The Metropolitan Planning
Authority:
towards a preferred model
August 2013
Document1
This report has been prepared for MAV. SGS Economics and Planning
has taken all due care in the preparation of this report. However, SGS
and its associated consultants are not liable to any person or entity for
any damage or loss that has occurred, or may occur, in relation to that
person or entity taking or not taking action in respect of any
representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to herein.
SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd
ACN 007 437 729
www.sgsep.com.au
Offices in Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Sydney
Document1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Workshop findings and subsequent feedback
1
1
1
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
MPA OPERATIONAL MODEL
Mandate
Constitution and governance
Custody of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy
Delivering and co-ordinating infrastructure to support the MPS
Timely delivery of follower infrastructure to service urban development
Gateway role in planning for city shaping infrastructure
2.5 Functions under the Planning and Environment Act
Defining matters of metropolitan significance
State-local government protocol on planning powers
2.6 Development role
2.7 Resourcing
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
APPENDIX 1
MAV’s May 2013 statement of purpose for MPA
1
1
APPENDIX 2
July 24, 2013 workshop - acceptances
6
6
APPENDIX 3
July 24 workshop notes
8
8
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model
1
INTRODUCTION
Background
1.1
In May 2013, the MAV developed a broad position regarding the roles, functions and governance of the
proposed Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA), announced by Government two months earlier. This
statement of Councils’ views is shown at Appendix 1.
In July 2013, the MAV commissioned SGS Economics & Planning Pty Ltd (SGS) to facilitate a further
discussion amongst Council stakeholders with a view to providing Government with advice regarding a
preferred ‘operational model’ for the MPA. Given the impending release of the draft metropolitan
strategy, the Association was keen to make specific recommendations about how an MPA might secure
successful implementation of the plan.
In approaching this task, SGS mapped out a four-step method:
1. Preparation of a short briefing paper (in PowerPoint format) canvassing the
issues, key principles and basic structural elements of the MPA design.
2. Facilitation of a workshop with the MAV planning forum, based on this briefing
paper.
3. Circulation of an interim report from the workshop, including an outline for a
preferred MPA operating model
4. Synthesis of the feedback on the interim report into a draft MAV position paper
for use in ongoing discussions with State Government.
The workshop was designed to address 5 key questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What functions within the ambit of the Planning and Environment Act (1987) should be
performed by the MPA, and what shifts in role does this imply for the Minister, Government
Departments and local government?
What metropolitan planning functions outside the ambit of the P&E Act should be performed
by the MPA?
Given these functions, what kind of legislative mandate and constitution is required for the
MPA (e.g. advisory body within the Department versus independent statutory authority)?
Within this legislative mandate and constitution, what should be the governance structure of
the MPA, and how should the governing board (if required) be structured and directors
appointed?
How should the MPA be resourced?
Acceptances for the workshop are shown at Appendix 2.
1.2
Workshop findings and subsequent feedback
Some clear themes emerged from the workshop that laid the basis for a potential consensus on roles,
function and form of the MPA. A record of major commentary made at the workshop may be found at
Appendix 3.
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model 1
Based on the broad direction of discussion at the workshop and the commentary received on the interim
report that followed, SGS has framed a specific operating model for the MPA. This is set out in the next
section of this report.
Although not explicitly endorsed by a ‘vote’ amongst participants, this model accords with the principal
recommendations of those officers and councillors who contributed to the discussion process outlined
above.
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model 2
2
MPA OPERATIONAL
MODEL
Mandate
2.1
The broad mandate of the MPA would be two-fold. Firstly, it would have a focus on forging a whole of
Government commitment to the Metropolitan Planning Strategy (MPS), including the timely delivery of
the transport, water-cycle, education, health and other infrastructure required to realise this vision for
greater Melbourne. At the same time, the MPA needs to provide a forum for a ‘metropolitan voice’; that
is, it ought to provide a mechanism for the smooth and constructive resolution of the inevitable tensions
between metropolitan and local interests.
To achieve this, the MPA governance structure should properly reflect a metropolitan constituency of
citizens, as well as enjoying committed participation by key State infrastructure agencies.
Constitution and governance
2.2
To realise this dual mandate, the MPA would be an arm’s length statutory authority operating with
oversight by an appropriate Minister, but not subject to day-to-day direction by that Minister.
It would have a governing board of 11 members comprising:



