public housing renewal program - parliament of victoria · where they have a role and...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Public Housing Renewal Program Submission to the Legal and Social Issues Committee
Inquiry into the Public Housing Renewal Program
.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
1 of 67
2
This page has been left blank intentionally
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
2 of 67
3
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 5
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 8
1. Context ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
2. Social Housing .......................................................................................................................................... 9
RESPONSE TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE ........................................................................ 19
1. The adequacy of a proposed 10 per cent increase in public housing (or 1,100 public units) on the
sites given the size of the waiting list for public housing; ............................................................................ 19
2. The ability to cater for all demographics including families, couples and singles with the proposed
housing mix; ................................................................................................................................................... 19
3. The effects on current public housing tenants, including: ................................................................... 21
a. whether they will be moved to accommodation that is secure, stable and fit for purpose;.............. 21
b. whether they will be moved to accommodation that is close to existing social support networks,
educational, health and welfare services; .................................................................................................... 21
c. whether current tenants will be able to return to the estates; ........................................................... 21
4. The allocation of parts of the sites between the proposed new public and private housing units; .. 24
5. The lack of public condition assessments of the estates or alternative options such as
refurbishment of all or part of the existing housing units;........................................................................... 25
6. The proposed significant increase in density and heights and any local environmental impacts, such
as the loss of open space and mature vegetation; ....................................................................................... 26
7. The removal of planning controls from local councils, and planning implications surrounding
communities including existing neighbourhood character, traffic flow and provisions of services; .......... 27
8. The proposed loss of third party appeal rights; .................................................................................... 28
9. The transparency and genuine community consultation with affected residents, neighbouring
communities and the broader Victorian community regarding the short, medium and long term
implications of the PHRP model as currently proposed; .............................................................................. 30
10. Public housing estates where similar models are envisaged or underway, including — ............... 34
a. Markham Avenue, Ashburton; .............................................................................................................. 34
b. Koolkuna Lane, Hampton; and .............................................................................................................. 34
c. the corner of Stokes Street and Penola Street, Preston; ..................................................................... 34
11. Previous Victorian public housing renewal projects, including but not limited to the Kensington,
Carlton and Prahran public housing estates; ................................................................................................ 38
12. Best practice models for the provision of public housing from within Australia and overseas; .... 42
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 47
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
3 of 67
4
FIGURES
Figure 1: Public housing applications 2011-2017 versus current public housing supply .................................... 10
Figure 2: Victorian Housing Register income and asset limits, December 2017 ................................................ 11
Figure 3: Illustration of Public Housing Renewal Program model ...................................................................... 16
Figure 4: Example images of existing public housing walk-up apartments ........................................................ 17
ATTACHMENTS
1. Public Housing Renewal Program Design Principles
2. Project Objectives
3. Engagement Brochure – North Melbourne
4. Story Boards – North Melbourne
5. Project Fact Sheets
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
4 of 67
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Victoria, and the nation more broadly, is facing major challenges in housing affordability, social housing
and homelessness; and they are challenges that continue to grow. Long held established approaches
need to be challenged, and all levels of government, including the Commonwealth, need to act in areas
where they have a role and responsibility, if it is going to be addressed effectively. The Public Housing
Renewal Program is one part of Victoria’s approach to dealing with this challenge in a new manner,
using and maximising the levers it has available to it to deliver social housing for those who need it most
in well-located areas.
Demand for social housing in Victoria continues to grow, particularly from the most vulnerable members
of our community such as victims of family violence, people who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness, people with disabilities and those facing personal challenges who need support to
maintain independent housing. There are currently more than 35,000 households on the Victorian
Housing Register, which is the online application process for social housing, around 16,7001 of whom
need urgent housing assistance.
Reflecting trends in the wider community, demand for social housing is shifting towards smaller
households, who require smaller homes. Approximately 80 per cent of applicants on the Victorian
Housing Register need one- or two-bedroom properties, which make up less than 60 per cent of existing
public homes. Addressing the legacy of this misalignment by increasing the proportion of smaller public
homes, is a key objective of, and challenge for, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),
as we increase the number of units of housing.
At the same time, many of Victoria’s public housing properties were built 50 or more years ago, and no
longer meet the basic standards that public housing tenants deserve and the wider community expects.
Among these are a number of estates comprised largely of walk-up apartments that have no lifts and do
not meet accessible design standards, so are inappropriate for the increasing number of older tenants or
those who have a disability (70 per cent of current tenants). Many have external or shared facilities such
as laundries, which are no longer acceptable features for the wider Victorian community. They have
poor thermal and energy efficiency, meaning that public tenants must pay more for heating and cooling
costs. Many have public spaces or poorly lit corridors that feel, and in some cases are, unsafe.
