Municipal Association of Victoria
MAV Submission to Plan Melbourne
– Metropolitan Planning Strategy
December 2013
© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2013.
The Municipal Association of Victoria is the owner of the copyright in the publication
MAV Submission to Plan Melbourne – Metropolitan Planning Strategy.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by
any means without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of
Victoria.
All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should
be addressed to Gareth Hately on 9667 5596.
The MAV can provide this publication in an alternative format upon request, including
large print, Braille and audio.
MAV Submission to Plan Melbourne – Metropolitan Planning Strategy has been
prepared by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) for discussion with the State
Government.
The MAV is the statutory peak body for local government in Victoria, representing all 79
municipalities. The MAV would also like to acknowledge the contribution of those who
provided their comments and advice during this project.
While this paper aims to broadly reflect the views of local government in Victoria, it does
not purport to reflect the exact views of individual councils.
2
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4
2.0
Background ................................................................................................................ 5
2.1
The MAV ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2
Submission to discussion paper – Melbourne: Let’s talk about the future ............... 5
2.3
Paper on the Metropolitan Planning Authority ......................................................... 7
3.0
Comments.................................................................................................................. 8
3.1
Overview ................................................................................................................ 8
3.2
Structure ............................................................................................................... 11
3.3
Funding ................................................................................................................ 12
3.4
Partnership ........................................................................................................... 16
3.5
Priorities and work planning .................................................................................. 21
3.6
Policy coverage .................................................................................................... 23
3.6
Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 27
4.0
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 28
3
1.0 Introduction
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) welcomes the release of Plan Melbourne –
Metropolitan Planning Strategy. The Strategy is a critical document that will guide the future
development of Melbourne to 2050.
The MAV and councils believe the inherent policy principles behind Plan Melbourne are
solid and many of which have a long gestation in previous Melbourne metropolitan
strategies.
The MAV and councils are pleased with a number of aspects of the Strategy particularly:

The spatial nature and coherence of vision across Melbourne

The identification and integration of key infrastructure such as ports, airports and
road and rail routes

The recognition of sub-regions and the opportunity for involvement of all councils in
planning at a sub-regional level

The establishment of the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA), which it is hoped
will improve the coordination of State departments and agencies

Establishment of a fixed Urban Growth Boundary
As part of providing input in the early stages of the Metropolitan Strategy, the MAV
established a Metropolitan Strategy Reference Group. The group is made up of
representatives from all metropolitan councils with both elected representatives and
officers. The group assisted the MAV in preparing the MAV’s submission to the discussion
paper Melbourne: Let’s talk about the future and was again utilised in the preparation of this
submission. A survey of the Reference Group was undertaken and a draft submission was
circulated for comment.
The submission does not seek to critique the policy positions articulated in Plan Melbourne
as it is anticipated councils will make their own detailed individual submissions to the
government. In this submission the focus is primarily on implementation and policy
prioritisation. As a sector representative body, the MAV is much better placed to examine
implementation issues and position councils to work cooperatively with government.
4
2.0 Background
2.1
The MAV
The MAV is the peak representative and advocacy body for Victoria's 79 councils. The
organisation was formed in 1879 and the Municipal Association Act 1907 appointed the
MAV the official voice of local government in Victoria.
Today, the MAV is a driving and influential force behind a strong and strategically
positioned local government sector. Our role is to represent and advocate the interests
of local government; raise the sector's profile; ensure its long-term security; facilitate
effective networks; support councillors; provide policy and strategic advice; capacity
building programs; and insurance services to local government.
The purpose of the MAV’s input to the development of the Metropolitan Strategy is to
highlight the importance of councils in providing city building infrastructure and services
as well as assisting the State Government to successfully implement a critical long
term strategy through both direct actions and interactions with the community.
2.2 Submission to discussion paper – Melbourne: Let’s talk
about the future
The MAV made a detailed submission to the discussion paper – Melbourne: Let’s talk
about the future. The purpose of providing such a detailed submission was to
encourage government to think about important implementation issues such as
governance and funding early in the development of the Metropolitan Strategy.
The submission provided a vision for the Strategy:
Vision
A spatial plan, with clear infrastructure commitments, that has a delivery
framework that results in strengthened collaboration and partnership with local
government and clarity of public and private sector investment across
Melbourne.
5
With the following elements:

Be an aspirational, long term plan that engenders excitement in the community

Result in a spatial plan that clearly defines where key infrastructure and
services are and will be located

Recognise work of councils and result in strengthened collaboration between
local government and regional networks

Have legislated status with bipartisan support

Be adequately funded with identified timeframes

Align investment of various levels of government and private industry

Be targeted but equitable

Fill any policy gaps

Provide a strategy for city to country

Be founded on community values

Be regularly monitored and progress reported.
This was encapsulated in a diagram that outlines the elements of a successful strategy.
Coordinated input from
State Depts and agencies,
Regional Development
Australia Committees,
local government,
industry and community
New
governance
structure
Metropolitan
Strategy
Defined period
of review - 5
years
recommended




Spatial plan
Infrastructure
plan
Investment plan
Monitoring and
evaluation plan
Changes to Local
Government Act and
Planning and
Environement Act
Memorandum of
Understanding between
State and local
government
Meaningful,
timely and
ongoing
Influencing
attitudes and
committment
6
2.3 Paper on the Metropolitan
Planning Authority
In August 2013, the MAV commissioned SGS
MPA MODEL AT A GLANCE
• Matters of metropolitan significance formally
Economics and Planning to work with the MAV
defined in a State-Local Government protocol
Metropolitan Strategy Reference Group to develop
• MPA functions:
a model for the operation of the proposed MPA
(1) Stewardship of MPS
(2) Co-ordination of ‘follower’ infrastructure in line with
(see Attachment 1). This model was provided to
MPS
Government prior to release of Plan Melbourne.
(3) Sponsor for ‘city shaping’ infrastructure projects
(4) Planning scheme formulation for agreed areas of
metropolitan significance
The key aspects of this report were to identify the
(5) Development approval for projects and areas of
role and responsibility of the Authority giving
metropolitan significance
consideration to the roles of State and local
(1) Arm’s length statutory authority
government.
(2) Board of 11 – 5 infrastructure agency heads, 5
• MPA constitution and governance:
local government delegates, 1 independent
chairperson
The identified roles for the MPA were:

