Save articles for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

The Victorian government is currently testing the waters on planning reforms that would encourage the provision of affordable homes. Leaked last week, the proposal would limit a neighbour’s right to object to local developments that include affordable housing.

Addressing Victoria’s housing affordability crisis is imperative. It deserves careful consideration and substantial reforms. Unfortunately, the plan from the Andrews government seems to be more focused on looking like real reform than actually achieving it.

Developments don’t need to divide communities. Credit: Joe Armao

A proposal like this makes for good politics for a few reasons. It is a simple proposition that is easy to explain in a quick sound bite and sends the message that the provision of housing is more important than the impacts of that housing on neighbouring properties. And boom, just like that, it’s NIMBYs vs YIMBYs.

But why can we only have one or the other?

There are two separate objectives to consider: providing affordable housing and allowing existing local residents to protect themselves from excessive impacts. Both objectives provide benefits, but this fundamentally poor policy is telling us that we have to choose a side.

When a planning system works efficiently and effectively, there is no reason why other incentives can’t be used to drive more affordable housing without the need to remove third-party objections as a carrot for developers.

We need a careful redesign and rebuild of our planning system, rather than a quick political fix.

The first priority of this redesign should be to provide greater certainty to all parties about the maximum scale of development that could be approved within specific areas. In being as specific as possible, residents shouldn’t be hit with nasty surprises when a development application is lodged.

By providing this planning certainty, we reduce developer land speculation and development risk. For example, if a property has a four-storey mandatory maximum height, developers will not purchase it at an inflated price in the hopes of getting five or six.

A second priority should be to reform the third-party objection process to focus more specifically on legitimate impacts facing neighbours and nearby residents.

Rather than turning neighbours’ rights on or off like a switch, we should refine the basis for what constitutes a valid objection. Most people would agree that new developments be required to meet the prescribed tests for overlooking and overshadowing neighbouring properties. These tests are easily measurable, and people living next to new proposals should absolutely have the right to see these standards enforced.

Where third-party objection rights have become problematic is in the subjective clauses that are open to broad interpretation. Terms like “neighbourhood character” and “visual bulk” are perfect examples of vague terms that require a certain level of experience and expertise to understand. Strengthening the clarity of these terms protects council planning and public interest over the vested interests of developers in the long-term.

Another common flashpoint is car parking and, again, traffic management should be removed as an issue for residents with guarantees experts within local councils oversee the matter and ensure the disruption to local traffic is kept to a minimum.

The upcoming review represents a significant opportunity to fix a system that is no longer fit for purpose in Victoria.

All sides of the development debate are continually frustrated by a system that is too slow, too inconsistent and too opaque. We should all be demanding a new and improved system that allows our city to grow sustainably while protecting us against developments that are not in the public interest, not robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Planning will never be the one and only solution to fixing housing affordability. It is vital that we get it working to deliver the housing we need.

But a state policy that is limited to playing well politically, rather than what will actually make our built environment work for the greater good and well into the future is something we should all be objecting to.

Michael Smith is a Melbourne-based architect.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.

Most Viewed in Politics

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article