In early 2017, and against a background of inadequate investment from the Commonwealth
Government, the Victorian Government released Homes for Victorians, a coordinated, cross-
government response to housing affordability and homelessness. A core part of Homes for Victorians is
investment in social housing, which, together with other commitments, includes $799 million in
additional homeless and housing support and $2.1 billion in financial instruments to support the
community housing sector to deliver more social housing.
These include the $185 million Public Housing Renewal Program (PHRP), the $1 billion Social Housing
Growth Fund, $1.1 billion of loans and loan guarantees, $120 million Social Housing Pipeline and $109
million in support services. Together, these Homes for Victorians initiatives will deliver at least 6,000
new social housing properties in Victoria - including new builds, subsidised rentals and renewal of up to
1 A new Priority Category of “Special Housing Needs 55 plus” has recently been created, which resulted in over
4,000 applications moving from the Register of Interest to the new category in the September 2017 quarter.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
5 of 67
6
2,500 ageing public housing dwellings - and provide housing support to over 19,000 people experiencing
homelessness.
The PHRP and associated renewal projects form a key component of Homes for Victorians that will help
to replace many of the ageing, inappropriate walk-up apartments in Melbourne with contemporary
homes that will better meet the current and future needs of public housing tenants. The scale of these
initiatives – renewing up to 2,500 public housing properties – also means they present a real
opportunity to substantially address some of the broader legacy issues faced by the public housing
system, rather than responding to them incrementally.
In addition to the replacement of old homes with new at each site, the number of public homes on each
site will increase to at least 110 per cent of existing levels, with emphasis on smaller, accessible
dwellings that align with current and future demand. This will ensure that there is more capacity to
respond to the growing demand from low income and vulnerable households in Victoria. Each site will
provide opportunities for first homebuyers, and there is also significant potential to use the various
levers at government’s disposal in combination with innovation from the private and not-for-profit
sectors to deliver additional affordable housing and community outcomes. These opportunities are
being actively sought through the procurement of development partners and will enable renewal sites
to respond not only to public housing needs, but also those of moderate-income Victorians who face
affordability challenges.
Each of the renewal sites has the potential to significantly increase the number of homes provided on
site, consistent with modern planning objectives and strategies such as Plan Melbourne, Victoria’s
strategic plan to guide urban development. This means that, in addition to delivering more public
housing, they present an opportunity to replace the isolated, segregated and inward-facing public
housing estates of the past with mixed, inclusive communities that are home to public housing tenants,
private renters and home owners, and are integrated with their wider neighbourhood. This is a key aim
of the PHRP, and is reflected in objectives such as:
replacing public housing on each site with new homes that meet modern standards, are energy
efficient and accessible for people with mobility impairments
increasing the number of public or social homes on each site by at least 10 per cent
“tenure blind” design that does not distinguish public homes from private homes on each site
ensuring all residents, public and private, have access to common spaces and shared facilities
improved public spaces with better amenity, connections and safety
engaging with tenants on an individual basis, to ensure they are kept informed of decisions that
will affect them and are given opportunities to find housing that meets their needs during the
redevelopment process.
Mixed communities also enable the government to obtain a return from the sale of private dwellings,
which can be reinvested, together with substantial government investment, into the development of
new social housing. This means that the government can leverage the underlying land value on each site
to attract investment from the private and not-for-profit sectors that delivers better social and
economic outcomes from its investment.
The $185 million government investment set aside for the PHRP is the first stage of the renewal
program and is expected to deliver at least 1,750 new public housing dwellings across the nine
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
6 of 67
7
Melbourne sites, as well as opportunities for additional social and affordable homes. These social and
private homes will be close to public transport as well as community, education, employment and retail
services and opportunities.
Alternatively, the cost of purchasing these new homes from the market could be as much as $875
million. Another alternative would be to upgrade the existing 1,600 properties. The estimated cost of
this would be around $320 million, and would not deliver any increase in public housing, improvements
to the estate design or integration with surrounding neighbourhoods, or mixed communities through
additional private housing.
The funding dedicated to the PHRP and other renewal projects under the Social Housing Pipeline is
expected to result in over $1.1 billion of development and construction activity that will deliver more
than 1,000 jobs and an economic benefit of up to $1.7 billion to the wider Victorian community.
The partnership model currently being considered includes contracts with development partners that
ensure the government retains ownership of the land throughout the development process, until those
homes intended for private ownership are sold to individual purchasers.