(3) Resourced by transfers of staff and assets from
other government departments
Ownership of the Metropolitan Planning
Strategy including monitoring and refining
and preparing a new Strategy if required in the future

Sponsor for gateway infrastructure

Coordinating and delivery of follower infrastructure

Planning scheme formulation for agreed areas of metropolitan significance

Development approval for projects and areas of metropolitan significance.
The document also set out the need for a formal and publicly available State
Government - local government protocol which would confirm and re-state the
subsidiarity principles, criteria and decision rules governing the planning matters to be
dealt with by the Minister for Planning, the MPA and local government.
7
3.0 Comments
3.1
Overview
The release of Plan Melbourne is welcomed by both the MAV and councils after a
number of years of policy uncertainty. We are pleased to see the policy directions are
largely supportable although it is recognised there are new elements, such as
employment clusters and 20 minute neighbourhoods, which will require substantial
policy development for them to have an impact on the ground.
The MAV congratulates the government on its commitment to putting ‘lines on paper’ in
terms of future infrastructure needs and recognises this is no easy task. This is a
significant advancement from the strategies of recent years. There is substantial value
in spatially illustrating the government’s intentions to enable both local government and
the private sector to align their work programs and funding opportunities.
The aspects of Plan Melbourne that we particularly support are:

The spatial nature and coherence of vision across Melbourne

The policy principles and directions

The increased emphasis on transport and the identification and integration of
key infrastructure such as ports, airports and road and rail routes

The implementation connection to the State Planning Policy Framework

The new governance arrangements through the MPA, which it is hoped will go a
long way to improving the coordination of State Departments and agencies

The recognition of sub-regions and the opportunity for involvement of all
councils in planning at a sub-regional level.
It is recognised that Plan Melbourne is a Strategy of its time and emphasis has been
placed on improving economic opportunities and enhancing the movement of freight.
An assumption implicit in the document is that Melbourne will grow substantially in the
identified time period. While we would have liked to have seen a Strategy that focused
on sustainability and equity, the drivers behind the current Strategy are understood.
8
In evaluating the Strategy, we thought it useful to consider the key criteria outlined in
our previous submission to the discussion paper – Melbourne: Let’s talk about the
future. The results of this evaluation are contained in the table below. The Strategy
performs well on a number of fronts such as its spatial nature, its governance
arrangements and its comprehensiveness. There are still, however, significant gaps in
providing greater formal structure to the Strategy, financing and formalising the
partnership between State and local government.
To that end we have attempted to focus on these issues in the remainder of the
submission. To assist government we have also attempted to:

Help prioritise the directions from a local government perspective

Highlight any policy gaps

Provide advice about monitoring
MAV criteria
(outlined in previous
submission)
Be an aspirational, long
term plan that engenders
excitement in the community
Score
(1-10)
7
Comment
Suggestion
Plan Melbourne is a long
term plan with aspirational
elements.
Greater efforts required to
communicate with the
broader community.
Involvement in ongoing
monitoring may be a useful
strategy.
The broader community is
not yet engaged.
Result in a spatial plan that
clearly defines where key
infrastructure and services
are and will be located
6
Very positive steps toward
spatial planning with key
commitments demonstrated
and connected spatially.
Include key commitments of
other portfolios in Plan
Melbourne.
Absence of key health,
education and other
essential services.
The components of the plan
should be:




Spatial plan
Infrastructure plan
Investment plan
Monitoring and evaluation
plan
5
While the spatial resolution
of the plan is good, there
remains concern that there
is no connection to, or
commitment to develop, an
infrastructure and
investment plan.
There is commitment in the
document to a monitoring
plan.
Include a new Direction in
Plan Melbourne to prepare
an Infrastructure and
Investment Plan.
Develop a workplan with
key priorities for the MPA
with an Infrastructure and
Investment Plan being an
immediate action for the
MPA.
9
MAV criteria
(outlined in previous
submission)
Score
(1-10)
Comment
Suggestion
Recognise the work of
councils and result in
strengthened collaboration
between local government
and regional networks
8
The identification of subregions and the collaborative
work to be undertaken in the
preparation of structure
plans is a positive step.
Confirm in a State-local
government protocol that
the existing strategic work
and local priorities of
councils will be taken into
account in urban renewal
areas and strategic sites.
Have legislated status with
bipartisan support
0
No commitment to this has
been made. The forewords
by the Premier and Ministers
give the document a political
flavour.
Include only a foreword by
the Chair of the
Metropolitan Planning
Authority.
Initiate coordinated input
from State Departments and
agencies, Regional
Development Australia
Committees, local
government, industry and
community
5
The coordination with
transport is much improved.
Input from other Government
Departments and agencies
seems to have been limited.
Consult with other
Government Departments
and agencies and ensure
key infrastructure is
incorporated in Plan
Melbourne.
See the preparation of a
Memorandum of
Understanding between
State and local government
0
No commitment has been
made to an MOU between
State and local government.
The Metropolitan Planning
Authority enters into a
State-local government
protocol with the MAV (on
behalf of metropolitan
councils) outlining roles and
responsibilities.
Involve a new governance
structure
7
The Metropolitan Planning
Authority has been
established utilising the
Board and staff of the
Growth Areas Authority.
Establishment of the MPA
is supported, however,
change is expected in the
composition of the Board to
ensure representation from
local government consistent
with the MAV’s paper
submitted to Government
(Attachment 1).
Be adequately funded with
identified timeframes
1
The funding element of the
Strategy is unresolved.
Develop a workplan with a
key priority being the
immediate preparation of an
Infrastructure and
Investment Plan.
Align investment of various
levels of government and
private industry
3
This has not yet occurred
but there is still potential for
it to happen.
Develop a workplan with a
key priority being the
immediate preparation of an
Infrastructure and
Investment Plan.
10
MAV criteria
(outlined in previous
submission)
Be targeted but equitable
Score
(1-10)
N/A
Comment
Suggestion
N/A
Can’t be scored.
Fill any policy gaps
7
Comprehensive range of
matters included in Plan
Melbourne but still some
important missing elements.
Consider range of policy
issues raised by councils
(section 3.5) that are
currently not included.
Provide a strategy for city to
country
5
This component, although
included in the Strategy,
appears to be somewhat
unresolved.
Consult with relevant
regional councils to develop
more specific directions and
initiatives.
Be founded on community
values
6
Difficult to judge as broader
community not engaged but
reasonable community input
into development of Plan
Melbourne.
Seek ongoing input of the
community into the
monitoring of Plan
Melbourne.
Defined 5 year period of
review
0
No commitment to review.
Include a commitment to
review outside of the
political cycle.
3.2
Structure
Plan Melbourne achieves one of the government’s key election promises and has
taken considerable time, effort and funds to deliver. It is understandable the
government wishes to give prominence to the Strategy and has included forewords by
the Premier and the Ministers for Planning and Transport.
However, there is a fundamental dichotomy in that Plan Melbourne has a life of 37
years, during which time there is likely to be a number of different governments. The
likelihood of acceptance of a Strategy with political forewords is slim, and preparing,
and attempting to implement, a new metropolitan strategy every time there is a new
government places a significant cost and time impost on both the State and councils.
We suggested in our previous submission the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be
amended so the need to prepare a strategy is enshrined in legislation as well as a
designated period of review. This approach removes the strategy from the political
cycle and takes away the uncertainty about when a strategy will be prepared and
11
reviewed. South Australia provides a good example of how this can be done. An
extract is provided in Attachment 2.
Recommendation 1
To reduce the perception that Plan Melbourne is a ‘political’ strategy it is suggested that:

