I wrote the other day about the bizarre situation of Melbourne Water selling land in the Merri Creek corridor to industry. It is heartening to see this situation finally gaining some attention thanks to Green Leader Samantha Ratnam, who raised it this week in Parliament.
Continue reading
We recently heard that the entire Bond series is headed to Amazon Prime (at least in some territories), which is a great excuse to finally dust off an exercise that had been nagging at me since No Time to Die: re-ranking the series.
Continue reading
No Time to Die (Cary Joji Fukunaga, 2021)
(This review has very big spoilers for No Time to Die.)
No Time to Die is the 25th in the “official” Bond series started with Dr No in 1962; it is also the final in the Daniel Craig sequence that started in 2004 with Casino Royale. Because Casino Royale explicitly showed us Bond’s first mission, the Craig films established a distinct timeline from the rest of the series, which otherwise always had a loose, ambivalent approach to continuity. (Before this, it was kinda-sorta the same character and universe from film-to-film, even though that involved a stretchy approach to time and some blatant contradictions.) No Time to Die explicitly closes out this separate Craigverse; but it is in dialogue with the entirety of the series. While the film finishes with the customary “James Bond Will Return” subtitle, it would serve as an excellent capper to the venerable franchise. This is, in many senses at once, the ultimate Bond film.
Continue reading
Less than three weeks before the last state election in 2018, the State government proudly affirmed their commitment to creating a “ring of new parkland in our growing suburbs.” This included creating a “new 2778 hectare Upper Merri Park” near Craigieburn. This park is to be combination of large grasslands and linear space along the Merri Creek, stretching from the Western Ring Road at the south to north of Donnybrook. This would connect with the extremely high quality and important linear reserve along the Merri Creek that already runs south of the Ring Road from Fawkner to the Yarra River in Collingwood.
Continue reading
Neighbourhood character is a clear example of an issue which cannot be reduced to simple rules. It requires qualitative assessment and the exercise of judgement. Similarly drafting a prescriptive standard to achieve objectives of building articulation to reduce bulk has proved unsuccessful. The focus of assessment of development proposals should always be on outcomes, not the satisfaction of rules for their own sake.
ResCode 2000: Part 1 Report – December 2000
The new DELWP paper Improving the Operation of ResCode: A New Model for Assessment -open for consultation here until next week – is presented as a streamlining of a cumbersome set of existing controls. It presents the alluring possibility of a world in which residential development standards set a fully objective baseline, and the kind of discretionary assessment currently applied to residential development is essentially only required when those standards are varied.
The premise is understandable – the ResCode controls are complex to administer (whether they are disproportionately complex is a different question, to which I shall return). The lure of efficiencies to be achieved with a truly objective baseline for assessment – especially when paired with not-yet-existing-but-foreseeable digital tools that would automate the initial compliance screening – is compelling.
But the paper presents a shortcut. It assumes the current controls can be modified into such objective standards without a rethink – indeed, it wrongly suggests that what is proposed is more-or-less just clarifying the controls so that they worked as intended.
The problem, though, is that the paper underestimates the role that the flexibility and discretion built into the current controls currently play. It suggests a streamlining of controls without doing the additional regulatory design work that would make this feasible. It therefore removes the aspects of ResCode that currently work to achieve acceptable outcomes, without adding back in sufficient mechanisms to take their place.
Continue reading
This article is a belated posting of an article that first appeared in the October 2019 VPELA Revue. It is based on the talk I gave at the 2019 VPELA state conference.
What happened to Victorian planning in the 2000s?
It was a heady time. We had a long period of political stability a state level with the Bracks / Brumby government seeing out (almost) the entire decade. We had a brand-new planning system, with the VPPs having been introduced in the late 1990s and implemented by the early parts of the 2000s. And as of 2002 we had a new planning strategy in Melbourne 2030. This was a “no excuses” environment for urban planners.
Yet we didn’t get much done. The planning system wasn’t able, for example, to do much in the way of driving core Melbourne 2030 objectives such as intensifying housing close to transport and activity centres. By 2007 the implementation of Melbourne 2030 was subject to a critical audit, and in the latter years of the Bracks / Brumby government it had been informally deprecated. The system seemed as complex and burdensome as ever.