If alternative delivery models are proposed through the procurement process they will be considered
based on their ability to meet government requirements and project objectives.
Each redevelopment site will involve the creation of new homes and communities, which will last at
least another 50 years. As a result, the government is committed to ensuring that development on each
site, including the buildings, open spaces, environmental outcomes and connections with the
surrounding neighbourhood, has a positive and enduring impact. At the same time, it is important that
the new social housing provided through these projects can be constructed in a timely manner to
respond to the very real and immediate needs of people currently waiting for social housing.
The Social Housing Renewal Standing Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) has been established
by the Minister for Planning to satisfy these twin imperatives. The Advisory Committee ensures there is
a transparent, independent and rigorous process to assess the impact and outcomes of planning
applications for each site. It also enables stakeholders such as councils, public housing tenants and local
communities to provide input and feedback on proposals through exhibition and public hearings before
any recommendations are forwarded to the Minister for Planning for consideration. Where appropriate,
the Advisory Committee can recommend that the Minister for Planning can act as the Responsible
Authority that approves planning applications, enabling a more timely resolution of the process so that
much-needed social housing can be delivered. The program includes a multi-stage consultation
approach, ensuring that community members have an opportunity to provide feedback through the
Advisory Committee process, as well as on the individual Development Plans that are ultimately
proposed for each site.
DHHS has drawn on the experience of previous renewal projects in Victoria, as well as similar projects
and programs from across Australia to inform the housing, community, commercial and development
outcomes of the PHRP. This will ensure that it delivers social, economic and community outcomes for
public housing tenants, local communities and the people of Victoria in a way that maximises the
benefits returned from government investment.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
7 of 67
8
OVERVIEW
1. CONTEXT
Housing affordability is a major challenge in Victoria and across Australia, which is influenced by
numerous demand and supply factors, policy settings and levels of government. It affects a wide
range of people, ranging from first homebuyers to key workers and older Victorians, however its
effects are felt most by the vulnerable and those on lower incomes who can experience housing
stress and, in some cases, homelessness.
It is also an issue of shared responsibility between Commonwealth, state and local governments,
and each level of government needs to play its role and make a contribution in the areas it has
influence. The Victorian Government has adopted a coordinated, broad-ranging, whole of
government strategy in Homes for Victorians, which responds to the challenges of affordability and
homelessness on numerous fronts in areas where the state government has a role to play. The
strategy outlines multiple initiatives across five areas:
1. supporting people to buy their home
2. increasing the supply of housing through faster planning
3. promoting stability and affordability for renters
4. increasing and renewing social housing stock
5. improving services for Victorians in need.
Social housing is one of the most important platforms of the government’s response. Over
$2.7 billion has been committed to initiatives that will renew and grow the state’s social housing
supply so that it can better respond to demand from low income and vulnerable Victorians,
including people with disabilities, victims of family violence, and people who are homeless or at risk
of homelessness.
The PHRP is one of the key commitments in this area, dedicating seed funding of $185 million to
replace old, outdated public housing with more new homes that meet the needs and expectations
of public housing tenants and the wider community. Additional funding is also available through
funding programs such as the Social Housing Pipeline to conduct similar renewal projects on other
sites. Together the PHRP and other funding streams are supporting 11 major public housing renewal
projects in Melbourne, which can be considered part of an overarching, coordinated response
within the context of this submission.
The PHRP will work alongside other initiatives in Homes for Victorians including the $1 billion
Social Housing Growth Fund, $1.1 billion of loans and loan guarantees, $120 million Social Housing
Pipeline and $109 million in support services to deliver at least 6,000 new social housing properties,
the renewal of 2,500 aged public housing dwellings and additional services for more than 19,000
people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
8 of 67
9
Major projects such as those in the PHRP also play an important role contributing to wider
government objectives and strategies. For example, Plan Melbourne includes directions to increase
the supply of social and affordable housing and to deliver more housing in places that are close to
jobs, services and public transport.
2. SOCIAL HOUSING
Social housing is provided for people on low or fixed incomes who need housing, especially those
who have recently experienced homelessness, family violence or have other needs such as mental
health, a disability or ageing. Across Australia, social housing is managed by a combination of
government (public housing) 2 and not-for-profit organisations, some of whom are specialist
providers that focus on particular groups such as women, Aboriginal people, people with a disability,
singles, or older people (community housing)3.