The foreword be changed one prepared by the Chair of the Metropolitan Planning
Authority

Legislation is prepared to include the need for the strategy and a period of review.
3.3
Financing
Financing the implementation of Plan Melbourne remains the most challenging and
pressing issue facing the government. Plan Melbourne does not put forward a new
model for financing infrastructure and it is clear that existing approaches have not
provided the level of infrastructure required or adequately considered maintenance
requirements over time.
Challenges to infrastructure financing include:

Ensuring high levels of investment are maintained over many years

Balancing investment on capital works, maintenance, renewals and upgrades
against investment on reducing/managing demand

Selecting the best-value source of infrastructure finance

Ensuring new infrastructure projects receive funding for both the capital works
and maintenance

The opening up of new growth fronts in peri-urban areas and regional cities and
towns.
The MAV believes some of the opportunities for financing implementation, discussed in
Plan Melbourne, are overstated. Value capture attempts have not been successful to
date. The Growth Areas Infrastructure Charge was modified as a result of pressure
from the landowners and can no longer be considered a value capture charge. It is also
unlikely value capture will be well received in established parts of Melbourne. Likewise,
the review of the developer contribution system, although welcome, will not
fundamentally change the ability to fund major infrastructure.
12
The current, and projected, rates of growth will also mean growth fronts in peri-urban
areas, regional cities and key towns will expand or open up. It should be acknowledged
that the scale and pace of infrastructure needs in these areas will be beyond the
capacity of councils to finance and manage.
The MAV and councils believe, for Plan Melbourne to be successful, concerted effort
must be made by the government (through the MPA) to:

Prepare an infrastructure and investment plan that outlines major and subregional infrastructure proposals, prioritises those infrastructure proposals and
outlines timelines and funding options. By setting out these priorities, greater
opportunity exists for private or joint funding

Tap into the budget process and sponsor gateway infrastructure

Administer funding programs for smaller scale community infrastructure
consistent with Plan Melbourne. Councils were supportive of the three funds
identified (the 20 minute neighbourhood fund, the State growth areas rolling
infrastructure fund and the pocket park fund). The most critical was considered
to be the rolling infrastructure fund for growth areas with 95 per cent of survey
respondents supporting its creation

Identify an avenue for the identification and forward planning of infrastructure
needs in peri-urban areas and regional cities and towns.
The infrastructure and investment plan is a critical first step and should be included as
a Direction in the Implementation: Delivering Better Governance objective of Plan
Melbourne. This is important because:

Information about whole of government priorities and current and planned
investments in infrastructure is currently fragmented. While Plan Melbourne
brings together initiatives relating to land, transport and waste management it
does not refer to any investments in the water, energy, telecoms sectors or in
social infrastructure such as education or health. Planning is undertaken
13
separately in each sub-sector, often on a project by project basis. An
infrastructure and investment plan will bring together the various Department
and agency plans into a single source of information about infrastructure
priorities and plans. This provides a catalyst for a more coordinated and
integrated approach to infrastructure planning, development and service
delivery

An infrastructure and investment plan enables government to see asset
management as a core function of government and infrastructure managers;
instilling greater emphasis on maintenance; and incorporating a life-cycle
approach to infrastructure management

An infrastructure and investment plan is a key input to medium and longer term
budget planning. It provides a picture of the scale and sequencing of future
investment and financing needs, and ongoing maintenance requirements

Greater certainty is provided about the nature and timing of infrastructure
projects, for the private sector. It also provides development partners with clear
information about government priorities and plans for infrastructure
development, and the areas where assistance is most needed.
The most logical body to prepare the infrastructure and investment plan is the MPA.
This should be one of the Authority’s first actions and indeed could commence with
Government Departments and agencies and the sub-regional groups while Plan
Melbourne is being finalised.
An infrastructure and investment plan, at its most basic, would look something like the
table below:
Sector
Energy
Ref
E5
Project
Upgrade
Estimated Cost
$500 million
Funding
commitment
Yes
Funding
type
Timeframe
2014- 2019
G
14
Sector
Ref
Project
Estimated Cost
Funding
commitment
Funding
type
Timeframe
2014- 2019
infrastructure
Water
W7
Upgrade trunk
infrastructure x to y
$100 million
Yes
G
Transport
T1
Metro Rail (Planning)
$5 million
Yes
PP
Metro Rail
$6 -8 billion
Yes
FG
Ports
P1
Port of Hastings
(investigative)
Airports
A1
Airport link (Planning)
South East Airport
(Investigative)
PPP
$5 million
$1.5 million
G
G
Useful examples of infrastructure and investment plans the MAV are aware of include:

