Letter from Expert

Dear Sonya, I understand you and your office have received a number of emails over the past while relating to the intervention over the ‘Frankston Great Wall scare campaign. I too wish to add my voice to the balance of debate. My position is a little unique as a 46 year resident of Frankston, (recently moved not too far away to Botanic Ridge), but also a Building Designer, an applicant who has designed a 5 storey residential building in Frankston CAA and also previously as a member on the Design Matters National Committee of Management that held the portfolio of planning and attended a number of projects through DELWP (DEECA). As such my views cover professional, personal and I believe an objective position.

I have been involved with several meetings over the years with Frankston Council and Planning departments while they heard first hand the experiences and frustration at trying to do business within the local area and transform the City into a prosperous and vibrant centre. Many of those entities have walked away from permits, withdrawn applications and indicated they would no longer entertain development in the area. While both sides of Politics make promises on housing, and at both State and Federal Levels pledge change or improvement, it is the private sector that really holds the cards to make substantial change. Government can really only incentivize private entities to do so.

Over the past decades, many Strategic Documents outlining development within local Government planning, realized through zoning and Design overlays, have provided the framework for developers to invest millions of dollars into the purchase, and planning to respond to these documents to realise Frankston’s potential. The strategic planning documents and schedules provide the rules and guidelines to develop these sites. It therefore completely bewilders me that such an intervention has taken place in the first place, putting at risk investment and the stake of an entire CAA, particularly at a time when there is such a housing shortage and the building industry is in trouble. While I regularly deal with objectors and respect the democratic system we work by, a minority should never be allowed to derail progress. I draw your attention to the fundamental basis of how planning operates in this State;

Some of the objectives of planning in Victoria are to make sure land use and development:

•       is orderly, economic and sustainable

•       protects natural and manufactured resources

•       secures a pleasant and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria

•       conserves areas and buildings that are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value

•       protects public utilities and other assets for the benefit of the community

•       facilitates the provision of affordable housing in Victoria

•       balances the present and future interests of all Victorians.

The strategic documents produced, revised, exhibited and approved by Council and endorsed at State Level have all been through the process of considering these points arriving at effectively an agreed outcome. Developers have purchased sites and invested millions. To therefore apply the C162 amendment, which doesn’t even slightly vary, it completely kills the Frankston CAA, is completely unacceptable and undermines the very process of planning. For a small group of residents to provide a child quality photoshopped view of Frankston with 7 buildings stretching for many hundreds of metres, when we are talking about a 260m maximum stretch of land, in a scare campaign with factually inaccurate information maybe shows how fragile this State has become.

Some of the blame of where we are now has to lie with the Frankston Councillors that over the decades have continually superseded the Strategic Planning documents, asking for revisions and new structure plans. But while there has always been debate as to contentious heights, those heights have always been substantial dating back decades. So there are no surprises or right of opposition for a group of local residents any more than a person who moves in next to a hotel or airport then complains about noise and amenity. This Government swept aside all opposition for rail grade separation projects with little disregard ( a project I agree with), to enable a planning outcome for the greater benefit of the population.

When designing a commercial project, there are base costs that affect the viability of any project. Lifts, basements, fire services etc that are required result in costs that get shared over apartments or rentable area. As such 3-4 storey project would never stack up. Frankston is also at a disadvantage as it still costs the same to build an apartment in Frankston as it does in St Kilda. It’s the land cost and price point of that end product that will enable the project to proceed. By adopting the C162 amendment, you have effectively condemned the land, and devalued the land significantly. So what’s the solution? We bicker, spend years doing yet another Structure plan, have it exhibited, adopted and end up where we were previously, with still the same oppositional groups, still the same Council, still the same outcomes – but Frankston has progressively fallen into further ghetto? When prime land is sitting as an open carpark, there is all the evidence you need on the trouble we are in. As the Minister under a Labor Government who no doubt would want Private Industry to pick up momentum to help the Economy and deliver housing I hope this intervention is redacted at the earliest possible opportunity.

Sent from my iPhone