Five CEOs (or equivalent) of relevant State infrastructure and regulatory
agencies including (1) transport, (2) planning, (3) environment, (4) economic
development and (5) other (e.g. health or education etc) on a rotating basis;
Five local government delegates (officer or elected) appointed by 5 regional
forums of Councils representing Melbourne’s Western, Northern, Eastern,
Southern and central metropolitan regions;
An independent Chair appointed by the State Government.
The figure overleaf summarises the key functions of the MPA and its links to the State Government and
local Councils. More detail on these roles and relationships is provided below.
2.3
Custody of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy
The MPA would ‘own’ the Metropolitan Planning Strategy (MPS), in the sense that it would be
responsible for monitoring its progress and refining it as new knowledge about urban development in
Melbourne emerges through the implementation process. Should a new MPS be required in the future,
the MPA would have responsibility for preparing drafts for ratification by Parliament. In effect the MPA
would perform the role currently being delivered by the Ministerial Advisory Committee.
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model 3
Delivering and co-ordinating infrastructure to support the
MPS
2.4
The MPA would also have a dual role in co-ordinating and delivering infrastructure in line with the MPS,
reflecting two broad categories of assets:


major projects which have the capacity to ‘shape’ the pattern of urban
development; and
facilities and services that tend to ‘follow’ the pattern or staging of development
(see figure overleaf).
Timely delivery of follower infrastructure to service urban development
With respect to ‘follower’ infrastructure, the MPA would perform a role similar to that delivered by the
Growth Areas Authority (GAA), except that its scope would extend to those parts of the established
urban area that are expected to undergo significant infill or redevelopment under the MPS. That is, the
MPA will work with service delivery agencies and local government to establish high level structure plans
and staging schedules so that infrastructure can be rolled out in a co-ordinated way.
An important part of this role relates to facilitation of, and timely provision of infrastructure for, urban
development projects of metropolitan significance. These could include major urban renewal initiatives
(for example, Fishermans Bend), the creation of key community and commercial hubs for metropolitan
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model 4
sub-regions (for example accelerated development of the Central Activities Areas) and the reinforcement
of strategic employment clusters (for example, around Monash in Clayton)
Source SGS
Gateway role in planning for city shaping infrastructure
Only a small number of projects have genuine ‘city shaping’ power. Past examples include the
Melbourne Underground Rail Loop, CityLink, Western Ring Road and EastLink. Current examples include
the Regional Rail Link, East West Link and Melbourne Metro One. Typically, major transport investments
are involved; these shift accessibility contours and therefore the locational choices of households and
businesses. However, it is possible that non-transport projects can profoundly influence the pattern of
urban development – for example, major university or research hospital projects. In all cases these
infrastructure investments have systemic and cross-portfolio impacts ranging well beyond the initial
function or purpose of the project in question. Accordingly, they deserve a special focus in planning.
Simple cost benefit analysis is unlikely to reveal their true worth or impact.
Because of these systemic impacts, the MPA should be the sponsor within State Government of city
shaping projects. Unlike line agencies, the MPA can bring an integrating, cross-portfolio and place based
approach to the formulation and evaluation of these projects. Moreover, the MPS cannot succeed
unless city shaping investments are properly aligned. Once formulated, agreed and funded through the
various State and Commonwealth approval forums, the MPA can ‘hand off’ the projects to other
agencies for procurement.
2.5
Functions under the Planning and Environment Act
The MPA would ‘translate’ the principles and policy directions in the MPS into statutorily enforceable
provisions in planning schemes via amendments to the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and the
incorporation of relevant planning documents.
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model 5
Defining matters of metropolitan significance
The MPA would work with local government to determine the definitions, criteria and thresholds by
which areas and projects of ‘metropolitan significance’ would be identified. This suite of decision rules
would have regard to the subsidiarity principle; that is decisions should be made at the local community
level unless it can be demonstrated that the well-being of regional or metropolitan communities will be
unduly compromised.
Matters and areas of metropolitan significance will ultimately need to be signed off by Parliament, as
with any other fundamental element of metropolitan strategy.
State-local government protocol on planning powers
A formal and publicly available State Government - local government protocol would confirm and restate the subsidiarity principles, criteria and decision rules governing the planning matters to be dealt
with by the Minister, the MPA and local government.
The MPA would be able to make planning schemes (and associated master plans, structure plans and
development contribution plans) for areas that are agreed to be of metropolitan significance under the
protocol. At its discretion, it may prepare planning schemes for these specific areas in its own right or