The South East Queensland (SEQ) Infrastructure Plan and Program which
seeks to provide certainty about the nature and timing of infrastructure projects
in the South East Queensland region. The SEQ Infrastructure Plan was first
released by the Queensland Government in 2005 and is updated annually to
reflect and align with the State's latest planning and budget commitments.
Contributions for funding projects in the SEQ Infrastructure Plan come from all
three levels of government, with various projects having a subregional, regional
or national interest. This includes federal government contributions through the
Nation Building Program (formerly AusLink 2) and the Building Australia Fund.
The Queensland Government funds its contributions using government cash
flows, borrowings and alignment of the government's capital portfolio

The Mid-West Investment Plan in Western Australia. The Plan assesses and
prioritises projects into four categories:
•
Flagship projects – essential to the region and demonstrated need to be
progressed substantially or completed within four years
•
High – projects that will provide significant economic and/or social
benefit to the local community and demonstrate regional benefits.
Essential for economic growth
•
Medium – projects that provide valuable social and/or economic
benefits. Broad regional benefit and important for regional growth
15
•
Low – provide some social and/or economic benefits as well as broader
regional benefits. Worthwhile for regional growth
The priorities identified were determined by sub regional communities and the
Mid-West Development Committee Board

South Australia is in the process of amending its Strategic Infrastructure Plan.
The Strategic Infrastructure Plan has guided and coordinated the approach to
infrastructure provision since 2005. It provides an overarching framework for the
planning and delivery of infrastructure by all government and private sector
infrastructure providers. Strategic priorities for the period between 2005-06 and
2014-15 are identified for 14 infrastructure sectors. More than 80 per cent of the
priority projects in the 2005 plan have been completed or are underway

Tonga (with AusAid) has prepared a National Infrastructure Investment Plan
(NIIP) which outlines the Government of Tonga’s priorities and plans for major
initiatives in the economic infrastructure sector (energy, telecommunications,
water, solid waste management, transport) over the next 5-10 years. This plan
is a remarkably simple and clear agenda for infrastructure provision.
Recommendation 2
That a new Direction be included in the Implementation Objective; for the MPA to prepare
an infrastructure and investment plan which outlines major and sub-regional infrastructure
proposals, prioritises those infrastructure proposals and outlines timelines and funding
options.
3.4
Partnership
State- Local Protocol
A positive and cooperative working relationship between State and local government is
essential to the successful implementation of Plan Melbourne. As a planning partner,
with more than 100 actions to implement under Plan Melbourne, councils will require
financial and other support to give effect to the State’s vision in a timely and
coordinated way.
16
A partnership is an arrangement in which parties agree to cooperate to advance their
mutual interests. It is in the councils’ interests that infrastructure and other
commitments in Plan Melbourne are delivered for their communities. It is in the State
Government’s interest to meaningfully engage and work with local government to
ensure that:

Plan Melbourne is understood and accepted by the community

Councils can identify and deliver complementary projects and achieve the most
efficient use of their resources

Infrastructure priorities can be jointly agreed and funding opportunities aligned

The sub-regional groups function effectively and contribute to the streamlined
operation of the MPA.
The MAV is of the view the best way to support a partnership between State and local
government is to enshrine the obligations of the parties in a State-Local Government
Protocol.
Retaining councils’ autonomy as a planning and responsible authority has long been
supported by communities and we expect this will continue. The community voice in
local planning must not be diminished under the new arrangements for metropolitan
Melbourne. This includes not reducing discretion and community input into the future
development of urban renewal and strategic sites through the introduction of VicSmart.
We also expect the MPA will work with local government and not duplicate its role and
recognise the existing strategic work that has been done in many areas.
Councils have indicated they believe it is essential such a protocol include criteria for
significant State and regional projects, obligations upon each level of government for
the implementation of Plan Melbourne, criteria for urban renewal sites as well as
procedures for interactions with councils. It would be beneficial for the protocol to set
out the sub-regional working arrangements and resource support for the strategic work
of councils. Figure 1 outlines the essential matters for a protocol.
17
Figure 1: Matters to be included in a State-local government protocol
Recommendation 3
That a State-local government protocol be developed to outline the obligations of both
parties, provide criteria for State/regional significant projects and urban renewal areas as
well as providing parameters around the sub-regional working arrangements and
appropriate resourcing for both the groups and individual councils.
Regional working arrangements
The MAV and councils are pleased about the sub-regional planning approach outlined
in Plan Melbourne and consider this an essential mechanism to harness the input of
councils and to understand, in detail, the infrastructure requirements of Melbourne. Of
the survey respondents, 82 per cent said they were happy with the size and makeup of
the sub-regions. Of the respondents that expressed concern, the issues ranged from
differing issues/priorities for growth councils compared to inner/middle ring councils to
18
a view that regions should depend on the particular issue such as transport routes or
water catchments.
To assist in setting up the sub-regional groups; the MAV asked some survey questions
about preferred operation of the groups, what is required to make them function
effectively and what work might the groups focus on.
A survey of councils has identified the preferred operation of the groups as being selfmanaged but with support and guidance from the MPA. Figure 2 shows the breakup of
views about operation of the sub-regional groups.
Figure 2: Operation of the sub-regional groups.
The key success factors were considered to be involvement of staff with appropriate
levels of authority, clear terms of reference and funding for administration and
research. Figure 3 below sets out the matters councils consider to be important in the
operation of the sub-regional groups.
19
Figure 3: Matters required to make the sub-regional groups work effectively.
Some of the work councils consider the sub-regional groups might do includes:

Agreement about significant infrastructure needs and prioritisation of
infrastructure planning and delivery

Service planning to meet needs

Integrated Transport Strategy

Infrastructure and service requirements to accommodate future growth

Economic Studies

Catchment Management/Coastal Management (although different spatial
groupings may be required)

Sub regional floor space growth analysis for retail and commercial growth each
sub-region, to help give guidance for future structure plans for centres and
clusters.
20
While supporting the concept of the sub-regional groups, there are two aspects of
operation that we are unsure about:

How government will address the competing interests of the sub-regions and
the achievement of wider social and economic outcomes for Melbourne based
on need. It is considered cross regional cooperation will be required to add a
further filtering process to assist Government

