News / Planning
Changes sought to new activity centre plans
Government criticised for inadequate consultation
Mark Phillips
MERRI-BEK Council has criticised the lack of detail in the state government’s new activity centres for Brunswick and Coburg and will seek some changes to the proposed planning schemes.
The council wants to remove from the plans some of the areas designated for buildings of up to 16 storeys.
In its submission to the state government, it has also sought to alter the mix of possible new high-density development between Brunswick and Coburg
The submission was endorsed by councillors on October 8 and will be sent to the government as part of its consultation about the new planning scheme, which closes to the public on October 19.
The changes, which would see strategic parts of Brunswick and Coburg rezoned to allow taller buildings, were announced in September.
Brunswick and Coburg are among 60 activity centres where the government aims to deliver more than 300,000 additional homes close to jobs, services and transport by 2051.
They will be governed by new planning controls that transfer decision making over large projects from councils to the state government to allow faster approvals to achieve the ambitious target.
Maps released by the government show buildings of up to eight storeys would be allowed in Sydney Road from Park Street, and 12 storeys between Moreland Road and Bell Street.
Dozens of other sites in Brunswick and Coburg have been identified for high-rise buildings up to 12 levels including at least 15 where heights would be capped even taller. Some of these are in residential back streets.
Merri-bek’s submission is guided by a core principles that while more housing will be positive, the additional population growth must be matched with adequate investment from the state government in infrastructure and services to support new and existing residents throughout these centres.
It will seek commitments to expand public transport capacity, strengthen cycling and walking networks, and provide investment in community facilities, schools, open space, drainage and utilities.
A report prepared for the October 8 council meeting said its submission was hampered a lack of technical material from the government about the new planning rules, including building heights.
“This makes it difficult for officers to understand the reasoning behind the proposals or provide meaningful comment, as achievable building heights depend on other factors such as setbacks, overshadowing, and design requirements that have not been made available,” the report said.
The council submission will seek some changes to the proposed planning maps for the activity centres, including special consideration of the Hoffman Brickworks in Brunswick and Glencairn Avenue in Coburg.
Bababi Djinanang ward councillor Sue Bolton said there had been poor communication from the government about the new activity centres which had left many residents who could be affected in the dark about the proposed changes.
Pentridge ward’s councillor Nat Abboud said there needed to be a balance between providing more high density housing and protecting existing heritage that she did not believe was properly appreciated by the government.
“I do feel fairly cynical about this process because I don’t know if we’ll be heard but I do think it’s very important that we do try to get all of the pieces of the picture in place,” she said.
But Deputy Mayor Helen Politis said she was optimistic the council’s concerns would be heard and “our future was in safe hands”.
Councillor Liz Irvin from Randazzo ward in Brunswick said high density housing was welcome as long as there was accompanying open space and other improvements to make it liveable.
Read more:
At an online forum held last week by the Brunswick Residents Network to discuss the plans, concerns were raised about the expected increase in motor vehicle traffic that would be generated by more residents in apartment buildings that would be in conflict with a council strategy to make local streets more safer for pedestrians, cyclists and children.
The need to provide more open space and streetscape improvements alongside new housing was also discussed, and there was criticism that the new state government planning powers would reduce the rights of residents and councils to have a say about the make up of their own neighbourhoods.
The president of the Brunswick Community History Group, Elisabeth Jackson, said she was worried about control over planning decisions being taken away from the council.
“It’s the local people who know what they value about their community and what they want to protect,” she said.
Jackson echoed concerns that the Hoffman Brickworks had been designated for buildings of up to 16 storeys, although she said she had been assured that any future development would still require approval from Heritage Victoria.
She said allowing heights along Sydney Road of up to eight storeys in Brunswick and 12 in Coburg would destroy the strip’s character.
“A lot of these shops in Brunswick particularly have heritage overlays which is good but that only tends to protect the façade of the building. The danger here is we could have a whole row of facades with eight storeys behind them and that Sydney Road will turn into the sort of awful canyon that Lygon Street has become.”
Brunswick MP Tim Read said it would be “outrageous” if a developer was allowed to build 16 storeys on the vacant corner site at the Brickworks.
“A 16 storey building there would be a lot taller than the historic chimneys on the kilns there and I would see that as quite inappropriate on heritage grounds not to mention that fact that it would be rewarding the most dreadful behaviour by a developer who has played successive state governments like a musical instrument for decades,” he said.
Nic Maclellan of the BRN questioned how genuine the state government was about consulting with the community as it developed the new planning schemes. He said many of the suggestions made during consultation earlier this year had not been included in the latest maps.
Maclellan said the lived experience of residents was an asset and they should continue to have a say about the future of their neighbourhood.
“They say they’re consulting the community but the very purpose of this is to stop the community having a say over the core activity centre … and we think that’s bad policy.”
Maclellan added there were doubts about whether the changes would produce more affordable housing.
“There’s a real call, especially from young people, for better access for housing and there’s a recognition about the need for higher density,” he said.
“But there’s a real trap because the government talks about affordable housing but when we’ve seen residents and the council cut out of the planning process, they don’t deliver cheaper housing.
“What does affordable housing mean in this context because that’s a sort of propaganda the YIMBYs and the state government are using … there’s no commitment to public housing, let alone social housing and that’s a real question.”
Coburg residents are also alarmed by some aspects of the planning scheme, and have formed a new organisation to represent their views during the public consultation.
Their early advocacy convinced the council to seek special consideration of the Glencairn estate.
If you liked this story, have you thought about supporting our work?
We are an independent, volunteer-run hyperlocal news organisation owned and run by the people in your community. With your support, we can continue to produce unique and valuable local journalism for Brunswick, Coburg and the inner north of Melbourne.