may delegate all or part of this function to the host Council with appropriate guidelines.
Similarly, the MPA would be the responsible authority for the determination of development
applications in agreed areas of metropolitan significance and for agreed projects of metropolitan
significance. It may delegate all or part of this development approval function to local government.
With these arrangements in place Ministerial interventions in the planning process, including call-ins,
will be rare and confined to matters of genuine State-wide significance, as per the abovementioned
protocol.
2.6
Development role
The MPA would not carry out major urban
development projects itself. This function is best
performed by specific purpose organisations, as
this avoids a conflict of interest in setting
development rules and undertaking development.
Moreover, the cultural and skill requirements of a
development agency are likely to be distinctly
different from those of a strategic planning agency.
Any development agency would work within the
frame of the MPS, and would collaborate with the
MPA in terms of infrastructure co-ordination for
major urban renewal, activity centre and
employment cluster projects.
2.7
Resourcing
MPA MODEL AT A GLANCE
• Matters of metropolitan significance formally defined
in a State-Local Government protocol
• MPA functions:
(1) Stewardship of MPS
(2) Co-ordination of ‘follower’ infrastructure in line with
MPS
(3) Sponsor for ‘city shaping’ infrastructure projects
(4) Planning scheme formulation for agreed areas of
metropolitan significance
(5) Development approval for projects and areas of
metropolitan significance
• MPA constitution and governance:
(1) Arm’s length statutory authority
(2) Board of 11 – 5 infrastructure agency heads, 5 local
government delegates, 1 independent chairperson
(3) Resourced by transfers of staff and assets from other
government departments
The MPA would be resourced by transfers of staff and assets from other government departments, most
particularly the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI).
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model 6
APPENDIX 1
MAV’s May 2013 statement of purpose for the MPA
APPENDIX 2
July 24, 2013 workshop - acceptances
Organisation
Position
Title
First
Last
Moonee Valley City Council
Manager Strategic & Statutory Planning
Mr
Henry
Bezuidenhout
Mitchell Shire Council
Director Sustainable Development
Ms
Kerrie
Birtwistle
Greater Dandenong City Council
Director City Planning Design and Amenity
Mr
Jody
Bosman
Glen Eira City Council
Co-ordinator Strategic Planning
Mr
Rocky
Camera
Yarra Ranges Shire Council
Mayor
Cr
Jim
Child
Wyndham City Council
Strategic Planning Co-ordinator
Mr
Elio
Comello
Whitehorse City Council
Councillor
Cr
Philip
Daw
Manningham City Council
Director Planning and Environment
Ms
Teresa
Dominik
Yarra Ranges Shire Council
Executive Officer Strategic Planning
Ms
Claudette
Fahy
Bayside City Council
Councillor
Cr
Felicity
Frederico
Yarra City Council
Mayor, MAV Board Member
Cr
Jackie
Fristacky
Mitchell Shire Council
Manager Strategic Planning and Environment
Ms
Stacey
Gardiner
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council
Councillor
Cr
David
Gibb
Nillumbik Shire Council
Manager Strategic and Economic Planning
Mr
Chad
Griffiths
Bayside City Council
Mayor
Cr
Stephen
Hartney
Municipal Association of Victoria
Senior Planning Adviser
Mr
Gareth
Hately
Nillumbik Shire Council
Councillor
Cr
Bronnie
Hattam
Greater Dandenong City Council
Group Manager Greater Dandenong Business
Mr
Paul
Kearsley
Banyule City Council
Manager Development Services
Mr
Daniel
Kollmorgen
Knox City Council
Director City Development
Mr
Angelo
Kourambas
Melbourne City Council
Director City Planning & Infrastructure
Mr
Geoff
Lawler
Boroondara City Council
Director City Planning
Mr
John
Luppino
Mitchell Shire Council
Councillor
Cr
Sue
Marstaeller
Yarra Ranges Shire Council
Councillor
Cr
Maria
McCarthy
Brimbank City Council
Director City Development
Mr
Stuart
Menzies
Casey City Council
Principal Planner
Mrs
Keri
New
Whittlesea City Council
Director Planning & Major Projects
Mr
Steve
O'Brien
Knox City Council
Mayor
Cr
Karin
Orpen
Yarra City Council
Director City Development
Mr
Bruce
Phillips
Whitehorse City Council
General Manager City Development
Mrs
Julie
Reid
Boroondara City Council
MAV Board Member
Cr
Coral
Ross
Casey City Council
Councillor
Cr
Gary
Rowe
Darebin City Council
Manager City Development
Mr
Darren
Rudd
Nillumbik Shire Council
General Manager Environment & Planning
Mr
Ransce
Salan
Moorabool Shire Council
General Manager
Mr
Satwinder
Sandhu
Melton City Council
General Manager Planning & Development
Mr
Luke
Shannon
Hume City Council
Manager Strategic Planning
Mr
Michael
Sharp
Yarra City Council
Councillor
Cr
Amanda
Stone
Brimbank City Council
Executive Officer Positioning Brimbank
Mr
Stephen
Sully
Port Phillip City Council
Sandridge Ward Councillor
Cr
Bernadene
Voss
Moreland City Council
Manager Sustainable Development
Mrs
Sue
Vujcevic
Port Phillip City Council
Manger City Strategy
Ms
Sandra
Wade
Hobsons Bay City Council
Director Planning and Environment (Acting
Ms
Natalie
Walker
Cardinia Shire Council
General Manager Planning & Development
Mr
Philip
Walton
Brimbank City Council
Chair of Administrators
Executive Manager Sustainable Future /
Municipal Recovery Manager
Mr
John
Watson
Mrs
Karen
Watson
Bayside City Council
Director City Strategy
Mr
Shiran
Wickramasinghe
Manningham City Council
Mayor
Cr
Jennifer
Yang
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council
CEO
Dr
Michael
Kennedy OAM
Maribyrnong City Council
Manager City Strategy
Mr
Adrian
Havryluk
Yarra City Council
Mayor
Cr
Jackie
Fristacky
Stonnington City Council
APPENDIX 3
July 24 workshop notes
Location: Conference Room, Level 1, Rydges, Melbourne
Workshop Question 1: Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) functions within ambit of the Planning
& Environment Act
Strategic Planning

