MARCH 2013

ALC SUBMISSION

MAKING MELBOURNE, LET’S TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE

P2

PO Box 20 DEAKIN WEST ACT 2600P:+61 2 6273 0744 F:+61 2 6273 3073 E: admin@austlogistics.com.au

www.austlogistics.com.au

©Australian Logistics Council, March 2013

THIS SUBMISSION HAS BEEN PREPARED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF KM CORKE AND ASSOCIATES, CANBERRA.

P3

MAR 2013

Summary of recommendations

1. It is imperative that the final Planning Strategy developed by the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Freight and Logistics Plan being developed by the Department of Transport are not seen as being complementary but rather part of a whole, preferably combined into one final document.

2. ALC requests that the final Metropolitan Planning Strategy is sufficiently robust to satisfy criterion 3 of the COAG National Objective and Criteria for Future Planning of Capital Cities and the National Ports Strategy so Victoria qualifies for Nation Building 2 program funding.

3. ALC calls on the Government to submit the final Metropolitan Planning Strategy to the Victorian Parliament as a Schedule to an Act and that both political parties commit to the strategy as the planning blueprint for at least the next 40 years.

4. ALC requests that the final Metropolitan Planning Strategy designate transport corridors and buffer zones.

5. The final Metropolitan Planning Strategy must set out the preferred mechanisms that will go towards financing the preservation of the industry zones, buffer areas and transport zones that will provide jobs and advance the Victorian economy.

6. The final Metropolitan Planning Strategy should be administered by a single planning authority responsible to the Victorian Parliament.

7. In the absence of a COAG agreement, the Government should consider the development of an agreement with local government which:

» acknowledges that land use decisions should prioritise the efficient operation of the ports and infrastructure identified as being state significant infrastructure; and

» creates a fund for local governments which incur expense as a result of making land-use decisions that favour nationally significant infrastructure over other land uses (eg dealing with spillover effects on communities located within the ‘last mile’ of nationally significant infrastructure as a result of prioritising the freight effort over other uses)

to deal with ‘last mile’ issues that arise in the planning process.

8. ALC requests the Government undertake a study (which involves industry) that considers potential options for a second Victorian port. Such a study would include issues such as port viability and the effect the port location may have on traffic flows, and road and rail congestion.

9. ALC calls on planning instruments to limit urban infill so that Port Melbourne can operate to maximum efficiency.

10. ALC suggests the final Metropolitan Planning Strategy endorse the development of something similar to the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast charts as a guide to plan land use near significant infrastructure.

P4

ALC RESPONSEALC is pleased to make a submission to the Melbourne, Let’s Talk About the Future discussion paper (the discussion paper), that will guide the development of a Metropolitan Planning Strategy.

The planning documentation

ALC has two concerns.

In its Review of Capital City Strategic Planning Systems published in 2012 the COAG Reform Council said:

The council will be interested to see the Victorian Government’s vision for dealing with these long term challenges in the context of its broader ambitions for Melbourne.

The strategic planning system for Melbourne is changing following the election of a new government late in 2010. This has affected a number of the council’s findings of consistency or otherwise with the national criteria.

This is indicative of a general issue in the strategic planning of Australian cities, which requires persistent effort over timeframes in which it is likely that governments will change. Statutory frameworks and provisions can provide some continuity but do not replace the foundational importance of a strategic, integrated, long-term vision for the city—supported by a systematic engagement and implementation program—at any one point in time. This issue highlights the importance of governments seriously and genuinely engaging the community and stakeholders in strategic planning so that these visions may be durable should governments change.1

and:

Intermodal planning is supported by a strong initial discussion paper but is not yet a strategy. In addition, responses on land reservation only indicate a number of upcoming plans and research initiatives which may identify infrastructure priorities. A link back to the greater strategic plan for Melbourne cannot be made against either of these issues as this plan is under review.2

ALC believes there is a need for all long term planning at the state level to incorporate a number of key features, including:

1 Page 115

2 Page 119

3 40 years being the apparent life of the document anticipated by the Government – see message from the Minister Discussion Paper: i.

» proactive land use planning – planning for future port and freight facilities and their land use requirements, including buffering strategies;

» greater integration of the network – working in close collaboration with industry to deliver new initiatives that promote supply chain efficiency;

» improved regulatory arrangements – providing the right regulatory and institutional settings to foster a sustainable freight and logistics sector;

» effective management of community and environmental impacts – seeking to mitigate the negative impacts of freight growth;

» designation of a principal freight network, to connect the major freight hubs with the Port of Melbourne and concentrate freight flows on dedicated links; and

» additional stevedoring capacity at the Port of Melbourne.

One of the significant points raised by ALC members at a Forum conducted with the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport held in Canberra on 21 February 2013 was the fact that many companies spend millions of dollars in investing in business infrastructure - it is imperative that there is certainty as to where major transport routes are going to be and where major transport hubs will be located.