The reasons for those failures are complex and cannot be fully explored here. For now, I want to focus on the role of the VPP system itself. On the face of it, the VPP system’s (relative) failure is puzzling. There is a logic and rigour to the system’s design that is compelling. Why hasn’t it worked better?
Continue reading
This website has sat largely unattended for a few years now – partly because I was focusing on other things (like my business), but also because every time I considered posting to it I was overwhelmed with exhaustion at the thought of trying to bring it up to date. The page was based on a WordPress theme from before the widespread use of tablets and mobiles, and my occasional half-hearted attempts to migrate it to a more modern theme had always left me defeated.
However, in a sudden bout of not-completely-explicable enthusiasm over the last week or so I have managed, I think, to get it working mostly as I’d like to, with a refreshed design and updated, mobile friendly functionality. A few things are still broken in the bowels of the page (especially on older posts) but it seems to be about 90% there and that’s a huge step up from where it was.
I have no idea if this will lead to more frequent posting here, but I at least feel a major disincentive to posting has been removed. I have celebrated by digging out one piece of ready-made content I’d had sitting ready for two years, but had been put off posting by the state of the page: Victorian Planning: Rethinking the Model. This is, I hope, a timely piece given the process of planning reform that the Victorian government has recently announced. (At time of posting it should, hopefully, be sitting just above this post on the main page.)
(Yes, I realise the George Constanza-ish title of this post doesn’t really match the Always Sunny image I’ve headed the post with. I choose to consider that as a meta-commentary on my state of mind having finished the website refresh).
Continue reading
In 2017 the Victorian Auditor-General released a scathing report into the Victoria’s planning system.
It reported that:
Governments, state planning departments and councils have directed significant effort over many years to reform and improve the system. Despite this, they have not prioritised or implemented review and reform recommendations in a timely way, if at all. The assessments DELWP and councils provide to inform decisions are not as comprehensive as required by the Act and the VPP. DELWP and councils have also not measured the success of the system’s contribution to achieving planning policy objectives.
As a result, planning schemes remain overly complex. They are difficult to use and apply consistently to meet the intent of state planning objectives, and there is limited assurance that planning decisions deliver the net community benefit and sustainable outcomes that they should.[1]
Furthermore, it noted that “past reforms have had little impact on fixing other systemic problems impeding the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of planning schemes.”
This piece was written for the December 2017 issue of Planning News.
By the time you read this the Smart Planning program will have completed its consultation period after the release of its October discussion paper on the VPPs. The state government will be attempting to roll out its reforms exceptionally quickly, with some material promised by the end of the year and gazettal of a final package of VPP reforms expected by July.
It’s a nerve-rackingly short timeframe. The pace of change invites doubt about the genuineness of the consultation – is there really scope to stop, think, and potentially change course if the consultation raises legitimate issues about the package proposed? Is it long enough to sufficiently “debug” a complex set of changes? I fear not. This is, unfortunately, a deeply problematic set of reforms.
The problem with system reform like this is it all sounds great – yay! Smart! – but the problems are in the detail. This is why the timeframe allowed for the reforms is so challenging; it is also why it is difficult to unpack the issues with this paper in the space available here. Suffice, then, to make a few key points.
Continue reading
The Smart Planning discussion paper has dropped. At some point I expect I’ll take a more detailed run through of what is a complex document that mixes various good ideas with a number of really bad ones. It’s an infuriating read, partly because it is so predictable: in its broad strokes, it’s pretty much exactly what could be envisaged from the Department’s material when I wrote about the program last year.
Rather than exhaustively work through the good and the bad of this new paper now, I wanted to focus on one really weird diagram and use it to unpick the hidden complexities of this document. That diagram is this one, one page 29 of the paper, showing a proposed new assessment to pathway for simpler matters.
It is presented in contrast to this one, outlining the existing process.
Wow, the existing system does look complex. And look at all that glorious white space in the new process – that does seem enticing.
[Edit 1 December – below is my attempt at a more honest reckoning of this system diagram. Excuse my crazy person hand-writing.]
Smart Planning system flow diagram