Victoria expected to fast-track major development applications and introduce new rental protections
Victoria expected to fast-track major development applications and introduce new rental protections
Andrews government expected to detail crackdown on rent bidding and stop landlords from raising prices after asking previous tenant to vacate
I'm wary of how diluted "affordable housing" means. Bypassing Council, VCAT and third party appeals are very tasty prizes for developers and I'm sure plenty would manipulate the definition of "affordable housing" to get a ticket to far less planning oversight, especially with the low bar of entry at 50 million. More housing is desperately needed, and NIMBY pushback has definitely been an issue, but I really hope the homes will actually be affordable, and that the Vic government planners will enforce good quality design, not boundary to boundary grossness with no setbacks or green space.
You're viewing a single thread.
Honestly NIMBY busting laws are required regardless of immigration, given that the Covid related drop in rents, and it's associated occupancy rate has revealed that people actually want space to live.
Affordability issues then mean that people then compromise on their housing situation. Hence there's a very strong demand for housing even before immigration effects are taken into account.
Claiming nimby is an absolute false boogeyman when VCAT regularly ramroads over the top of local councils.
There are genuine nimbys, true - but more and more and more the narrative is being spun to blame them for the housing crisis and that's flat out not true - it's a scapegoating tactic that allows the actual culprits to continue exacerbating the issue. And no, it's not a bad thing to push back against developments that fuck up your neighborhood.
I blame both NIMBY's and Developers equally, and we need a multi-faceted solution.
VCAT overturning a councils rejection means that the development was legal in the first place. However as the developer has to spend time and money defending their case, the incentives to build at higher densities are reduced. We do need to look at ways of reducing this burden on medium density developments, so that their construction is made financially viable.
However developers are also scum, who are guilty of landbanking and drip feeding. I would be more than happy if a Gas Resource Permit style "Move it or lose it" clause was put on development applications. To avoid speculation on the gas market, if you make a new discovery, but don't extract it in a reasonable time, then the government will force a sale to someone who can.
Ideally I would also like a switch to Japanese style planning, where there's strict rules on overshadowing (you can't overshadow without consent). But if you own the land, you can build anything residential you want.
Developments like the one that overshadowed backyards in Brunswick are blocked under Japanese planning laws. However density and non-cookie cutter architectural styles are encouraged by the fact that your only limitation is what you overshadow.
A VCAT hearing then takes time and money, reducing the incentive to build housing
not really. VCAT from a developers POV is a big fat "Fuck you council Imma gonna build it anyway" The legality very very rarely comes into it, it's that councils are invested in and beholden to the people that actually live in the area, so there are bigger concerns than legality - it' s extremely reasonable to object against bad builds - I'm not talking about those well-heeled cunts who want to maintain their class demographic. People live in the areas they do because of the attractiveness and amenities - and bad builds actively undermine these. The developers don't care, they just want the money - so they will tout the selling points of the area while actively destroying them, because those selling points are a social concern - that they offload. You even see this with new developments on old farmland, they don't upgrade the sewer system or roads because they can wave those off as not their problem - privatising the profits, socialising the costs.
VCAT overturning a councils rejection means that the development was legal in the first place.
An example of the fallacy of this would be something like the Greyhound - that was a key part of the queer community in Melbourne, a landmark in the area. People in the area - those that deal with this day to day - wanted it kept because it was a core part of the history and the society in the area. It provided a lot of resources. That's not a legal concern though, the guys that owned it, well legally they could grind it up and snort if they wanted. There's no heritage protection, so fuckit! It's still a loss to the community though, and last I saw still a dead empty lot with the promised apartments nowhere in site (in fact now it's going to be a "rental hub" - meaning that instead of a steady cornerstone we now have a rotating mess of people who aren't invested in the community. Its a huge social loss, but still entirely legal
It is more of a symptom of a problem with the current system though.
Its way more easier to get approvals when you buy a commercial building (eg a pub), and turn it into a high rise, than it is to buy a residential block and put single story units in place of the house.