SOCIAL HOUSING SUPPLY
By its nature, social housing is expensive to deliver due to the high capital cost of each house, as
well as the ongoing cost of discounted rents and maintenance of properties. The role of
governments in social housing is to lead the provision of more modern and suitable housing, and to
provide a base for the provision of services and support that enable individual tenants and the
community to be successful and sustainable. This requires governments to provide a housing first
approach, which is able to keep up with demand. It requires government to look to new and
innovative approaches that can respond to intergenerational and housing-related poverty.
There are approximately 83,600 social housing dwellings in Victoria. Of these, 64,600 are public
housing, with the remaining 19,000 being community housing. Reflecting a consistent trend across
Australia, there has been an increase in the number of social housing dwellings in Victoria over the
last decade (largely through community housing), but a decline in social housing as a proportion of
all housing. This means that social housing needs to be carefully managed to respond to evolving
demand from those who need it.
ALIGNMENT OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY
The average age of the total public housing stock portfolio is approximately 35 years, and more than
60 per cent of homes are over 30 years old, constructed at a time when demand from families was
greater than it is now. However, in recent years the profile of demand for social housing (and the
2 http://www.housing.vic.gov.au/public-housing
3 http://www.housing.vic.gov.au/community-housing
Note:
There are a total of 11 major renewal projects currently underway in Melbourne. For clarification:
Nine renewal projects are funded through the PHRP: Brunswick West, North Melbourne,
Prahran, Heidelberg West, Northcote, Clifton Hill, Hawthorn, Brighton, Ascot Vale.
Two renewal projects are funded separately: Preston (Stage 2) and Flemington.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
9 of 67
10
wider community) has shifted steadily and strongly towards smaller households, who need fewer
bedrooms. Approximately 80 per cent of applicants on the Victorian Housing Register need one- or
two-bedroom homes, which contrasts with the existing proportion of public housing dwellings, of
which less than 60 per cent are one- and two-bedrooms. The graph below shows how the profile of
public housing applicants has changed over the last seven years, and how current applications
compare to the existing stock profile.
FIGURE 1: PUBLIC HOUSING APPLICATIONS 2011-2017 VERSUS CURRENT PUBLIC HOUSING SUPPLY
In addition to the misalignment of housing size, a number of older properties are no longer suited to
the current and emerging needs of public housing tenants. For example, the walk-up apartments
being renewed as part of the PHRP were built between the 1950s and 1970s. They have no lifts and
poor disability access within units making them inappropriate for the increasing number of tenants
and applicants who are aged or have a disability. Many have external or shared facilities such as
laundries, which are no longer acceptable features for the wider Victorian community. They have
poor thermal and energy efficiency, meaning that public tenants must pay more for the cost of
keeping their homes warm in winter and cool in summer. Many also have public spaces or poorly lit
corridors that feel, and in some cases are, unsafe.
Shifting the overall public housing stock profile to meet the current and emerging demand from
smaller households is a significant challenge that will take some time to implement, particularly if
homes are replaced incrementally. Major renewal or redevelopment programs present rare and
important opportunities to address this issue more substantively by realigning a large number of
public housing properties at once, so that public housing can respond more effectively to current
and emerging demand.
The PHRP and associated projects are one of those rare opportunities. By replacing up to 2,500 aged
and outdated public housing properties, they can make a significant contribution towards the
realignment of the wider public housing portfolio. Neglecting the opportunity to deliver more one-
and two-bedroom properties would in fact worsen the current misalignment of public housing
because the newly-built homes will remain for at least another 50 years.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
10 of 67
11
APPLYING FOR SOCIAL HOUSING
Households must meet eligibility criteria to apply for, and be offered, social housing. Applicants for
social housing are placed on the new Victorian Housing Register (the Register), which is a combined
register for public and community housing, and provides a single point of access to social housing
for people in need. Applicants can choose to be listed for public and/or community housing.
Applicants on the Register are separated according to their income and the urgency of their housing
need. Applicants who qualify for the Register must meet basic income and asset criteria. Those who
meet base level criteria can be placed on the Register for Interest for social housing. Applicants who
have a more urgent housing need can apply for Priority Access on the Register if:
they are subject to violence in their home
they need to move for health reasons
their home is too small for everyone in the household
they are living in emergency, crisis or transitional housing
they are staying with someone temporarily while looking for a home.
The income and asset limits for Priority Access are lower than those for applicants on the Register of
Interest. A snapshot of eligibility criteria is provided below. More detail is available on the DHHS
website.4
Application Type Weekly Income Limits Asset Limits
Priority Access $546 - $977 $5,253 Register of Interest $978 - $2,019 $31,520
FIGURE 2: VICTORIAN HOUSING REGISTER INCOME AND ASSET LIMITS, DECEMBER 2017
There are four categories for people who are eligible for Priority Access:
Homeless with support for people who currently have no home, but are receiving some
assistance from housing and homelessness services
Supported housing for people who receive independent living assistance or care for: aged
care, disability, mental health or children, youth or families programs
Special housing need for individuals or families who are living in housing that has become
unsuitable and have no other housing options. Reasons to apply under this category include:
o insecure housing
o inappropriate housing
o unsafe housing (including family violence)
o urgent medical need.