How the important input of Government Departments, agencies and the
business community will be gathered as part of the structure planning process.
We are also concerned the sub-regional groups will be seen as sufficient input by local
government and the composition of the MPA will not be modified to include local
government representation. While we recognise the composition of Boards is a difficult
balance for government because of a desire to have a more skills based Boards than
representational Boards; the MAV considers many of the desired skills are available in
the local government sector and inclusion of Board members with local government
experience would make for a more informed and collegiate approach to the future of
Melbourne.
Recommendation 4
That the sub-regional groups:



3.5
Be established as quickly as possible
Be informed by contact with Government Departments and Agencies
Understand the need to balance the demands of each sub-regional group with the
broader social and economic outcomes across Melbourne.
Priorities and work planning
Plan Melbourne sets an ambitious program of work over the next 30 years. Almost too
many of the identified solutions, however, have a short term (1-4 year) timeframe and it
will be impossible to achieve completion of them all.
To assist Government in tackling the range of Directions contained in Plan Melbourne
councils ranked the five Directions most relevant to their day to day operations. Figure
4 below sets out the results.
21
Figure 4: What directions are most relevant to the operations of councils
Councils advise the matters they most need to happen to successfully implement their
priorities are coordination between State Departments, agencies and councils,
additional funding and alignment of State and local government funding. This is in
shown in Figure 5.
22
Figure 5: Local government priorities
Recommendation 5
That consideration and weight be given to the key priorities of local government in
workplanning.
3.6
Policy coverage
The MAV and councils are pleased the majority of the concepts identified in the
discussion paper Melbourne: Let’s talk about the future have found a home in Plan
Melbourne.
Councils also welcome the commitments made in Plan Melbourne to the development
of established areas and urban renewal and the introduction of a hard urban growth
boundary around Melbourne to stop the sprawl and protect valuable agricultural land.
With our population projected to rise to 8.5 million by 2050, a permanent boundary
23
sends a strong signal to the market, and encourages a greater share of future growth
and development in regional cities and towns. Councils have been calling for this for
many years.
Councils also support the concept of 20 minute neighbourhoods and national
employment clusters although how to achieve these concepts on the ground requires
considerable policy development. Clear strategies are needed that are within the
capacity of land use planning to influence.
Councils have, in their individual submissions, made suggestions about additional
employment clusters, the boundaries of urban renewal areas and State significant
industrial areas and we trust government will give consideration to these issues. It is
important too, that government reconcile Regional Growth Plans with Plan Melbourne
to ensure there are no gaps in coverage or inconsistencies. Macedon Ranges Shire
has, for example, identified differences in treatments for a number of their towns.
When asked, in an overarching sense, how important councils felt each Direction was,
they indicated that Direction 3.4 Improving local travel options to increase social and
economic participation, Direction 1.5 Plan for jobs closer to where people live and
Direction 7.2 Better align infrastructure delivery and growth were the most important
the future of Melbourne. Figure 6 outlines the overall rankings.
24
Figure 6: The importance of each direction
25
Decreased policy emphasis
While the new policy concepts contained in Plan Melbourne are largely supported,
these do appear to have come at a cost to some of the existing policies such as
Growth Areas and Green Wedges. Councils are also somewhat concerned about
policy clarity for Activity Centres.
Growth areas are not so much of concern given there is strong support in the Planning
and Environment Act 1987 and in other policy documents such as the Growth Corridor
Plans and statutory instruments such as the Urban Growth Zone.
Councils with Green Wedges, however, are concerned Plan Melbourne provides no
clear direction on the vision or future of these areas. They believe Green Wedges are
being devalued by their omission – ‘Where do the people who live in these areas ‘fit’
into the plan?’. There are implications too, for projects such as the Chain of Parks
Project in the City of Kingston. Green Wedge policy work will be critical in absence of
policy and changes to zoning controls.
Plan Melbourne provides no clear direction on the role and function of each category of
Activity Centre. Councils are also concerned about the existing structure plan work
they have done for Activity Centres and whether this will continue to have the same
status.
Recommendation 6
That policy clarity and guidance be provided about Green Wedges and Activity Centres.
Ongoing gaps
Plan Melbourne does address many of the gaps, identified by the MAV in the
Melbourne: Let’s talk about the future discussion paper, such as transport, freight and
waste and environmentally sustainable building and water management. We remain
concerned, however, that the Strategy does not cover and identify whole of
government actions and initiatives to address critical issues such as energy, water
supply, sewerage, digital technology, health, the ageing community and the
26
implications for this on health, housing and transport, community facilities, retail,
natural hazards, hazard facilities and tourism.
Recommendation 7
That Plan Melbourne be reviewed with the intent of addressing key policy gaps and
identifying whole of government actions and initiatives for jobs in the suburbs, energy, water
supply, social housing, sewerage, digital technology, health, ageing community, community
facilities, retail, natural hazards, hazard facilities and tourism.
3.6
Monitoring
The MAV has been fortunate to discuss, with the Department of Transport, Planning
and Local Infrastructure, the preliminary thinking about the monitoring framework. The
monitoring framework is one of the most critical components of successful strategy
delivery and without it every element of the Strategy becomes contestable. We also
consider a monitoring framework can help to give ongoing momentum to
implementation and provides a vehicle for sustained engagement across government,
local government, business and the wider community.
The following elements are considered critical to a sustainable and useful monitoring
program:

There needs to be a sense of how implementation of the plan is progressing

The broader outcomes – social, environmental and economic - need to be
measured across metropolitan Melbourne and fed back into review and revision
of Plan Melbourne

The measures should be readily available and not require additional
expenditure to monitor

An understanding of how the dials and levers will be turned and pulled to
improve performance should be provided

Annual review by an ‘independent’ group.
In terms of the progress reporting the following components of the South Australian
model are considered useful:
27



Having a baseline
Progress rating
Achievability rating.
The website is also very user friendly.
The survey of councils outlined the following monitoring priorities:









