Follow The Fifth Estate on Twitter Like The Fifth Estate on Facebook Connect with The Fifth Estate on LinkedIn Subscribe to The Fifth Estate RSS Feed

Why Melbourne needs its own version of the Greater Sydney Commission

Geelong, Victoria. Photo by Kate Trifo on Unsplash

Melbourne’s global reputation for liveability does not resonate with many Melburnians. Its economy has slipped into over the past decade. Population growth has outpaced the provision of and . Many households must look to fringe areas to find housing they can afford.




Read more:



The Victorian government has duly ramped up its urban management program. New suburbs are well planned if they need. A multi-billion-dollar “” includes the , the , and, prospectively, a new suburban freeway – the .

Ordinary citizens may well give the government credit for this ambitious agenda. Equally, they might wonder how all these projects add up to a long-term vision for Melbourne.

The official metropolitan strategy, , has little profile in the community. The government gazumped its own plan with its breathtaking 2018 election announcement of a to reshape the city.

悦博体育赌场In contrast, the Greater Sydney Commission has devised a compelling metropolitan strategy. Its “” has captured the popular imagination and galvanised a degree of infrastructure co-ordination across government agencies and local councils in Sydney.




Read more:



Why is Victoria different?

The Victorian government took over the planning of metropolitan Melbourne in 1985. The (MMBW) had for three decades managed the city’s development “under licence” from the state. State and local governments jointly “owned” the board as its governing body included state appointees and council-elected delegates.

The MMBW prepared the metropolitan strategy for sign-off by the state, acted as development approval authority for projects of metropolitan significance and delivered key infrastructure. This included water-cycle management, metropolitan parks and, for a time, city-shaping roads. Having its own rates base gave the MMBW a high degree of fiscal autonomy.




Read more:



The Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works undertook citywide planning with public input.

Bringing metropolitan planning under direct ministerial control seemed like a good idea at the time. The Cain Labor government had come to power with a detailed urban agenda. It included revitalising the CBD, reframing the city around the Yarra, boosting the economy and amenity of the western suburbs and reining in sprawl.

The government did not want a powerful, semi-autonomous, planning agency contesting this urban agenda. Premier John Cain also in planning matters.

What seemed to be a logical realignment for more democratically accountable planning has since been shown to be a regrettable move. Direct state control of metropolitan planning and infrastructure is beset by issues of legitimacy, competency and funding.




Read more:



The need for a metropolitan mandate

The state government speaks for the state, not the metropolitan community. Its lack of a metropolitan mandate constrains the government’s legitimacy in resolving conflicting planning objectives – for example, promoting urban consolidation while protecting local amenity. Communities are likely to see the government as unsympathetic to local concerns.

The primary competency of state governments rests in providing jurisdiction-wide services like health, education, policing and justice, which lend themselves to economies of scale and vertical integration. Such operations often unfairly attract the disparaging label “silo”.

State governments are best at serving citizens “at large” rather than citizens “in place”. By contrast, local governments have a natural competency in linking up and leveraging neighbourhood services.

The “silo tendencies” of state governments have to be tempered by investment in new institutions to make sure projects together produce the metropolitan outcome that policies like Plan Melbourne seek. At least five state government agencies have a direct hand in planning Melbourne. Around ten others have co-ordination or oversight roles in urban development.

悦博体育赌场Understanding how this complex web of institutions works is a challenge for those in the system let alone for ordinary citizens.

悦博体育赌场In the ten years to 2018, state government employment in Victoria. In part, this increase reflected investment in project delivery, planning and co-ordination. In local government, which faces similar growth management challenges, employment has been .




Read more:



What can a commission do that the state can’t?

A metropolitan sphere of governance – working in a similar way to the former MMBW – might offer productivity advantages compared to elaborate administrative reforms within state governments to curb their silo proclivities.

悦博体育赌场Because they lack a mandate from the metropolitan community, state governments are not well placed to advance particular reforms to improve urban infrastructure.

悦博体育赌场One example is development licence fees. Increases in land value associated with rezoning and development approvals are the result of good urban governance and citizen-funded infrastructure rather than the efforts of passive land holders. “” strategies like development fees could raise billions in revenue without distortive effects. However, state leaders rarely canvass such reform.

悦博体育赌场While the state government has a big vision for Melbourne, it lacks the wherewithal to manage metropolitan development towards this end. Stronger institutions for integrated metropolitan governance are needed.

An opening gambit could be to establish a Melbourne Metropolitan Commission, taking on board the experience of the Greater Sydney Commission. It has done a great job of creating a new vision for Sydney, but is ultimately a wholly owned institution of the state government.




Read more:



悦博体育赌场An effective Melbourne Metropolitan Commission would require at least a partial democratic mandate from the metropolitan community. A minority of seats on its board could be reserved for local council representatives appointed by electoral colleges across the metropolitan region.

悦博体育赌场As the custodian of Plan Melbourne, the commission would be the planning authority for all parts of the city that are of metropolitan significance. This would include major activity centres, the principal public transport network, the urban growth boundary and the identified in the plan.

The commission should be the “gatekeeper” that tests potential city-shaping projects against the metropolitan strategy.

The commission would control the public transport and arterial road networks, as well as metropolitan parks and water-cycle management. This place-based governance would be able to unlock synergies and innovations in these systems that have eluded state governments.

The commission might also be able to pursue the case for a fairer sharing of the value that metropolitan development creates.The Conversation

, Associate Professor (Urban Planning) – honorary,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

Comments

One Response to “Why Melbourne needs its own version of the Greater Sydney Commission”

  • Martin Brennan says:

    Let’s do it and do it right! A Greater Melbourne Council with elected representatives mirroring the Greater London Council. Retain the 32 councils as does London with its 29 boroughs plus the City of Westminster. We could then drive a liveable, sustainable and resilient metropolitan Melbourne. I’d like to see that!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More Articles on this Topic