2015-08-04
I rise to speak on the Planning and Environment Amendment (Recognising Objectors) Bill 2015. This is a bill that promises but does not deliver. To deliver the community's voice in land use planning would require more than a couple of puzzling 'must', 'may' and 'where appropriate' phrases wrapped around 'significant social effect'. The absence of the community's voice in the planning scheme reflects the fundamental nature of the scheme as an impenetrably complex, inconsistent and inaccessible set of rules that are subject to ministerial veto. Instead of half window-dressing the planning scheme with unenforceable provisions in the name of giving the community a voice, how about delivering real planning reform?
Victorian communities are crying out for planning reform that supports stable and sustainable zoning for the enhanced livability of Victorian cities and towns. The Greens have a vision for a sustainable, livable future where urban sprawl gives way to target densities for activity centres that also reflect the history and character of an area.
Much clearer definitions of land use categories are needed, as is a planning scheme that explicitly and consistently places environmental sustainability and community needs ahead of the narrow commercial interests of developers. Banning land developer donations to political parties would be a great injection of integrity into planning. The skyline is filling up with towers full of tiny apartments with little natural light and amenity, and developers continue to cash in. Planning reform is needed to clip the wings of the all-powerful Minister for Planning to surrender some power back to local councils and communities. This would reduce the planning minister's ability to mash politics into planning without transparency or accountability. The planning minister has unique power in Victoria to control all planning decisions. This unchecked power is bad for democracy, bad for community engagement in local communities and bad for consistency.
Building integrity into the planning system and strengthening the community voice should include banning developer donations to political parties; meeting the shortfall in affordable housing by ensuring the correct level of social housing in new developments; making the planning scheme more certain, simple and consistent for local councils and communities to work with; and putting environmental sustainability, real community involvement and accountability at the heart of the planning scheme. Community participation in strategic planning is fundamental to having a planning scheme that meets the needs of local communities and reflects local aspirations. But, sadly, what we see at the moment is the good work of responsible authorities, the local councils — that participatory work with their communities — often being shelved by the minister and the department, who interfere in the aspirations of local communities.
The Greens will not oppose this bill, but we do have significant concerns about it. What we are concerned about is, given that it will be a numbers game and that it reads as a numbers game, whether this will be the basis for campaigns formulated on hate, bigotry and ignorance. We would hate to see this bill drive that in a community, with people believing that it is about the number of objections that you get. Some spurious link to significant social effect will drive that in our community. We do not need that moving forward.
There is a lack of definition in relation to what is proposed here. We see a new term 'where appropriate' inserted should the bill be successful, but we do not know what 'where appropriate' means. There is no definition of that, and it is a mystery to me how we will get consistency around interpreting the Planning and Environment Act 1987 if we have 79 responsible authorities and a tribunal trying to define 'where appropriate' when there is a lack of definition as to what that actually means.
The bill establishes the new category of 'must (where appropriate)' within the Planning and Environment Act. It is our contention that this in fact leads not to clarity but to more confusion in the Planning and Environment Act. It will be difficult for communities to understand what the act seeks to achieve because of the competing policy objectives within the legislation. On the one hand the bill gives additional powers to opponents, but on the other hand it improves the ability of the community to oppose inappropriate developments if they are linked to significant social effects. It is a complete competition in terms of who wins out in that space. I am concerned that the bill will add a competing policy objective, particularly with something as important as community participation in the planning process and the rights of people to object to planning applications in their municipalities.
I am very concerned that it will be a numbers game. Campaigns will be mounted around getting the numbers, whatever the motivation for that campaign may be. What was extraordinary in reading the transcript of the parliamentary committee inquiry was that organisations that you would usually consider to be polar opposites in terms of community advocacy groups around planning and industry groups shared the same views about this bill. Many of them expressed concerns around whether the bill actually does what the government says it sets out to do and that it does not give clarity to objectors and does not give a voice to the number objectors at all — it just muddies the water.
It is going to be challenging to understand how this bill will be consistently assessed in terms of responsible authorities and the tribunal when weighing up planning applications. I turn to what the Planning and Environment Act says currently and what this bill seeks to change. The act states:
60. Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority—
(a) must consider —
any significant social effects it may have. The introduction of a new provision in clause 4 inserts 'must (where appropriate) have regard to the number of objectors' of where there may be significant social effects. I am not sure that the addition of another 'must' and a 'may' gives any clarity to the planning scheme or to the community trying to utilise the planning scheme to get the best outcomes for their community.
We need more clarity in the planning scheme, not less. The way to do that is to have a strengthened planning scheme that reflects the needs and aspirations of community, where the community and the council have gone on a shared journey in terms of determining what they want for their communities, their character, where they want development and where they do not want development. That is at the core of good planning, but sadly we do not see that here. Instead we see a lot of interference in relation to the good work that councils do in that regard.
This bill raises many questions and concerns. As I have said, we will not oppose the bill, but we do have concerns. I will certainly be raising those concerns and questions in the committee stage.