Freight needs to be better integrated with all aspects of land use planning, including new residential development, new road and rail projects and the construction of distribution and warehouse facilities in outer areas.

So there is an incentive to raise the funds to build the infrastructure to create the jobs and productivity levels needed for a vibrant Victorian economy, business must have the confidence that planning instruments do not change every time a government does.

ALC calls on the Government to submit the final Metropolitan Planning Strategy to the Victorian Parliament as a Schedule to an Act and that both political parties commit to the strategy as the planning blueprint for at least the next 40 years.3

ALC also requests the Strategy designate transport corridors and buffer zones.

P5

Silo thinking

The second concern ALC has is that documentation generated by the planning and transport departments separately may not necessarily combine together as well as they could.

Criterion 3 of the COAG National Objective and Criteria for Future Planning of Capital Cities approved in 2009 provides:

Capital city strategic planning systems should provide for nationally-significant economic infrastructure (both new and upgrade of existing) including:

a. transport corridors

b. international gateways

c. intermodal connections

d. major communications and utilities infrastructure, and

e. reservation of appropriate lands to support future expansion.

ALC is pleased with this recognition, however it also agrees with observations made in the Infrastructure Australia National Land Freight Discussion Paper (2011) that said:

The proposed national ports strategy noted that freight is perceived as a ‘poor cousin’ in terms of planning which can lead to freight being locked out in some locations. The strategy identified that there are few published port and related landside infrastructure plans. A published freight plan is one way of ensuring that freight issues are brought to the attention of planning decision makers.4

ALC was pleased the National Ports Strategy recommended (amongst other things):

» landside access routes of strategic importance to the efficient function of the system of relevant ports be identified and designated as national port freight corridors; and

» policies and planning schemes (and controls) at all relevant levels of government should include ‘buffer’ strategies for the relevant ports and freight corridors and other related places to ensure the continued ability to conduct the freight and related activities identified in the plans, so as to minimise impacts on communities arising from these activities

ALC is also supportive of Initiative 3.13 in the National Urban Policy Implementation Plan, which requires capital city planning schemes to have in place freight strategies consistent with the National Ports Strategy and the National Land Freight Network Strategy before being eligible for funds under the Commonwealth’s Nation Building 2 Program.5

ALC notes that the Department of Planning and Community Development is preparing this document whilst the Department of Transport is developing a new Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan to develop a ‘clear long term plan’ for Melbourne’s freight sector.6

Whilst it is encouraging that a separate freight and logistics strategy is being developed, ALC notes that the current discussion paper does concentrate on urban planning considerations, with transport and logistics concernes mentioned in a relatively secondary way.

Moreover, the discussion paper certainly does not suggest that the final Metropolitan Planning Strategy would contain the types of things anticipated by the National Ports Strategy.

Plans prepared by two departments for the one state government must work together.

It is therefore imperative that the documents are not seen as being complementary, but are preferably combined into one final document.

ALC also requests that the final planning strategy is sufficiently robust to satisfy criterion 3 of the COAG National Objective and Criteria for Future Planning of Capital Cities and the National Ports Strategy so Victoria qualifies for Nation Building 2 program funding.

4 Page 21

5 Department of Infrastructure and Transport State of Australian Cities 2012Appendix B National Urban Policy Implementation Plan, p.343

6 Discussion paper:22

P6

Paying for infrastructure and buffer and corridor preservation

The discussion paper acknowledges a historic under-investment in the provision and maintenance of infrastructure and services.7

The discussion paper contains a list of some ways by which infrastructure can be financed and funded. However, it is just that – a list.8

No preliminary preferences are expressed as to how infrastructure of state significance (as opposed to local infrastructure) or transport corridors and buffer zones are to be funded.

ALC has noted that similar documents prepared interstate, such as the NSW Master Transport Plan place emphasis on developing mechanisms to preserve transport corridors which are a vital element for planning for the future. However, neither set aside funds to purchase lands for corridors nor identify mechanisms to ensure that corridors can be protected.

Whilst acknowledging the development of the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution and the intention to review the Victorian development contribution system is underway so as to develop a new ‘off the shelf’ model for local development contributions, the final Metropolitan Planning Strategy must set out the preferred mechanisms that will go towards financing the preservation of the industry zones, buffer areas and transport zones that will provide jobs and advance the Victorian economy.

Governance

ALC agrees with the observation in the discussion paper that there needs to be a coordinating mechanism across governments for the 21st century9 and that good governance, strong leadership and collaborative partnerships are essential to the success or failure of a metropolitan strategy.10

ALC therefore believes responsibility for planning Melbourne shared between the Minister for Planning and the 31 municipalities administering the metropolitan region is not the best way to make the bold decisions that will secure the economy, and therefore the prosperity, of all Victorians.