Councils are likely to need help in devising strategies for areas of metropolitan
significance.

The definition of metropolitan significance would need to be underpinned by a
clear rationale of what constitutes ‘metropolitan’. The main area of uncertainty is
the extent to which a peri-urban municipality such as the Shire of Mitchell
should be included. The opposing view holds the rationale that an MPA needs
to be focused on its primary area of concern (metropolitan Melbourne), and a
spatial limitation will need to be drawn to define the scope of its influence.

Coordination of strategic plans needs to be the mandate of the MPA. This
process is likely to also require the MPA to coordinate the efforts of multiple
state departments.

A major focus for the MPA should be the interim review and checkups of major
plans such as the upcoming Metropolitan Planning Strategy.

The MPA should also have a strong definition of what sort of strategic planning
it is attempting, whether it be strategy formulation, devising, reporting,
implementation etc.

Once the strategic side of planning is resolved, the MPA may then look to help
councils with implementation. The MPA must consult with councils in decision
making.

The MPA should avoid becoming too hands-on and bogged down in the details,
and focus instead on the higher level strategy.

The strategic planning of the MPA needs to reflect accountability, public
reporting, monitoring and integrity. The lessons of the GAA need to be heeded
– particularly in terms of engaging local authorities.
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model 8

The potential role of DTPLI was raised, with one possible model being that
DTPLI would devise strategy, while the MPA would lead the implementation of
the strategy.
Statutory Planning

There is a strong need to facilitate partnerships between local and state
authorities. This partnership needs to be meaningful, equitable and participatory
as opposed to tokenism.

Administering infrastructure funding schemes such as Development
Contributions Plans
(DCPs) and the Growth Area Infrastructure Contributions (GAIC) may become
problematic in terms of determining who should collect these funds and then
provide infrastructure.

Some ‘upward’ delegation of planning authority may well be appropriate, but
needs to be well defined for it to function. This mandate should only be in
relation to projects of metropolitan significance; if it degenerates into an office
‘here or there’, then this would not be palatable.

It was questioned whether the MPA would just set the statutory planning
framework or become more involved in the processes thereafter.
Planning Schemes

There is a need to establish quantifiable thresholds of what developments are
considered to be of state significance as opposed to the use of motherhood
statements which are unclear. This might involve a threshold based on the size
of development.

Councils need to be well informed about how they will still be engaged in the
process of metropolitan planning.
Development Approval (DA)

DA should be primarily the role of local government.
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model 9

The MPA could provide some guidance for how the intent of the new
Metropolitan Planning Strategy might be linked to local planning approval
decisions.