Special housing needs for people aged 55 and over who are not eligible for the other
priority access categories.
Demand for Priority Access housing has increased significantly in recent years, driven by a
combination of factors including declining affordability in the private market, population growth,
and the increasing recognition of the importance of housing as a central and enabling part of
responses to issues such as homelessness, family violence, disability and mental health.
4 Income and asset limits can be found at http://www.housing.vic.gov.au/social-housing-income-and-asset-limits
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
11 of 67
12
At 30 September 2017, there were 16,765 applicants for Priority Access housing in Victoria, forming
47 per cent of a total of 35,717 applications for social housing.5
ADDRESSING PRIORITY NEEDS
The combination of decreasing affordability in the private rental market and an increasing number
of people with complex needs has increased demand for Priority Access housing. At the same time,
these factors have contributed to lower turnover within the public housing system, with existing
tenants less likely to move on to other forms of housing when faced with unaffordable private
sector rents. Just 4,928 new allocations of public housing were provided in 2015-16 (representing
less than 7 per cent of total stock). Low turnover constrains the number of homes that can be
offered to applicants on the Register each year, including those who have urgent housing needs.
In this environment, the majority of public housing is being allocated to people with urgent or
Priority Access needs, in order to respond to them as quickly as possible and direct constrained
supply towards vulnerable members of the community.
To ensure that government assistance continues to be targeted to those who most need it, new
funding for social housing initiatives under Homes for Victorians will only be available to community
housing organisations that join the Register and allocate 75 per cent of their vacancies to the most
disadvantaged Victorians.
RENT
Social housing tenants pay below-market rent that is calculated as a proportion of their income, to
support affordability.
Rent for public housing tenants is calculated at the lesser of 25 per cent of their income or the
market rent of the property. The difference between the rent paid and market rent is subsidised by
the Director of Housing. To be eligible for a subsidised rent (i.e. if 25 per cent of their income is less
than the market rent), tenants must provide their income details to the Director of Housing twice a
year. Those who pay full market rent and are not eligible for, or do not apply for, a subsidised rent
are not required to provide income details on a regular basis.
Community housing tenants can pay between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of their income (up to
75% of market value) on rent, plus any Commonwealth Rent Assistance to which the tenant is
entitled to. Unlike public housing tenants, community housing tenants are entitled to receive
Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA), which is an income support payment available to households
that are eligible for Centrelink benefits. CRA is excluded from assessable income when calculating
the amount of rent they need to pay. This means that net income is calculated in a similar way to
public housing tenants.
FUNDING
The cost of providing social housing is supported by state and Commonwealth governments. The
Commonwealth provides funding to the states under the National Affordable Housing Agreement
5 This figure excludes transfer applications from existing tenants. The total number of applicants for both new and
transfer applications at 30 September 2017 was 42,630, which includes 19,812 priority access applicants. Note that the priority access list increased in September 2017 following the introduction of the “Special Housing Needs for people aged 55 and over” category.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
12 of 67
13
(NAHA). This is complemented by State investment, including more than $2.7 billion recently
committed under Homes for Victorians. Together, State and Commonwealth funding provides
critical public housing and homelessness services to almost 170,000 Victorians.
The Commonwealth also funds CRA, which is available to community housing tenants (and others in
the private rental market) and increases their capacity to pay rent while maintaining affordability.
The additional rental income from CRA is used by community housing providers to cover the cost of
providing housing to eligible tenants (including any subsidy provided).
Funding under the NAHA is currently untied, but focused on the provision of social housing and
homelessness services. The NAHA will be replaced by a new National Housing and Homelessness
Agreement (NHHA), which is due to come into effect from the 2018-19 financial year. The
Commonwealth Government is currently seeking to expand the scope of the NHHA beyond social
housing and homelessness, including to areas that are beyond the ability of states to solely
influence.
As well as expanding the scope of the agreement, the Commonwealth is also seeking to place
additional requirements on States and Territories, with no additional funding on offer. This
approach places critical core funding for social housing and homelessness services at risk and also
inhibits the ability of States to direct scarce resources in a way that responds to the particular needs
of their communities, tenants and clients. The Victorian Government is resisting this approach, and
seeking to re-engage the Commonwealth in constructive negotiations to ensure that funding for
social housing and homelessness is protected.
