Volume 6 Number 1 February 1999
Time: 7.30 pm
Venue: Sisalkraft Theatre, Architecture Building, Melbourne
University.
When we heard of the establishment of Save Our Suburbs, the idea occurred to me that a subsequent move could be to set up a complementary 'Save Our Fringes' group.If you are interested to pursue this idea further, phone a MEEPPA contact on 9736 1786, 9736 2630 or 5964 9356.
Dear Minister
Urban Consolidation
Although I am no longer President of the TCPA (and that office is currently vacant), I have been asked to respond to your letter of 22 January 1999, following upon a close consideration of it by our committee.
We are grateful for your detailed and helpful response, which is most useful in clarifying a number of issues. I would like to take up your offer of communicating directly with Ms Alder on various details. In particular:
Population.
Is it possible to obtain a copy of the State Government policy to which you refer? In particular, apart from the proposed level of skilled migration, does the policy contain target figures for overall population, and for the location of that population as between city and country, one region and another, &c? Or does it simply predict the likely growth and respond to these predictions? The TCPA policy resolution called for explicit policies on population, which would necessarily include the direction of population to locations within Victoria, which is very much a state matter.
Rural land, metropolitan growth &c.
Although you say that 'governments in democratic societies have neither the inclination nor the means to force people to reside in certain areas of the State', and this is largely true, it is also true that the free choices made by people are very largely moulded by government policy. That is, decisions as to land-use zoning and expenditure on roads and transport affect the cost and viability of living in any specific area, and hence its attractiveness to users.
In particular it has been argued - and I do not wish to canvass here the merits of this argument - that the planning system at present delivers a massive subsidy to new dwelling development in inner Melbourne at the expense of country towns. New dwellings benefit from existing infrastructure, they benefit by having the cost of any necessary additional infrastructure borne largely by the pre-existing population; and they benefit from amenity at the expense of those who previously enjoyed that amenity. Only recently have attempts been made to quantify some of these aspects, and the indications are that they amount to a subsidy of many thousands of dollars per dwelling. If that subsidy were to cease, and were instead applied to selected rural localities, one can anticipate a significant shift in the preferences of housing consumers (especially of retirees and the unemployed).
We are glad that you see Government policy as consistent with the points we have raised, and we are indeed aware of some aspects of this. But much of this seems to be theoretical, with little evidence of being put into effect on the ground. For example, notwithstanding your concern to confine metropolitan growth, we understand that you have overridden existing council controls so as to permit subdivisions in some peripheral areas.
Moreover there is very little expenditure upon the development and extension of the public transport system, as compared with the very large expenditure upon roads. It is also a matter of concern that the encouragement of consolidation near transport interchanges &c, is taking place without a commensurate upgrading of the existing urban infrastructure, which is in many cases overstressed. Meanwhile facilities such as parks are required to serve an increased population, so that effectively the standards of provision of parks and other facilities is severely reduced on a per capita basis.
In relation to the discussion paper on encouraging people to settle in rural areas, we will be very glad of the opportunity to contribute.
Infrastructure to areas with higher residential densities
Your response has raised two discrete aspects of which the first is the direction of urban growth to designated urban growth areas, and the second is the redevelopment of existing areas to higher densities.
The concept of designated urban growth areas is hardly open to challenge, and it is both desirable and cost-effective that these be planned integrally with infrastructure and facilities. But it is not clear to us whether this is really happening. Is the provision per capita of parks and cultural facilities, health and welfare agencies, &c, comparable with that of existing suburbs? It certainly appears that the provision of public transport is not.
Has your government considered adopting a firm policy that the public transport system be developed and extended at least pro rata with the expenditure on extending and upgrading the road system? It is hard to exaggerate the potential this would have for reducing the number of two car families, reducing the usage of existing cars, and contributing to the welfare of non-drivers.
In relation to consolidation of existing areas the questions are different, but equally important. The loss of population has been only in part due to a reduction in household size, for in great measure it is due to commercial and institutional expansion in formerly residential areas. These uses also support local businesses. And where household size has reduced, it is not clear that household expenditure has reduced accordingly, or that shops have suffered. In fact a residential policy based principally upon the need to support specific existing local shops can hardly be seriously entertained, however desirable a local shopping policy may be. Still less is there a case for supporting transport in inner areas, for there is no indication of any surplus transport capacity.