Infrastructure delivery
Target for decentralisation
Investment in public transport versus roads
Funds match regional priorities
Proportion of dwelling construction in greenfield areas versus established areas
20 minute neighbourhoods
Employment trends
Urban renewal
Liveability standards
4.0 Conclusion
The release of Plan Melbourne is a critical piece in the policy puzzle for Victoria. It will
provide much needed policy certainty to local government and business alike.
The MAV would like to see the final document given the status it needs to truly be a
strategic document for the future of Melbourne over the next 37 years. In order to
ensure the successful implementation of Plan Melbourne, the MAV also believes it is
necessary for financing arrangements to be more fully explored in an infrastructure and
investment plan. Councils are well placed to partner in the delivery of Plan Melbourne
but greater clarity should be given to working arrangements between the MPA and
councils through a State-local Government Protocol.
The MAV and councils look forward to the challenges of implementation and assisting
the MPA to establish sub-regional groups and identify key priorities.
28
Attachment 1
The Metropolitan Planning
Authority:
towards a preferred model
August 2013
29
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
30
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
1.1
1.2
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
INTRODUCTION
Background
Workshop findings and subsequent feedback
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
APPENDIX 1
MAV’s May 2013 statement of purpose for MPA
APPENDIX 2
July 24, 2013 workshop - acceptances
APPENDIX 3
July 24 workshop notes
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
6
6
8
8
1
INTRODUCTION
Background
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.
2.
3.
4.
Preparation of a short briefing paper (in PowerPoint format) canvassing the issues, key
principles and basic structural elements of the MPA design.
Facilitation of a workshop with the MAV planning forum, based on this briefing paper.
Circulation of an interim report from the workshop, including an outline for a preferred MPA
operating model
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.
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.
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.
1
2
MPA OPERATIONAL
MODEL
Mandate
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
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.
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.
2
Delivering and co-ordinating infrastructure to support the MPS
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
sub-regions (for example accelerated development of the Central Activities Areas) and the reinforcement
of strategic employment clusters (for example, around Monash in Clayton)
3
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.
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.
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.
4
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.
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.
Resourcing
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).
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:
5
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
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 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 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.
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






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.
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]
Attachment 2
Extract from the South Australian Development Act 1993
22—The Planning Strategy
(1) In this section—
"the appropriate Minister" means the Minister to whom the Governor has from time to time,
by notice in the Gazette, assigned the functions of appropriate Minister for the purposes of
this section.
(2) The appropriate Minister must ensure that a Planning Strategy for development within the
State is prepared and maintained.
(3) The Planning Strategy may incorporate documents, plans, policy statements, proposals
and other material designed to facilitate strategic planning and co-ordinated action on a
State-wide, regional or local level.
(3a) The Planning Strategy will be taken to include—
(a) the Objectives for a Healthy River Murray under the River Murray Act 2003 (as in force
from time to time); and
(b) the objectives of the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act 2005 ; and
(c) the objects of the Marine Parks Act 2007 ; and
(ca) the objects under a character preservation law; and
(d) the objects of the Arkaroola Protection Act 2012 ,
and the appropriate Minister may, as the appropriate Minister thinks fit, make textual
alterations to the Planning Strategy to incorporate those objectives into the Planning
Strategy.
(3ab) Without derogating from subsection (3), the Planning Strategy must incorporate
provisions which address any character values of a district recognised under a character
preservation law.
(3b) The Minister must ensure that the various parts of the Planning Strategy are reviewed at
least once in every 5 years.
(3c) Different parts may be reviewed at different times but any review must include—
(a) an assessment of relevant trends in the strategies of the Government; and
(b) an assessment of the consistency between the part or parts under review and other
major policy documents and strategies of the Government that are relevant to the material
under review (as determined by the Minister),
(and may include other matters as the Minister thinks fit).
(4) The appropriate Minister must, in relation to any proposal to create or alter the Planning
Strategy—
(a) prepare a draft of the proposal; and
(b) by public advertisement, give notice of the place or places at which copies of the draft are
available for inspection (without charge) and purchase and invite interested persons to make
written representations on the proposal within a period specified by the Minister.
(4a) Subsection (4) does not apply with respect to an alteration of the Planning Strategy
pursuant to subsection (3a).
(4ab) Before making any alterations to the Planning Strategy to incorporate provisions which
address any character values of a district recognised under a character preservation law (or
to alter any such provisions), the Minister must (in such manner as the Minister thinks fit)
consult with, and consider any submissions of, relevant councils (within the meaning of the
character preservation law).
(5) The appropriate Minister must—
(a) make appropriate provision for the publication of the Planning Strategy; and
(b) ensure that copies of the Planning Strategy are reasonably available for inspection
(without charge) and purchase by the public at places determined by the Minister; and
(c) ensure that notice of any alteration to the Planning Strategy is published in the Gazette
within a reasonable time after the alteration is made.
(6) The appropriate Minister must, on or before 31 October of each year in respect of a
preceding financial year, prepare a report on—
(a) the implementation of the Planning Strategy;
(b) any alteration to the Planning Strategy (including the general effect or implications of any
such alteration);
(c) community consultation on the content, implementation, revision or alteration of the
Planning Strategy;
(d) such other matters as the Minister thinks fit.
(7) The appropriate Minister must, within six sitting days after completing the report, cause
copies to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(7a) The report required under subsection (6) may be incorporated into (and presented as
part of) the annual report of the Minister under section 21.
(8) The Planning Strategy is an expression of policy formed after consultation within
government and within the community and does not affect rights or liabilities (whether of a
substantive, procedural or other nature).
(9) The Planning Strategy is not to be taken into account for the purposes of any application,
assessment or decision under Part 4 (other than Division 2 of that Part).
(10) No action can be brought on the basis—
(a) that a Development Plan, or an amendment to a Development Plan, approved under this
Act is inconsistent with the Planning Strategy; or
(b) that an assessment or decision under this Act (including an assessment or decision
under Division 2 of Part 4) is inconsistent with the Planning Strategy.
Attachment 3
Relevant MAV State Council resolutions
October 2013
FREIGHT MOVEMENTS
That the Municipal Association of Victoria calls upon the State and Federal Governments to
develop effective freight and transport infrastructure projects to respond to the projected
growth in port and industry movements of containers, rail and heavy vehicles in metropolitan
Melbourne over the next 20 years. It is critical that the freight and transport infrastructure
projects are integrated and provide adequate separation of major freight routes from
residential streets and zones.
FEDERAL ROLE IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
That this State Council make representations to the Federal Government to provide funding
for public transport projects (in rural, regional and metropolitan areas) based on triplebottom-line assessment of the merits of each proposed project, seeking the equitable,
sustainable, efficient and affordable movement of people and freight in all parts of the
country.
TRANSPORT FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
That this MAV State Council meeting calls on the State Government to produce a major
transport financing and implementation strategy which demonstrates to the Victorian public
that a broad range of transport projects can be delivered in the short to medium term in
addition to the East West tunnel/link. Such a strategy would address implementation of the;
•
Network Development Plan – Metropolitan Rail in particular the Metro rail tunnel
project;
•
The forthcoming network development plan for buses;
•
The Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan;
•
Auditor General recommendations regarding Developing Transport Infrastructure
and Services for Population Growth Areas;
•
Transport priorities identified in Regional Growth/Transport Plans.
•
Transport priorities identified in Regional Growth/Transport Plans.
A CALL TO ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT
That the MAV advocate to the Federal and Victorian State Governments that Governments
at all levels commit to early planning and significant investment in community infrastructure,
especially public transport, in areas of urban growth in order to build strong, sustainable
communities.
STATE GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR ADAPTATION PLANNING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN RESPONSE TO SEA LEVEL RISE
That the MAV advocate to the State Government to establish a funding program to assist
Local Government in undertaking Adaptation Planning and Infrastructure Development in
response to sea level rise.
May 2013
PUBLIC TRANSPORT VICTORIA NETWORK DEVELOPMENT PLAN
That the MAV welcomes the publication of the Public Transport Victoria network
development plan for metropolitan rail, which recognizes the priority of the Metro 1 project
for building capacity in the longer term, and has the support of Infrastructure Australia. That
the MAV State Council:
a) calls for greater consultation in future with Councils on amendments to the plan, and
a strong focus in the short to medium term is maintained on signalling improvements,
procuring additional trains and grade separations.
b) support the Victorian Government in seeking Infrastructure Australia funding for the
Melbourne Metro, identified as a lynchpin project to enable the Public Transport
Victoria Plan the capability of increased capacity.
METROPOLITAN BUS SERVICE REVIEWS
That the MAV calls on the State Government to affirm its commitment to the benefits of
public transport by allocating funding to implement actions in the Metropolitan Bus Service
Reviews completed in 2009 and 2010.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE FUNDING
That this State Council call for the State and Federal Governments:
a) to note:
i.
successive MAV and in fact ALGA motions in previous years highlighting
problems in funding urban and regional public transport infrastructure, social
housing, education, and health services by the States and Local Government
infrastructure and services to meet population growth; and
ii.
fiscal imbalances between Commonwealth, State and Local Governments in
meeting their responsibilities for the above; and
b) to raise through all available avenues including the COAG Agenda, the need for realignment of federal funding arrangements so that levels of Government in Australia
have a more efficient match between their responsibilities and their finances.
September 2012
STATE GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT TO STRATEGIC PLANNING BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
The City of Port Phillip calls upon the MAV to write to the Minister for Planning seeking a
commitment to supporting Local Government’s role in undertaking strategic planning for their
municipalities.
PLANNING CONCERNS
The MAV actively lobby the State Government, and in particular the Minister responsible for
the Planning and Environment Act to:


