project’ type
initiative where best practice examples
are identified by local government
Contribute to processes that identify
best practice and good built examples
to show what the framework can
deliver
THEME 2 – COMMITMENT OBJECTIVE
A genuine partnership approach, supported by technical and financial capacity, where Melbourne 2030 implementation is strongly influenced by local government priorities and
circumstances in a supportive external environment.
ISSUES
RELEVANT M2030 PROJECTS
FINANCIAL COMMITMENT
 Cost of infrastructure provision
 Difficulty in sourcing external funds for infrastructure
provision
 Reluctance to raise debt for infrastructure provision
 Cost of development particularly over 4 stories
 Cost of development in Victoria
 Differing yield across Melbourne
 Lack of investment required to build alternative transport
system
 Lack of significant effort on ‘value capture ‘ and alternative
funding models, particularly around growth corridors and
activity centres
 Need to create incentives

OUTCOMES
 Increasing questioning of in-fill (35% of growth) and density
on fringe as sustainable contributor to housing supply.
 No widespread support for modal shift to PT
 Little perceived whole of government commitment to M2030
 DSE seen as adding to complexity around M2030, not
cutting through it
 Mixed expectations of process and critical reception – of
too little and too slow
 Good support from SG/LG, progress being made but
variable approaches, costs, timelines and outcomes (eg
Structure plans)
 Short term - Political / election cycles
 Market downturn
 Investor confidence






POSSIBLE ACTIONS
M2030 Implementation Program
o RHWG
o Transit Cities
o Activity Centre Structure
Planning
o Better Decisions Faster
o Growth Area Planning

M2030 Implementation Reference
Group
Priority Development Panel
Urban Development Program
Local Government Assistance Fund
Metropolitan Transport Plan

2005-06 State Budget - $52.8 million for
M2030 initiatives, $199.2 m for
metropolitan transport services, $39.6m
to expand supply of affordable housing,
$29.78 m to expand and extend
neighbourhood renewal.

Sustainability Scorecards, Basix etc

EAROPH secretariat with Minister
Broad/ RMIT

Possible Partnership Models for
Implementation of the Activity Centre
Policy





Annual Melbourne 2030 Priority
Statement for Local Government as
part of MAV Annual Budget submission
Explore MoU or charter with State
Government to assist implementation
DSE continue support of transit cities,
leading with infrastructure provision,
and also for principal activity centres
Continued support by DSE of Regional
forums to look at transport, social and
civil infrastructure priorities and
provision
Explore higher fees, Developer
Contribution Plans and other funding or
value capture options to deliver
infrastructure and public benefit
outcomes of M2030.
Identify incentives for activity centre
investors (eg waiver of bulk of car
parking requirements to fund public
transport) to encourage investment
Planning Technical Committee to
explore models for funding,
management and delivery
THEME 3 – CAPACITY OBJECTIVE
To improve the operation of the Planning System and the capacity of Councillors and planning staff.
ISSUES
RELEVANT M2030 PROJECTS
PLANNING SYSTEM AND STAFF
 Planning System reform did not deliver on its promises –
less complexity and more certainty
 Whitney and Better Decisions Faster – progress but not
completely implemented
 Difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff
 PIA championing reform agenda
 Little opportunity to reflect, and share learning and
experience









OUTCOMES
 Structure planning costly and complex
 Green Wedge Zone objectives often undermined
 Amenity, Design and Housing outcomes
 Civic ‘gestures’ and comprehension of place often twee
 Improving housing design for future inhabitants
 Clarity of definitions re high, med and low density
development
 Greenfield development not perceived as reflecting M2030
long term objectives
 Perceptions of development (partic infill) leading to loss of
amenity








Local Government Assistance Fund
Pride of Place
Creating Better Places program
MAV M2030 forums
MAV Councillor Reference Group
MAV Planning Technical Committee
VLGA Councillor Training Program
PLANET
Metropolitan Fringe Councils - Strategic
Planning Partnership
Rural zones review
Coastal Spaces
Rural zones translation project
Green Wedge Management Plans
DSE re-structure
Internal DSE group
Structure Planning Advice website
Monitoring of Structure Planning and
Statutory Tools for Activity Centres
POSSIBLE ACTIONS








Collaborate with Planning Industry
Association on the Planning System
Reform agenda
Progress outcomes of the Whitney
committee and Better Decisions Faster
Explore skills exchange program
Integration of capacity building
component into ‘Creating Better
Places”
Forum on amenity and design; bus tour
for site inspections
Utilise the Planning Technical
Committee as working group to review
structure planning processes and
outcomes to date and develop some
best practice guidelines to improve
structure planning process and product
Identification of intrusions /issues that
undermine the purpose and application
of the Green Wedge Zone.
Work with professional and industry
associations (PIA, Urban DIA, HIA,
RAIA) to improve quality, accessibility
and siting of built form outcomes in the
public and private realm.
THEME 4 – CO-ORDINATION OBJECTIVE
To build effective regional arrangements across government improving interaction with state agencies and departments.
ISSUES













RELEVANT M2030 PROJECTS
Departmental decisions not consistent with M2030
framework
Inconsistent advice and approach from regions and head
office
Local Government has to deal with many departments
individually
Regional collaboration valued, eg interface group and
RHWG
Local Government often ends up conveying mixed
messages and competing priorities.
Capacity, knowledge, skills and experience of local
government highly varied
Local Government not strategic in information exchange
and building sector capacity
DSE does not actively facilitate across government
collaboration not use local government to assist in
advocacy
Market signals sent by structure plans mixed.
Walking and Cycling not mandatory inclusion in structure
planning
Activity centres as destinations should have priority for ped
and cycling infrastructure improvements
Educational, social and health objectives need integration
Housing affordability and future lifestyle needs /costs for
fringe areas.














Recent structural changes to PP region
and Built Environment Group
Growth Area Planning
Transit Cities and Activity Centres
M2030 Implementation Reference
Group – departmental observers
M2030 Cabinet Committee and
Interdepartmental Committee
M2030 Implementation Program
Possible Partnership Models for
Implementation of the Activity Centre
Policy
Metropolitan Transport Plan
RHWG
Survey of OoH re LG role in affordable
housing
$20 million Melbourne 2030 Housing
Boost
Behavioural Change programs eg
TravelSmart
Parks Victoria bike paths network plan
Bicycle Facilities Provisions for the
Victorian Planning Provisions
POSSIBLE ACTIONS







Pursue integrated transport outcomes
through MAV Transport and
Infrastructure Advisory group who are
currently developing a Transport
Strategy
Advocate for completion of Regional
Housing Statements and clarify their
purpose, and how they will be used by
community, council and VCAT.
Improve access of local government to
M2030 cabinet sub-committee
(presentation annual budget
submission)
Mirror cabinet sub-committee at third
level and convene (2pa) CEO’s briefing
Continue regional working groups and
broaden scope
Delivery and integration of accessible
and affordable housing choices within
M2030 deliverables
Incorporate the provision of facilities to
support walking and cycling into
structure planning