The Public Housing Renewal Program
The PHRP is one of the Victorian Government’s major commitments under the Homes for Victorians
strategy, which was released in early 2017. The first stage of the PHRP will see the redevelopment of
nine aging public housing sites across Melbourne, comprised predominantly of walk-up apartments
with no lifts. DHHS is undertaking a number of other renewal projects, which are funded through
other sources, including the $120 million Social Housing Pipeline. Two of these projects (Preston and
Flemington) form part of the current procurement process that also includes six of the PHRP sites.
The 11 current renewal sites that are either funded through the PHRP or other sources are:
1. Gronn Pl, Brunswick West 5. New St, Brighton 9. Bills St, Hawthorn
2. Ascot Vale Estate 6. Bellbardia & Tarakan, Heidelberg West
10. Holland Court, Flemington*
3. Abbotsford St, North Melbourne
7. Walker St, Northcote 11. Stokes, Penola and Oakover, Preston*
4. Bangs St, Prahran 8. Noone St, Clifton Hill
* Not funded through the PHRP
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
13 of 67
14
Most of these sites were designed and built between the 1950s or 1970s, and are more appropriate
to the needs of tenants at that time, rather than those of 2017 and beyond. Examples of out-dated
design or features which make them inappropriate for the current and future needs of public
housing tenants include:
limited, if any, accessibility for tenants with a mobility impairment, including people with
disabilities and older tenants
external or shared facilities such as laundries
poorly designed common or public spaces, including walkways, corridors and gardens, which
are often uninviting and in some cases unsafe due to poor visibility
poor thermal efficiency, which adds to heating and cooling costs for residents
physical separation / segregation from the surrounding community
high concentration of public housing in a single location, which can lead to stigma and poor
social outcomes.
The renewal of these sites will see the transformation of outdated housing into modern homes, as
well as public and common spaces that are more in keeping with contemporary and future needs
and expectations of public housing tenants and the wider community. Within this broader objective,
the PHRP will deliver a number of outcomes for public housing tenants, future private residents,
neighbours, and the Victorian community as a whole. These include:
1. replacing of all public housing dwellings on each site with new, fit for purpose housing, plus
growth to at least 110 per cent of what was there previously
2. retaining public housing in existing high-value, high-amenity and well-connected locations
that are close to public transport and employment opportunities, rather than selling it and
purchasing new homes in more affordable locations, as has been pursued in some other
jurisdictions
3. delivering more private housing in these locations, including creating opportunities to
deliver additional affordable housing and sales that are prioritised for first homebuyers
4. integrating public housing with private housing within each site, as well as homes within the
wider community through design features including: “tenure blind” design, which makes
public housing indistinguishable from private housing, and providing equal access to
common areas and facilities for all residents
5. improved public spaces with better amenity, connections and safety
6. lower concentrations of public housing on a single site, helping to reduce the stigmatisation
of public housing, and the impact of social issues that are often associated with high
concentrations of lower-income households
7. high quality design, informed by a series of Design Principles developed in partnership with
the Office of the Victorian Government Architect (OVGA) (Attachment 1), and compliance
with the Better Apartments Design Standards
8. the public housing will meet the Liveable Housing – Gold standard, so that it is accessible for
people with disabilities and older people
9. energy and water efficient design, including Green Star certification so that residents of
public and private housing can benefit from efficient homes that have lower operating and
utility costs
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
14 of 67
15
10. taking a significant step towards realigning the wider public housing portfolio so that it is
better matched to the significant demand (approximately 80 per cent of applicants) for
one- and two-bedroom housing
11. maximising the benefit achieved from government land and investment by attracting private
sector partnership and participation to renew, replace and grow public housing and deliver
broader outcomes for public housing tenants and the wider community.
THE PUBLIC HOUSING RENEWAL PROGRAM MODEL
The proposed project model currently being considered for the PHRP combines government funding
with underlying land value within the sites to replace and grow existing public housing with new
homes. It does this by developing private housing on the site alongside the new public housing.
The government retains ownership of the land throughout the development process, during which
time partners from the private or not for profit sectors are engaged to redevelop it on the
government’s behalf. Title is only transferred into private hands when the private homes are
developed and sold to individual purchasers. The government receives a payment from the sale of
each private dwelling (representing its land value) through the developer, which is used in
combination with the government funding to pay for the construction of an increased number of
new public homes.