We believe that there are good reasons for increasing density in specific areas of inner ring Melbourne, but they do not relate to the need to bolster existing local shops or under-used transport systems, nor to the supposed surplus infrastructure capacity which was until recently regularly claimed to exist. The basic reasons are twofold. One is that there is a demand for the location and lifestyle offered by these areas, and this demand is likely to continue, albeit on a reduced scale, even if the existing indirect subsidies (see above) are removed. The other is that there is property whose best economic use is for medium and high density residential development.
Once it is accepted that the reasons for such development are lifestyle goals by consumers, and the opportunity of commercial gains for owners, it must be obvious that there is considerable justice in the current concerns of resident groups affected by these developments. There is no reason why one person's lifestyle should be improved at the expense of another, or one person make a financial profit at the expense of another. We believe that there are, nevertheless, substantial opportunities for increasing densities without adversely affecting existing residents, but they are probably considerably fewer than has hitherto been supposed, just as the real (unsubsidised) market demand is much less than has been supposed.
Higher density development over shopping centres.
This does not promise to be a major component of the housing market, but the other benefits it offers are considerable. We cannot accept that your Government's role should be so limited as you indicate. We do not advocate compulsion, and nor do we advocate overriding local council planning policies. But the Government holds a great advantage in its ownership of some major land holdings, and its capacity to acquire and consolidate others, and this should be used in those cases where the local council and the Government agree upon its desirability.
There seems no reason why an agency like the Urban Land Authority should not assemble appropriate parcels of land, and then put them on the market subject to conditions as to the nature of the development that will take place. Indeed, if these developments are accompanied, as they should be, by government expenditure on upgrading public transport and other facilities, there is every reason why the government should reap the increased land value which results from this.
Site consolidation
You make two main points, with both of which I must frankly take issue. The first of them is twofold. You say that a larger site is not essential to a good design outcome, and a poor design on a large site will have a much greater adverse impact than a poor design on a small site. Whilst both statements are true in the most literal sense, they do not effectively address the issue.
Let us be clear that we are talking basically about 'design' less in the sense of architectural quality, than about planning design, and especially amenity. Moreover, a poor design on a large site should not be compared with poor design on a small site but with a number of poor designs on small sites - that is, the same number of units on the same amount of land, but divided up into separate developments.
It is very obvious that a site occupying a whole suburban block surrounded by roads will have no common boundaries, and will therefore avoid most of the problems to neighbours associated with privacy, noise, overshadowing &c. The same amount of development distributed over twenty separate house-sized allotments in an existing residential area will have a huge extent of common boundary with neighbours, and all the usual problems that result from this. But it goes far beyond this. The amount of land devoted to setbacks around the four boundaries of each small allotment could be reduced to about one fifth in the larger development, and all of that land could be planned as really effective open space within the development - or, conversely a greater amount of ground could be covered and more units built. Again, in the larger development it would be possible to build higher at the centre of the block without adversely affecting neighbours. It would possible to provide limited points of vehicle access and a more effective security system, and common facilities like swimming pools. In other words, this larger development offers great benefits to the occupants.
Your second main point is that 'the creation of larger sites is not necessary because there is a considerable number of large sites available for residential development in metropolitan Melbourne.' This I find astounding. All over the suburbs single house allotments or double allotments are being redeveloped for units. All over Melbourne neighbours are objecting. Appeals are banked up for months at VCAT. How can you possibly assert that the number of large sites is sufficient?
It is obvious that there is much we still need to learn about Government policy on these issues, and I believe also that the extent of consultation being engaged in by agencies like the Department of Infrastructure indicates some degree of receptiveness to ideas from bodies such as our own. We welcome every opportunity for further dialogue, and I again express my appreciation of your thoughtful and helpful response to our original letter.
Yours sincerely
Miles Lewis
Why would you want to move to the country?
The Planning Minister has invited the TCPA to join local government in providing input to a discussion paper on "Rural and Regional Victoria as a place to live". The paper will focus on "identifying the issues and factors which influence Melbourne people to take up residence in the country and would examine strategies to facilitate increased city out-migration to settle in rural and regional Victoria". The Department is seeking views on "the scope of the paper, including the factors which may be relevant to the issue".
If you would like to contribute to a TCPA submission, please contact Ray Walford on 9817 4684 (ah) or email raywalford@bigpond.com as soon as possible.