Bayside locals hit back at Allan government’s high-rise tower plan
The Allan government’s new high-rise tower maps have sparked fierce backlash from councils, local residents and property figures who have accused the planning minister of ignoring locals and selling false hope to first home buyers.
The Allan government’s new high-rise tower maps have sparked fierce backlash from councils and property figures who have accused the planning minister of ignoring locals and selling false hope to first home buyers.
Draft plans for towering residential blocks along stretches of up to 1.5km in 25 suburban locations have been revealed.
The detailed maps encourage developers to build apartments up to 16 storeys high in Hampton, Coburg, Oakleigh, Kew, Hawthorn Auburn and Brunswick, and up to 12 storeys in areas like Brighton, Glenferrie and Hughesdale.
The Premier described the new zones as “sensible and gentle”, while shadow treasurer James Newbury accused the government of “wrecking Melbourne suburbs”.
Fuming councils have claimed local voices have been ignored, accusing the government of wasting residents’ time with another “performative consultation process”.
In a scathing statement, Bayside City Council, home to four activity centres, said the government had failed to engage in “meaningful consultation” and vowed to fight any changes that “threaten to destroy” its suburbs.
In Brighton, where protesters heckled the Premier during a protest against the plans last year, local Belinda Brown said she was “quite disgusted” at the move, urging the Premier to revisit her plans before they “ruin(ed) the whole landscape”.
Boroondara mayor Sophie Torney said she had seen “no evidence” that voices in her eastern suburbs communities had shaped the updated plans.
“Consultation only works if people can see that their feedback is taken seriously,” she said.
Premier Jacinta Allan, however, said the plans were a result of the government “listening to local communities”.
“I’m on the side of all Victorians who are wanting to have affordable homes, have that choice of where that home is, and that’s why we’re releasing these next round of 25 train and tram activity centres in just great locations,” she said.
Property groups and developers, however, also raised concerns about viability and affordability.
Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) Victorian chief executive Linda Allison said even with more planning certainty construction costs, labour shortages and tax imposts made conditions “exceedingly difficult”.
“Based on current rates, a family sized apartment is difficult to deliver for less than $1.5 million,” she said.
“This is out of reach for families on moderate incomes, and hard to compete against established detached homes.”
Property Council Victorian Council executive director Cath Evans said the apartments would only be built if the government strips back the huge tax burden.
She, however, welcomed plans to offer “an opportunity for workers and families to live close to existing transport and community facilities”.
Prominent developer Max Shifman accused the government of continuing to “push the lie” that the high-rise zones will “magically deliver” affordable family homes for millennials.
“This is nothing more than theatrics based on theoretical numbers, does not tackle the real issues impacting housing supply, and will not create homes that meet broader market needs at prices they can afford,” he said.
Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny, however, said she was confident that more supply would lead to more affordable homes.
“We’re providing more homes because at the moment we’ve got a supply issue … which means prices are getting driven up,” she said.
Opposition housing spokesman Richard Riordan slammed the plan as a “one size fits all” solution that did not address affordability.
“This is a problem the Allan Labor government refuses to address with 45 per cent of the cost of a new home being made up of taxes, charges and regulations,” he said.
The everyday supplement saving our sickest patients from deadly risk
