SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 148 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,239 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Seems like Ted has got up here is my brief review of their policies and the implications:

0. General rhetoric on increased consultation and less intervention.
- terrible as it means local council's will pander to local nimby's with less chance of interventions when genuinely necessary.

1. Heritage Inventory Review for every Council wihtin 3 years:
- better protection of real heritage
- more fake heritage will be unnecessarily protected.

2. Tram Corridors Development not encouraged.
- less density for inner city

3. Definition of Activity Centres
- good as it will define where higher density devleopment definitely can occur in activity centres
- bad as it means fringes of activity centres might miss out.

4. Urban Growth Boundary review every 2 years.
- oh dear! if its reviewed every 2 years it'll grow every 2 years.

5. Urban INfill Authority
- plan to review infill devleopment sites in Melbourne regularly to encourage redevelopment
- sounds promising... is this their 'back door' way to help developers in the inner suburbs build denser developments?
- issue - infill redevelopment sites aren't always located next to PT so we could have random high density stuff in the middle of nowhere.
 

·
Proud Victorian!
Joined
·
7,748 Posts
Good thread - I was thinking about this last night.

There are too questions I have, maybe you can help out John:

1. If the law is changed i.e. regarding heritage, activity centres etc, does that mean VCAT will have to also follow the new law and untraditionally side with councils/NIMBYs? In essence, can we still rely on VCAT to get things done?

2. What will happen to projects in the CBD? Peter Clarke must be over the moon that the Coalition has won! It appears likely that projects - especially large-scale CBD towers - will no longer be "called in" by the minister and I'm also assuming that like everywhere else, more power will be returned to council. There will also probably be stricter heritag laws in the CBD - Lonsdale House would NEVER hve been demolished under a LNP govt. To sum up: Will it be harder to build large-scale CBD projects due to the above? Will there be more fights between developers and the MCC? Or can we still rely on VCAT?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
1. If the law is changed i.e. regarding heritage, activity centres etc, does that mean VCAT will have to also follow the new law and untraditionally side with councils/NIMBYs? In essence, can we still rely on VCAT to get things done?
VCAT is like any tribunal/court with a review jurisdiction, its jobs are to:
  • interpret the laws set down by parliament;
  • determine if decisions made/actions taken by bodies such as a Council are within the decision maker's grant of power;
  • determine if decisions made/actions taken by bodies such as a Council follow the process and form requirements set down by parliament; and/or
  • substitute its decision for the original decision maker's decision if it considers the original decision to be beyond power or it did not follow correct process.

So put simply and to answer your question, yes. If parliament change the laws then VCAT will have to change its approach. At the end of the day VCAT must interpret the laws. Of course, there is always room for a little 'agenda'....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
488 Posts
What I find interesting was that planning was held up as a massive swing issue in the campaign, but based on the results it isn't remotely what swung the election for the Libs.

The seats they picked up were by and large outer metropolitan seats where planning/density/overdevelopment was not to the fore. This is a terrific thing, because if the Libs did have a sense they owed their election to planning issues, they'd be very well attuned to planning issues in office. As things stand it'll be more change by degrees than a radical re-vamp, but almost none of the changes will be in direction we here would approve of. However, although I'm Labor to the bootstraps, and pretty gutted overall, I'd welcome anyone taking a more serious look at heritage controls.

There was only one swing seat where NIMBYs campaigned actively - Prahran, but the NIMBY candidate polled appallingly. Serge Thomann in Albert Park hurt Martin Foley to the point where the seat is still in doubt, but likely to go to Labor. He is of course the King NIMBY (Unchain St. Kilda) and a total wanker. His polling 10% of the vote there is a worry, but you can put a lot of that down to his high profile and pretty well-resourced campaign.

The other worrying thing is that the fear campaign against Justin Madden largely worked. His 13% swing against on primary vote was about the highest of any sitting Labor member, but still not remotely enough to unseat him.

In terms of what this means from here, I'd agree it's only going to be largely change by degrees, but the UGB review is a disaster. Will they have the guts to continue with an overarching and comprehensive policy like [email protected]? Will they maintain the joint decision-making body with MCC?

I suspect there will be less ministerial calling in of developments, and more reliance on VCAT to do the work for them.

But the other change will be in those inner-east blue ribbon Liberal suburbs, where NIMBYs will now have a much more powerful local member to bleat to. Expect to see things slowing down in Toorak and South Yarra.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
i think its exciting for us that ted is an architect and appears passionate about architecture and his campaign injected debate about finishing fss
 

·
Proud Victorian!
Joined
·
7,748 Posts
What I find interesting was that planning was held up as a massive swing issue in the campaign, but based on the results it isn't remotely what swung the election for the Libs.