ALC therefore agrees with the proposition that:

the Metropolitan Planning Strategy should address the needs of the market, local councils, business and communities. It also needs to achieve metropolitan imperatives while being sensitive to local needs.11

and would support an option:

to establish a metropolitan planning authority which, amongst other responsibilities, would coordinate relevant government agencies in the timely delivery of city-shaping infrastructure and other projects of metropolitan significance12

which would be responsible to the people through the Victorian Parliament.

ALC would hope that this enhanced planning authority would be responsible for drafting not only urban land use strategies but documents such as the proposed freight and logistics strategy so that places for people and places for freight can be developed in harmony.

7 Discussion paper:74

8 Discussion paper: 76 and 78

9 Discussion Paper:87

10 Discussion Paper:86

11 Discussion Paper: 86

12 Discussion Paper: 87

P7

It follows that if planning documentation designates ‘places for freight’, there will be occasions that state and local governments must make land-use decisions prioritising the efficient use of the infrastructure over other possible land uses.

ALC has consistently argued for a COAG agreement that underpins the development of a National Partnership that:

» acknowledges that land use decisions should prioritise the efficient operation of the ports and infrastructure identified as being nationally significant infrastructure; and

» create a fund for state and local governments which incur expense as a result of making land-use decisions that favour nationally significant infrastructure over other land uses (eg dealing with spillover effects on communities located within the ‘last mile’ of nationally significant infrastructure as a result of prioritising the freight effort over other uses).

In the absence of such a COAG agreement, the State Government may consider developing a mechanism such as this at a state level to deal with ‘last mile’ issues that arise in the planning process.

Specific infrastructure

Finally, ALC notes the Victorian Government’s commitment to projects such as the East West Link, the Western Interstate Freight Terminal and the M80 Upgrade, all of which will assist productivity, as well as the need to investigate future airport needs in the east and south-east of Melbourne.

However, as the COAG Reform Council said in its Review of Capital City Strategic Planning Systems:

Airports, ports and freight

The location and forecast use of airports and ports have a significant impact on the spatial organisation of cities and the transport challenges—both passenger and freight—faced by the city over time. Melbourne has historically developed to the east to a distance from the central business district that is comparable to that between central Melbourne and Geelong. This creates its own transport challenges irrespective of where major freight infrastructure is located. Over Melbourne’s long-term future a number of challenges are apparent:

Melbourne’s two most significant airports—Tullamarine and Avalon—are located in the west, away from the city’s centre of gravity.

Port Melbourne is forecast to be handling eight million containers per year by the end of the next 30 years but there is capacity planned for the port and in its surrounding freight network for just four million containers per year—and the local area is also identified as a major infill location.

As foreshadowed in a recent publicly available Government submission to Infrastructure Australia, the potential expansion of Port Hastings to handle containers beyond Port Melbourne’s capacity is now a prioritised investigation project for which the Government is seeking funds. However, it is also in the south-east of Melbourne away from the airports and associated freight infrastructure in Melbourne’s west.13

13 Page 115

P8

ALC agrees with these observations.

There is a need to develop a second port for Melbourne. Port Hastings appears the preferred development, although given the extensive infrastructure already in place ALC notes some industry proponents consider it more appropriate to develop a port to the west of the city.

That said, Port Melbourne will still remain a significant element of Australia’s port capacity.

Permitting urban infill in the area will simply lead to a re-run of many of the difficulties that arose in the Port of Fremantle when trying to marry the needs of a working port with an increased residential population.

Prioritising urban infill at the expense of the operation of one of Australia’s most significant port operations would be the ultimate illustration of freight being the ‘poor cousin’ of planning.

ALC requests the Government undertake a study (which involves industry) that considers potential options for a second Victorian port. Such a study would include issues such as port viability and the effect the port location may have on traffic flows, and road and rail congestion.

ALC also specifically calls on planning instruments to limit urban infill so that Port Melbourne can operate to maximum efficiency.

In relation to the last point, an ALC member suggested at the Forum held with the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport on 21 February 2013 that planning authorities use something similar to the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast charts as a guide as to whether particular activities should be located near significant infrastructure as a transparent way of determining when urban development should be allowed near infrastructure and when the efficient operation of infrastructure should prevail.

ALC suggests the final Metropolitan Planning Strategy endorse the development of something similar to the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast charts as a guide to plan land use near significant infrastructure.

Australian Logistics Council March 2013

P9

PO Box 20 DEAKIN WEST ACT 2600 P:+61 2 6273 0755 F:+61 2 6273 3073 E: admin@austlogistics.com.au

www.austlogistics.com.au

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

NATIONAL SPONSORS

MEMBERS