Land value is based on a Market Valuation as prepared by the Valuer General Victoria and the
transaction is approved by the Victorian Government Land Monitor in accordance with the
Department of Treasury and Finance Land Transaction policy. All revenue is received by the Director
of Housing and is reinvested in the provision of social housing.
This project model enables the government to achieve a number of outcomes, including:
It can use the value of the land to attract private sector investment and participation in the
delivery of more social housing in a way that maximises the value and outcomes of
Government investment to replace and grow public housing on existing sites.
It can leverage additional outcomes including additional public housing, affordable rental
and home ownership, and first home buyer opportunities, thus contributing to more
diverse, sustainable communities.
It can retain and grow public housing in existing high-amenity locations with connections to
jobs, transport and services. An alternative approach, favoured in some jurisdictions but
rejected by the Victorian Government, would be to sell the inner city sites and acquire new
public homes in more affordable locations, with less access to transport, employment and
services. However, this would be more expensive per unit (as homes would be purchased at
full market value), and would result in displacement of public housing from inner city
locations. The $185 million set aside for the PHRP is expected to deliver at least 1,750 new
public housing dwellings across the nine Melbourne sites it is funding. The cost of
purchasing these new homes from the market could be as much as $875 million.
New communities will include a mix of public and private housing, with the design of
buildings and common spaces focused on promoting integration and interaction between
public and private residents, as well as the surrounding community.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
15 of 67
16
FIGURE 3: ILLUSTRATION OF PUBLIC HOUSING RENEWAL PROGRAM MODEL
INTEGRATION
One of the key outcomes from the PHRP model is the creation of integrated mixed tenure
communities, rather than homogenous estates of public housing alone. These communities will
include private rental and home ownership at a range of different price points, alongside public
housing. The mix of tenure, together with the design of buildings and public spaces will help to
combat stigma, as well as the separation of public housing estates and tenants from the
surrounding community that they are a part of.
Opportunities for first homebuyers will be included in each project, and the department will
explore the various levers, initiatives and options it has available now - and in the future - to include
affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Partnerships and innovation from the
private and not-for-profit sectors are likely to play a key role in the development of different
affordable housing options as the program continues over a number of years.
OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS
Large scale renewal of public housing requires a multi-agency and sector approach to achieve
housing outcomes. DHHS is currently undertaking a procurement process to select proponents
who will develop and deliver new communities. This process commenced in May 2017, when
Registrations of Capability (ROC) were sought from market participants in relation to the capability
to deliver components of the program, and their interest in specific sites or groups of sites. This was
used to inform packaging of sites for release in the Request for Proposal (RFP) phase.
Applications through the ROC phase were assessed against a number of evaluation criteria, which
included:
recent experience in mixed private/social developments and projects that incorporate
community developments (improved public realm, amenity, place-making)
experience in partnerships with government agencies
innovation in design, partnerships and delivery models
capacity to deliver within required timeframe
experience and capability of key personnel.
The assessment process has identified a short list of proponents with the capability to deliver some,
or all, of the sites in question. With this list identified, the second phase of the procurement
process, the Confirmation of Registrants’ Interest, commenced in December 2017. This involved
confirming whether shortlisted proponents remained interested in entering into a final competitive
process to deliver the projects, which have been grouped into multi-site packages.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
16 of 67
17
The final phase involves detailed RFPs, where shortlisted proponents will be required to submit
detailed proposals for the development of each site. This will include their proposed approach and
ability to satisfy core objectives of the program, including the replacement and growth of public
housing, additional public housing, affordable housing and community outcomes, integration of
public and private housing, design criteria, and financial outcomes.
The procurement process is subject to probity, which ensures competition between proponents is
maintained; intellectual property and commercially sensitive information held by all sides is
protected; and that the government is ultimately able to negotiate contracts and outcomes that
deliver the state’s policy objectives and represent the best value for money for the Victorian
Government.
The PHRP is being delivered in accordance with the Department of Treasury and Finance High Value
High Risk Assurance Framework to ensure robust project planning and procurement processes.