The seats they picked up were by and large outer metropolitan seats where planning/density/overdevelopment was not to the fore. This is a terrific thing, because if the Libs did have a sense they owed their election to planning issues, they'd be very well attuned to planning issues in office. As things stand it'll be more change by degrees than a radical re-vamp, but almost none of the changes will be in direction we here would approve of. However, although I'm Labor to the bootstraps, and pretty gutted overall, I'd welcome anyone taking a more serious look at heritage controls.

There was only one swing seat where NIMBYs campaigned actively - Prahran, but the NIMBY candidate polled appallingly. Serge Thomann in Albert Park hurt Martin Foley to the point where the seat is still in doubt, but likely to go to Labor. He is of course the King NIMBY (Unchain St. Kilda) and a total wanker. His polling 10% of the vote there is a worry, but you can put a lot of that down to his high profile and pretty well-resourced campaign.

The other worrying thing is that the fear campaign against Justin Madden largely worked. His 13% swing against on primary vote was about the highest of any sitting Labor member, but still not remotely enough to unseat him.

In terms of what this means from here, I'd agree it's only going to be largely change by degrees, but the UGB review is a disaster. Will they have the guts to continue with an overarching and comprehensive policy like [email protected]? Will they maintain the joint decision-making body with MCC?

I suspect there will be less ministerial calling in of developments, and more reliance on VCAT to do the work for them.

But the other change will be in those inner-east blue ribbon Liberal suburbs, where NIMBYs will now have a much more powerful local member to bleat to. Expect to see things slowing down in Toorak and South Yarra.
Like Matthew Guy has said, there will now be 'defined' areas where high density development should be allowed to take place - I think SY already has too much momentum in terms of development and people there have conceded that it is fast becoming a proper satellite CBD.

Given that I can see a raft of projects that will now struggle to get off the ground and will be either defeated or radically dumbed-down - namely the projects that will be the first high-density projects for their areas and will therefore set precedents such as Lend Lease's Orrong Rd and GTV projects.

I think it's safe to say there will be no more high rise development for the forseeable future in places like Camberwell, Balwyn and, to a lesser extent, Box Hill. I also think a lot of the proposals that aren't already approved around Kings Way/Albert Rd Sth Melb will find it difficult to proceed without a tough fight from council, residents, NIMBYs and even the new government.

Basically I can only see high density development being confined to SY, Doncaster, the CBD/Southbank/Docklands and possibly Footscray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,926 Posts
i think its exciting for us that ted is an architect and appears passionate about architecture and his campaign injected debate about finishing fss
Cr Peter Clarke of MCC is also a architect and a huge nimby. I agree that we are going to see a big downturn in the inner-city for residential and commercial building approvals.
What id hope to happen now would be the end of the ''honeymoon period'' Ted has had with the media up untill lately, to hold him to the pledges he has made on some of his more contentios policys like turning off the north/south pipe line and sacking Metro, now all fingers will be pointing at him and his old man team.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,926 Posts
Basically I can only see high density development being confined to SY, Doncaster, the CBD/Southbank/Docklands and possibly Footscray.
You can forget about Footscray going highrise now, no edd or west link tunnel want make the area viable enough for such a investment. Even the RRL may be sunk too.
I cant see much else happening in Footscray now. :bash:
My bet would be Doncaster, that seems to be the hotspot for the Libs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,332 Posts
Just seen this listed on the Herald Sun website comments about the election.

Now Madden can plan his life in opposition instead of destroying Melbourne through his corrupt and destructful planning policies which if allowed to continue for another 4 years would have seen much of Melbourne bulldozed for way too high density developments which have destroyed the very character of our great city. Buildings that survived even Kennett and co didnt survive Brumby and his mob. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Comment 26 of 97
NIMBY's have won?!

This change is a bad decision, I have a very bad feeling a lot of approved projects will no longer be approved. What does this mean to the windsor? CUB? Southbank? Stork?

Surely the new government can dispand VCAT?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
594 Posts
2. Tram Corridors Development not encouraged.
- less density for inner city
Says who ?? Look at Burwood Road and Camberwell Road. No tram line but its becoming a medium density canyon.

I don't think opening up tram lines to development would make much difference really. Most developers choose sites with good road access before rail or tram. The city is going to get density regardless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
594 Posts
Even the RRL may be sunk too.
This wouldn't be too bad. Its a white elephant. I'd rather see the money go into duplicating the Ballarat line. Lines that offer alternatives to going through Melbourne such as the proposed Geelong-Ballarat-Bendigo rail link may actually offer better value.
 