amend the Victoria Planning Provisions to allow for the inclusionary zoning for public,
social and affordable housing and encourage the provision of such housing where there
is a need; and
allow for faster decisions on applications for interim planning controls.
May 2012
AMEND THE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 AND THE STATE PLANNING
POLICY
That the MAV advocate to the State Government to amend the Planning & Environment Act
1987 and the State Planning Policy Framework of the Victorian Planning Provisions to plan
for the use, development and protection of land for the long-term interests of all Victorians in
response to food security, climate change and the peaking of conventional oil.
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT FUND
That the MAV requests that the State Government introduces an ongoing community
infrastructure support fund to assist in the provision of local community infrastructure in
growth areas.
TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE WESTERN SUBURBS
That the MAV advocate to the Premier of Victoria to commit to the timely provision of major
road and rail infrastructure in the western metropolitan region, to accommodate the access
and mobility needs of the growing population and increasing freight and associated truck
movement across the western suburbs.
October 2011
METROPOLITAN PLANNING STRATEGY
That the Planning Minister be urged to work with the MAV and the Local Government sector
to develop the engagement strategy and associated timelines for the development of the
Metropolitan Planning Strategy.
TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
That this MAV State Council, whilst acknowledging the Victorian Government has initiated
major rail project studies for Doncaster, Rowville and airport rail, and has committed to
significant investment in other rail infrastructure :

Request the MAV to argue the case to the State Government for improved public
transport to meet population growth and demand for public transport, and ensure that all
transport projects (including road projects) are subject to proper cost benefit analysis,
environmental impact statements and transparency for public accountability;

Request the State Government to implement the many recommendations provided in the
Bus Service reviews which were left on the shelf by its predecessor, extend key tram
lines in line with member council representations, extend school bus services to other
users, and ensure ‘accessibility for all’ to public transport services;

Request the MAV to undertake its own body of research on public transport
infrastructure gaps and needs in communities to better support representations to other
tiers of government on investment shortfalls.

Request that the MAV advocate to the State Government to provide its blueprint for
public transport improvements and its timeline for implementation of these improvements
within its current term.
FUNDING FOR BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
That, to enable more and safer routes for cyclists, and to fulfil State and Federal Transport
Ministers’ commitment to doubling the number of people cycling within 5 years, the State
and Federal Governments be urged to provide significant funding for bicycle infrastructure(ie
at a minimum level proportional to the number of commuter trips).
UPGRADE OF BUS STOPS TO BE FULLY ACCESSIBLE
That the MAV advocate to State Government to provide a dedicated stream of funding for
the upgrading of bus stops to be fully accessible, as a legitimate part of the public transport
network.
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING OLD GROWTH AREA ARTERIAL ROADS
That the MAV strongly advocate to the State Government Minister for Roads and Public
Transport for the expansion of existing/and or the introduction of additional new funding
programs to fund infrastructure improvements to old growth area arterial roads requiring
upgrades to urban standards.
That infrastructure funding includes a specific focus on projects that encourage the uptake of
sustainable modes of transport and address the backlog of poor quality urban arterial roads,
which are currently not programmed for construction.
FUNDING OF ARTERIAL ROAD UPGRADE BACKLOG
That the MAV request the State Government commit to reducing the arterial road backlog of
required upgrades in outer metropolitan areas, in the interests of improved:



