Integrate the reformed commercial, industrial, residential and rural zones The Committee appears to have integrated some of the purposes of the new zones into the policy framework. The implications of this on decision-making are however unclear. For example 9.07-S-01 Commercial and retail uses includes a strategy (based on the purpose of the Commercial 2 zone) to ‘facilitate commercial areas for offices, appropriate manufacturing and industries, bulky goods retailing, other retail uses, and associated business and commercial services’. Some of these uses are inconsistent with the purposes and controls of the Commercial 1 zone. The policy applies to all commercial land. Undertake a legal review of the policy framework and test with live applications to identify outcomes from new policy and any unintended consequences. Integration of the development contributions system There is currently no reference in the policy framework to developer contributions. This may be because the Government’s policy position was not released at the commencement of consultation. The new Development Contributions system and Standard Levies were announced on 1 May. The outcomes should be reflected in the policy framework. Structure of state policy Planning vision This section needs greater prominence. Regional planning The three ‘layers’ of Regional Policy are confusing. It is unclear as to whether metropolitan Melbourne is a region at the same “level” as Regional Victoria or akin to the regions in rural Victoria, which have been identified in the RGPs (it has been used interchangeably). Strategic planning guidelines The weight to be given to ‘strategic planning guidelines’ is also unclear. Will it be less than the rest of the policy? The implementer of the strategic planning guidelines are also unclear. There is an opportunity to bookmark future State policy. Break the Planning Vision chapter into two - planning vision – including context (section 3) and settlement planning (section 4). A minor re-structure would clarify the roles of each of the Regional Policies. The naming conventions and numbering system for Regional Victoria and Metropolitan Melbourne need to align as both include Clarity about the weight to be given to the strategic planning guidelines is needed. Amend the PPF so that it is clear who is responsible for implementing each of the strategic planning guidelines. Include place holders for new State Policy.
Additional thematic areas/policy gaps The areas highlighted by councils are: Missing themes – livability, health and wellbeing, climate change, central city (role and function and environmental policy) Missing policies – small towns and settlements, activity centres, developer contributions, car parking, grade separation, coastal planning elements such as coastal settlement boundaries, neighbourhood design, state-significant industrial areas, marine industries and dams, liquor Missing maps – regional framework plan Modify policies: Planning for local areas only refers to 20 minute neighbourhoods (this is a strategy of Plan Melbourne not State Policy). There are many local areas that can either already meet this objective or are outside of the metropolitan area. Change this heading and consider other ways of planning for local areas. This might be an area, for example, that could include precinct based policies. Planning urban growth areas now requires Growth Corridor Plans and Precinct Structure Plans for areas that are beyond metropolitan Melbourne. Councils that have growth areas outside of Melbourne do not have the financial or technical support of a State authority or the internal resources necessary to undertake this work as a matter of course. These requirements should be shifted to Regional Policy - Growth Areas. The Planning for Cities – regional policy, should remove the number one strategic planning action - consider unsolicited bids for changes to controls – this is not a planning action! Commercial and retail uses State policy does not include the existing strategy to locate uses in an existing or planned activity centre – removing this is not a policy neutral translation and it should be retained (not just in the Metropolitan region). Reference to out of centre development should also be State Consider the inclusion of the suggested theme and policy areas as well as the suggested policy modifications. The MAV would be pleased to assist convening a small group of representative councils to assist the Committee understand the implications for decision making.