The liveability risk in building 60 new housing hubs across Melbourne

Melbourne’s activity centres risk becoming places where people don’t want to live if the design process is not improved, prominent state planners have warned.

They say the Victorian government has not followed its own rules in hatching its 10 pilot housing hubs, which normally need to be backed by demographic, economic, transport and infrastructure analysis.

Ringwood Square is in the core of an activity centre.Credit: Justin McManus

Following the Allan government’s week of housing announcements, Patrick Fensham, the Victorian president of the Planning Institute of Australia, said that while reform was needed to support the delivery of more homes in established areas, people also had to be confident the city’s 60 so-called activity centres increased liveability.

“The ‘activity’ in the activity centres hasn’t had sufficient attention,” Fensham said.

“There’s been a lot of talk about more housing, but what about the cafes, shops, offices and services? We want to see key questions have been answered.”

Victorian councils embarking on planning changes must follow a set of guidelines, set by the state government in 2018, that instructs planners to consider details including how much retail, office and open space will be needed, specify what diverse housing is required to cater to different types of households, and identify strategies to promote active and public transport.

However, the state government’s updated plans for its first 10 activity centres, released last week, retain a laser-like focus on height limits and setbacks, which experts say do very little for creating vibrant, liveable suburbs.

Fensham said the existing guidelines for planning activity centres were laborious and needed streamlining, and crucial elements were missing from plans for the 10 pilot centres, which include Camberwell, Broadmeadows and Ringwood.

At a housing forum organised by Whitehorse City Council last Thursday, a leading planning lawyer told the audience that the Victorian government was not following the standard process it required of councils.

“It’s not apparent that any of that [population, infrastructure and transport] analysis has been done, or if it has been done, it’s not been publicly released,” the lawyer said.

The state government’s new planning regulations in its first 10 transport hubs will be made official this month to allow for the fast-tracked development of townhouses and apartment buildings of between three and 20 storeys.

Fensham said he hoped the government would improve its approach for the next 50 activity centres.

“The opportunity exists to get the next 50 right,” he said. “We understand the first 10 were a pilot process and there is need for rapid thinking to deliver on the housing statement, but now is the opportunity for the next tranche of work to take on board some of the lessons and engage with councils and communities.”

Fensham said that changing planning controls alone would not bring more housing, and called for clear short- and long-term health, education and transport infrastructure plans to support the target of building 2.24 million homes statewide by 2051.

A multi-storey development going up in Essendon.Credit: Chris Hopkins

“We don’t have the resources to support development at that scale on multiple fronts all at once,” he said. “What’s the sequence of provision of infrastructure that will provide a signal for where housing goes first, next and in the long term?”

Urban Design Forum co-president Katherine Sundermann said the 10 activity centre plans felt rushed and lacked mention of many fundamental elements that made a place liveable, such as parks, community services and pleasant streets.

“We have 50 activity centres to go,” Sundermann said. “The process would benefit from having greater ability to give feedback.

“One of the things that should be required is economic modelling of how much floor space is needed for housing, offices and retail. This is something that historically has been done as part of structure planning processes and can be done quite quickly.”

Urban planner Katherine Sundermann, pictured in Footscray last year, says the first activity centres lack parks and pleasant streets.Credit: Joe Armao

There has been widespread frustration among councillors and planners that they are learning about the state reforms at the same time as the wider public, with minimal chance for feedback.

Fensham called for more collaboration: “The process needs to allow for a to-and-fro of discussion and testing.”

The first 10 centres had only a four-week window during which submissions could be sent, and that coincided with the caretaker period during last year’s council elections.

This differs from the approach to planning the Suburban Rail Loop station precincts, which will involve more consultation and public hearings.

Municipal Association of Victoria president Jennifer Anderson called for the state to better involve council planners and residents in crafting the next 50 activity centres.

“People are more inclined to be happy about increased development if they are brought along for the discussion and can see that what being planned is not a threat to what makes their place special,” Anderson said.

A government spokesman said the planning rules being introduced in the first 10 activity centres were based on extensive urban design and technical analysis tailored to the areas to create quality streetscapes.

He said the engagement on the first 10 would inform work on the next 50.

“There is only one way out of the housing crisis – build our way out,” he said.

“We want more homes for young people and workers close to jobs, transport, and services – so they can live where they want, near the things they need and the people they love.”

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.