·
Developer
Joined
·
7,645 Posts
Really it will just be business as usual. When Labour got into power they promised to have better community consulations, to crack down on overdevelopment in existing suburbs and to stop ministerial intervention into Council decision making, stop urban sprawl and freeways and provide more public transport.

After a few years it was business as usual and despite the rethoric there really was no change in the way planning was undertaken in Melbourne.

Anybody who thinks that the Liberal party will become an anti-development government is kidding themselves. Most of their policies are wishy washy promises to investigate changes to the way things are done and tinker around at the edges.

The Labor party had already given up on the urban growth boundary and apart from the odd building here and there they failed in their attempts to encourage developement in activity centres and along public transport routes (apart from South Yarra which was always going to go high rise no matter who was in power).
 

·
Champagne Socialist
Joined
·
11,953 Posts
This wouldn't be too bad. Its a white elephant. I'd rather see the money go into duplicating the Ballarat line. Lines that offer alternatives to going through Melbourne such as the proposed Geelong-Ballarat-Bendigo rail link may actually offer better value.
Are you serious!? Separating regional and metropolitan traffic (and it's been paid for by Kevin 07) should be a major focus as it's 2 new tracks for regional trains and all the paths on the metro lines currently taken up by regional trains can now be used to boost frequencies on metro services.

*blink blink*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,239 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
RRL is confirmed as going ahead under the liberals. I saw an interview with Mulder where he literally said 'and thats why we support it' in response to an RRL question.

a) its federal money anyway so the Libs wouldn't want to risk losing $4 billion frmo the feds by changing plans.
b) its got the word REGIONAL in it and the Libs wouldn't have wanted to piss off regional voters by scrapping something that benefits them.

Grollo said:
Really it will just be business as usual. When Labour got into power they promised to have better community consulations, to crack down on overdevelopment in existing suburbs and to stop ministerial intervention into Council decision making, stop urban sprawl and freeways and provide more public transport.
I agree but not really.

developments will still go ahead but they will not have as strong policy support or government support. 6 stories on a main road will become 4 stories, 14 stories in an activity centre will become 8 stories.

The only positive thing for the liberals is that most inner city seats they have no chance of ever winning so they couldn't give a shit about development in them. Prahran and Albert Park are interesting ones and ones where we may start to see some more state interest.

Footscray, Richmond, Melbourne, Brunswick are a see of red (or green) so no reason not to allow skyscrapers there!
 

·
Developer
Joined
·
7,645 Posts
It is easy to say that this and that shouldn't have been approved when you are in opposition but when it comes time to tell a long term liberal supporter that he can no longer maximise profit from a plot of land he bought a few years back it will be a different story.

Government over-regulation resulting in people not being able to maximise their profits is not the natural position of the Liberal party.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,710 Posts
Ted gaining power might halt some major projects for a few years, but if he cant act on his promises in other areas he is certianly not going to stay in power long, if he is the indecisive hack job that is only good for pointing out what other govts are doing wrong im sure he will be replaced ala KRudd before next elevtion, either that or Vic will notice that nothing has happened in 4 years and at next election Labor will landslide it in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,239 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
It is easy to say that this and that shouldn't have been approved when you are in opposition but when it comes time to tell a long term liberal supporter that he can no longer maximise profit from a plot of land he bought a few years back it will be a different story.

Government over-regulation resulting in people not being able to maximise their profits is not the natural position of the Liberal party.
but the market will sense the change in tone and look to where they can more readily maximise their profit... the slightly Nimby tone of the liberals planning policy would suggest going to a growth area might be the easier way to money now.

even the stamp duty cuts may well be seen as favoring fringe land development (even though there is actually no reason this is the case).


The bigger question is how will the liberals manage to still look like they support the policies they were voted in on while allowing specific developments to proceed?

biggest and first test case IMO will likely be hte SKM site on Orrong Road next to Toorak Station.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
594 Posts
Are you serious!?
Yes and no. I just thing its a monumental waste of money. But I also think that of the National Broadband Network.

it's been paid for by Kevin 07
its being paid for by us, the Australian and Victorian taxpayer

and other more important projects could have been pitched in its place.

Separating regional and metropolitan traffic ) should be a major focus as it's 2 new tracks for regional trains and all the paths on the metro lines currently taken up by regional trains can now be used to boost frequencies on metro services.
Sure but the money spent could have paid for Myki, rail lines to Doncaster, Rowville, Tarneit and them some. Its being sold to benefit just 500,000 people when it barely gives them any benefit at all and in many cases they will be worse off. The City Loop was built to have capacity, it is just underutilised. Ballarat trains would be more reliable (and therefore cause less interruption to metropolitan services) if they didn't have a single point of failure - a single line running into the city.
 
1 - 20 of 148 Posts
Top