The Victorian government's Development Facilitation Program (DFP) has sparked controversy over its role in fast-tracking approvals for luxury apartment builds in Melbourne, potentially bypassing local planning rules and affordable housing requirements. This scheme, which grants the government decision-making power over significant residential projects contributing to affordable housing, has raised concerns about its effectiveness and potential misuse.
One of the main issues is the flexibility of the cash contribution option. Developers can qualify by contributing 3% of their construction cost to the government's Social Housing Growth Fund, but there's no guarantee that this funding will be reinvested locally. This has led to criticism from Jane Oldham, a prominent critic of state planning law, who warns that this approach may be used to gain approval in sought-after areas, bypassing local councils and potentially delaying much-needed affordable housing.
The Hawthorn project, for instance, is a prime example of this. Despite being surrounded by prestigious homes and an elite private school, the site failed to generate enough off-the-plan sales to move past the planning phase. However, under a new owner, the project was fast-tracked with a 3% cash contribution, now marketed as a luxury development in a highly regarded private school belt. This raises questions about the local benefit of the scheme and whether it's being used to prioritize developer interests over community needs.
The Boroondara Community Group, led by Oldham, highlights the lack of immediate affordable housing delivery. The scheme's promise of faster approval on shovel-ready sites seems to be more about expediting development than ensuring affordable housing. This is further evidenced by the reduction in affordable homes in Brunswick and Coburg by a developer after fast-tracked approval.
The scheme's impact on affordable housing is also questioned by Kate Raynor, an affordable housing expert. She warns that flexible contribution options have a history of failing to deliver affordable housing at scale, especially in areas with high land costs like Boroondara. The municipality, which trails in social housing provision, has seen only about 59 affordable dwellings guaranteed out of 800 homes approved, raising concerns about the scheme's effectiveness in addressing the housing crisis.
The DFP's popularity among developers is evident, but it comes with a cost. The pathway offers certainty, fast-tracking, and relaxed planning scheme requirements, but it also raises questions about the public benefit. Michael Buxton, an emeritus professor of planning, criticizes the lack of faith in the cash contribution's alignment with affordable housing goals. He calls for more information on the value of the cash contribution compared to the affordable housing provided.
The government, however, defends the scheme, emphasizing its role in building and approving more homes than any other state. Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny acknowledges the scheme's accelerated pathway and its focus on delivering homes in good locations. Yet, she remains unable to confirm if any proposals have been rejected, highlighting the ongoing debate and scrutiny surrounding the DFP's impact on affordable housing and local planning processes.