There needs to be clear rules of engagement which defines decision making,
and the community will need to be able to understand these rules.
Workshop Question 2: Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) functions beyond the ambit of the
Planning & Environment Act
Budget advisory / Budget gateway

There needs to be a strong prioritization of major projects which will not be
influenced by ‘cherry-picking’ motives.

It was considered important for budgets to be prioritized to deliver outcomes
where the market will not (market failure). This will be more difficult for agencies
such as health and education, which do not possess an obvious pipeline of
prioritized projects.

For outcomes to be realistically achieved, the MPA will need to have an
effective means of carrying arguments to treasury.

It was noted that this MPA may not wield sufficient influence to be able to
coordinate all the major departments in State Government.
Infrastructure Delivery

The need for better infrastructure delivery processes and outcomes was
highlighted.

The MPA may take on the role of a ‘coordinator’ of infrastructure delivery across
regions.

Alternatively, the MPA may also be a ‘vision builder’, setting the high order
objectives for infrastructure planning, staging and funding.

It was noted that infrastructure delivery would be more difficult to achieve in
contemporary Melbourne as opposed to the smaller Melbourne which existed
under the previous Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW).

It was also noted that agencies such as VicRoads have the power to acquire
land to build roads. It was queried whether the MPA would wield such a level of
influence.
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model 10

Whilst it is important to facilitate infrastructure, the MPA should avoid ‘dabbling’
in municipal budgets.

Proper infrastructure planning was considered to perhaps be more important
than delivery itself.
Development

It was seen that the primary role of the MPA could be to lead the conceptual
design of projects – coordinating, facilitating, but not actually being involved in
the hands-on delivery.

Development should remain the main function of Places Victoria, with the MPA
taking on the development role if, and only if Places Victoria no longer existed.
Workshop Question 3: The Metropolitan Planning Authority’s (MPA) legislative mandate and
constitution

A major consensus was reached that the MPA should undoubtedly be a
statutory authority with at arm’s length from the State Government. This would
usually require an independent Chairman and possibly a separate CEO. It may
also possess its own budget, and not sit in or under DTPLI. It could perhaps
report directly to a minister.

An idea commonly raised was to appoint five regional representatives of local
governments across the metropolis.

There was some discussion of how the MPA might relate to other authorities,
particularly in terms of communication. One possible solution raised was to
have executive members of those authorities sit directly on the MPA’s board.

Creating direct links and lines of communication between the MPA and Cabinet
may give the MPA more authority.

It was suggested the MPA should have direct public accountability for the
stewardship of the Metropolitan Strategic Plan.

Elements of the Greater London Authority could be drawn upon as a model for
the successful running of the MPA.

Above all, the MPA needs to be ‘sitting’ above the political cycle to ensure it is
durable over the longer term.
Workshop Question 4: The Metropolitan Planning Authority’s (MPA) governance and resourcing
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model 11

A possible model of governance might see a core board of three or four
executive members supported by a secondary board consisting of LGA
delegates from the regions – a modular board.

The board of the MPA should not be too big (i.e. no more than 11 members).

Board members should ideally be independent with a diverse range of skills.
There was a strong preference for professionals as opposed to politicians.

Board members should be selected for their skills. These individuals should be
people capable of implementing the plans as opposed to just conceptualizing
ideas. One idea to help assist with implementation was to perhaps have the
secretary of Treasury on the MPA board.

Local governments need representation on this board, so this will need to be
worked out.

Multi-agency presentation on the MPA board is also very important.

A nine member board was raised as perhaps being the optimal configuration,
with perhaps five of the members from Local Government regions and the other
four being heads of State Government departments.

The board members could be selected by Parliament.

Initially, the MPA may draft many of its staff from existing state departments
such as the GAA and DTPLI.

The MPA should be independently resourced.

The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model 12
Contact us
CANBERRA
Level 1, 55 Woolley Street
Dickson ACT 2602
+61 2 6262 7603
[email protected]
HOBART
Unit 2, 5 King Street
Bellerive TAS 7018
+61 (0)439 941 934
[email protected]
MELBOURNE
Level 5, 171 La Trobe Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
+61 3 8616 0331
[email protected]
SYDNEY
Suite 12, 50 Reservoir Street
Surry Hills NSW 2010
+61 2 8307 0121
[email protected]
The Metropolitan Planning Authority:
towards a preferred model 13