Access to jobs, education, recreation, shopping and social needs;
Community road safety;
Service and travel time reliability for road based public transport; and efficiency for businesses investing in these regions.
Freight
May 2011
SUPPORTING AND STRENGTHENING PLANNING IN VICTORIA
That the MAV seek support from the State Government to ensure that:

Local Government and community efforts to undertake the development of effective and
high quality community plans are supported by involvement and participation by State
Departments and relevant agencies as stakeholders in the planning process; and

An ongoing commitment is made to providing support to communities and Local
Government in respect to the implementation of priority initiatives and projects identified
in community plans.
INCLUSIONARY ZONING
That the State Government in partnership with local government develop a whole of
government response to affordable housing in Victoria, including the introduction of planning
mechanisms to enable Councils to require a contribution towards affordable housing from
private developments (such as Inclusionary Zoning).
ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
That the MAV request confirmation from the State Government that:

Planning decisions will remain with democratically elected Councils and that this extends
to Council in its role as a planning authority and as a responsible authority under the
Planning and Environment Act;

The legislative program to remove the current Development Assessment Committee
(DAC) set up in October 2010 to consider all planning applications within the Doncaster
Hill Activity Centre Zone, including providing advice on when/if legislative changes will be
introduced to make the Committee voluntary;

The Regional Victoria Settlement Framework (at clause 11.05-1 of the State Planning
Policy Framework) and associated strategies relating to regional cities and centres.will
continue;


The sector be provided with a status update of all outstanding reviews; and,
It will initiate a consultative reform of the Victorian planning system that adequately
acknowledges the role of local Councils in local planning matters, the role and powers of
VCAT and strengthening of the role of local Councils.
METROPOLITAN STRATEGY
That the MAV, through the Premier and Ministers for Planning, Water, Roads & Public
Transport:
1. Call on the State Government to develop, on a bipartisan basis, a Whole of Government
Metropolitan Strategy for the long term planning for Melbourne with a focus on:
- addressing the increasing service and infrastructure gap facing existing
established middle and outer suburbs;
- funding of major road and rail infrastructure in the western metropolitan area,
including augmented east /west linkages and feasibility studies for priority rail and
light rail expansion
- increased investment in drainage upgrades and urban flood mitigation
- long term and published forward capital works programs across key agencies;
and
- implementation mechanisms that enable delivery of that Strategy;
2. Convene meetings of metropolitan councils to discuss the key needs of councils and
content of a Melbourne Metropolitan Strategy integrated with local strategic planning
objectives, services and infrastructure provision;
3. Invite transport and interface bodies under the Transport Integration Act 2010, transport
providers and other relevant agencies to these meetings, to contribute to the
development of the MAV input to the above Strategy and implementation plan.
October 2010
PLANNING REFORM
That the MAV actively pursue with DPCD and the Minister for Planning reforms and
improvements to the legislative, operational and funding environment affected councils
planning roles, in particular:

advocate for a complete review of the Planning Scheme Amendment process, to enable
more timely, efficient and effective responses to emerging community issues.

urgent completion of the planning fees review, to establish the policy basis for the level
of fees charged, and to establish a regime that can remain contemporary without
requiring legislative change.

conclude outstanding reviews to the Planning and Environment Act, but not progress
with the proposed private certification of planning scheme amendments

implementation of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Review
recommendations

mechanisms to ensure local policy is given greater recognition and weight at VCAT, such
as a Ministerial Statement enabling Planning Policy to be written in precise language

clarification of the role of the Development Facilitation Group relative to the Priority
Development Panels and councils in ‘fast tracking’ permit assessments.

provision for adequate community consultation on matters referred to the DFG or the
Department as Responsible Authority
PRIORITY PLANNING ISSUES
That the MAV request agreement from the Minister for Planning to a work program to
progress and conclude reviews to support the priority planning policy issues for local
government which are:

completion of the review of the parking provisions in the Victoria Planning Provisions,
including adequate provision of parking for holiday accommodation

the proposed new Residential Zones and Activity Centre Zones

setting of height limits in activity centres and transit corridors

tools and mechanisms (including but not limited to inclusionary zoning) to improved
provision of affordable housing

reducing problem gambling through:
-
standard guidelines for Social and Economic Impact Assessment Statements and
assessing community benefit / net community detriment
-
Reduced EGMs in areas of high socio-economic disadvantage
improved timelines for local government to consult and respond to EGM applications
complementary strategies such as universal pre-commitment systems and education
and counselling services

reducing adverse effects on community health, safety and wellbeing associated with
licenced premises, including packaged alcohol sales in terms of their location, number
and the permit approvals processes

allowing councils to incorporate Ecologically Sustainable Design requirements
and that the MAV work with interested Councils, DPCD and relevant organizations, to
consider the development of more effective strategies for Council to amend their Planning
Schemes to include local policies in support of such issues.
LOCAL POLICY
That the MAV continues to advocate for the Victorian Government to amend the Planning
and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to compel the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
(VCAT) to not only ‘take into account’ Council Policy, but to also implement Council Policy.
May 2010
PLANNING POLICY
That the MAV request the State Government through the Minister for Planning to support
Councils in their role as a planning authority and the responsible authority under The
Planning and Environment Act (1987).
October 2009
EROSION OF PLANNING ROLE AND FUNCTIONS
That the MAV expresses its concerns to the State Government with the continual erosion
and undermining of Council’s planning responsibilities in the Victorian Planning System and
call for the termination of the current policy which exempts from the normal planning process
those social housing projects with Commonwealth Nation Building and Economic Stimulus
Package funding.
Attachment 4: Relevant election commitments



Establish an online Infrastructure Development Register of state and local
government projects in Victoria to ensure that the private sector can help reduce
infrastructure backlog
Develop a population strategy for all of Victoria, with the aim of optimising existing
infrastructure for growth
Build a new outcomes based metropolitan strategy for Melbourne