Concerns

Boroondara needs more affordable homes including public, social and affordable homes for young Victorians and families.

Alternative and better approaches to increasing density have been ignored by Government. Future generations of Victorians will live with the consequences of this rushed and generic approach to rebuilding Melbourne as a city of apartments. The Activity Centre Programs will not deliver affordable housing.

The local voice in planning has been silenced. Councils & community have been shut out of the planning process, it’s done by Spring Street.

The process to introduce these reforms has been neither consultative nor transparent. The Plan for Victoria upon which they are justified is itself deeply flawed.

The promise of new homes that are less expensive than equivalent new dwellings today also flawed. The idea that simply building more homes will drive prices down-“avocado economics”- just doesn’t stack up. The Victorian Government continues to refuse the release of any evidence to support its promises of housing affordability.

Liveability, Amenity and Good Community Outcomes will be compromised:

The Government is promising Victorians – particularly young Victorians and families – that the Activity Centre program
and other reforms will deliver homes that:

• are located where people want to live, close to transport, jobs, family & where they grew up
• give young people and families the opportunities to own a home where they want to live, just like their parents
• are affordable for those currently locked out of these locations

Rezoning in catchments will not enable developers to deliver housing that is any more affordable than it is today. It is
well recognised that major taxation reform, a reduction in taxes and levies charged on development, existing home
prices fall or construction costs (labour and materials) must fall considerably before housing can be delivered more
cheaply.

Yet while refusing to release – in breach of its obligations – to the Inquiry or to Parliament any modelling or advice
about the expected effect of any of the planning reforms on housing supply generally, and the effect of increased
supply on house prices the Victorian Government continues to push a false narrative: rezone land within 800m / 10
minute walk of a commercial centre or transport node, demolish existing homes, and somehow expensive new builds
will become affordable.

Developer Max Shifman, CEO Intrapac has cast doubt on whether developers can deliver the affordable housing in
towers that the rezoning is intended to achieve.

While some lobbyists and “think tanks” assert that there is a causal link between upzoning in Auckland, New Zealand
and increased housing approvals, lower prices and lower rents there, and thus Melbourne should “run the experiment”,
other housing & planning experts, housing economists contest that. Developers are warning that it will be years before
new apartments in established Melbourne are affordable for anyone other than downsizers.

The planning reforms are centred upon core assumptions that:

• Councils and community objectors are to blame for housing supply not increasing to meet demand
• Faster planning approvals will deliver housing more quickly.

Yet the data shows that:

• most Councils approve in the region of 90% of development applications. Developers are able to have a Council
  refusal reviewed at VCAT or fast track a case if plans are not approved within 60 days
• many councils were planning and delivering on growth strategies approved by the Minister
• there are hundreds of planning permits granted for apartment developments but not acted upon. There is a
  practice of “land banking”, meaning that once a planning permit is granted the developer either sells the land with
  the permit or retains the land but delays construction. Sometimes the existing building is demolished and the land
  stays vacant for years. There are a variety of reasons for delaying construction (finance, contamination …) but often
  the developer is simply waiting for the price of housing to rise to make the development viable.
• there are hundreds of new apartments, mostly one and two bedrooms, that are unsold. If they were affordable
  then surely they would be snapped up?