FIGURE 4: EXAMPLE IMAGES OF EXISTING PUBLIC HOUSING WALK-UP APARTMENTS
4.1: apartment access via external stairs; stair access to ground floor apartments (Brighton)
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
17 of 67
18
4.3: shared external laundry facilities (Heidelberg)
4.2: interior stairs (Brighton)
4.5: apartment kitchen (Flemington)
4.4: shared external laundry facilities and clothes lines (North Melbourne)
4.7: apartment interior (Prahran)
4.6: apartment bathroom (Ascot Vale)
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
18 of 67
19
RESPONSE TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. THE ADEQUACY OF A PROPOSED 10 PER CENT INCREASE IN PUBLIC HOUSING (OR 1,100
PUBLIC UNITS) ON THE SITES GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE WAITING LIST FOR PUBLIC
HOUSING;
The Public Housing Renewal Program (PHRP) forms one part of the Victorian Government’s plans to
increase the number of social housing properties available in the state, and should not be seen in
isolation. It is the combination of social housing initiatives within Homes for Victorians, valued at
more than $2.7 billion, which is designed to respond to the demand for social housing by delivering
6,000 new homes – including the renewal of 2,500 aged public housing properties - and assisting
19,000 people who are at risk of homelessness. Initiatives include the $1 billion Social Housing
Growth fund, $1.1 billion of financial support for the community housing sector, $185 million PHRP,
and $120 million Social Housing Pipeline.
Each PHRP project will replace existing public homes with new properties and increase the public
housing provided on each site to at least 110 per cent of previous levels. The PHRP sites are well-
located with nearby public transport, community, education, employment and retail services and
opportunities. Additional growth of public housing over and above the 110 per cent required on
each site is being actively sought through the procurement process. Old, outdated and
inappropriate public housing will be replaced with new properties that are better designed, more
energy and water efficient, and better aligned to the needs of current and future tenants. This
includes a larger proportion of one- and two-bedroom homes, to meet the very high demand from
smaller households on the Victorian Housing Register (see response to Term of Reference 2). The
increase in public housing in each project location will ensure that there is also greater capacity to
respond to local demand.
The replacement and growth of public housing in each project and across the PHRP will be
complemented by the broader initiatives within Homes for Victorians, including the $120 million
Social Housing Pipeline, $1 billion Social Housing Growth Fund and $1.1 billion of loans and loan
guarantees. Together, these will improve the overall supply of social housing in the state and
respond to growing demand for social housing that has not being met by previous policy
approaches.
The project model enables the integration of public housing with private homes, creating better
connections within each site and with the wider community. It also enables the government to
leverage the underlying value of its land to attract investment from the private sector for the
delivery of new public homes and better social outcomes in well-located suburbs.
2. THE ABILITY TO CATER FOR ALL DEMOGRAPHICS INCLUDING FAMILIES, COUPLES AND
SINGLES WITH THE PROPOSED HOUSING MIX;
The PHRP will contribute to a broader move to realign Victoria’s public housing to better meet
current and future demand. Like the wider Victorian community, public housing has seen increasing
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
19 of 67
20
demand from small households such as single people and couples. Approximately
80 per cent of applications are for one- or two-bedroom accommodation, which comprises less
than 60 per cent of existing public housing stock. The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO)
identified this misalignment as a significant challenge, which needed to be addressed.6 Further,
approximately 70 per cent of public housing tenants receive either the Aged Pension or Disability
Support Pension, indicating that they are likely to need housing that is accessible for people with
disabilities or mobility constraints.
VAGO also noted that realigning a portfolio of nearly 65,000 properties is very difficult in the short
term, due to the high cost and disruptive nature of replacing existing stock with new homes.
Programs such as the PHRP create an important opportunity to commence this process, as part of a
longer term approach to address the demand for smaller households in the future.
The PHRP marks a significant shift towards housing that will meet current and emerging demand
for public housing. It will also help to address underutilisation, where smaller households occupy
larger homes, in part because there is a shortage of small public homes for them to relocate to. This
prevents smaller households from moving to homes that better meet their needs. Better matching
bedroom need and public housing supply will result in a more equitable, and efficient public
housing system. One of the keys to addressing this issue is creating more small housing stock, which
enables one- and two-person households to move to accommodation that meets their needs,
freeing up larger homes for those that need them such as families.
The average occupancy of public housing in the nine PHRP locations is 1.7 people per household,
highlighting that demand from existing households in these estates is also skewed towards smaller
households, despite the fact that more than 80 per cent of the homes have two or more bedrooms.
In addition, 10 per cent of public housing delivered through the PHRP must be flexible housing,
comprised of adjoining units that can be converted to a single dwelling without major structural
modifications. This will enable smaller one-and two-bedroom homes to be reconfigured to meet
the needs of larger households returning to the new estates in the future. Fundamentally, all
residents have the right to return on completion of construction.
6 Victorian Auditor General’s Office, 2017, Managing Victoria’s Public Housing.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
20 of 67
21
3. THE EFFECTS ON CURRENT PUBLIC HOUSING TENANTS, INCLUDING:
a. WHETHER THEY WILL BE MOVED TO ACCOMMODATION THAT IS SECURE, STABLE
AND FIT FOR PURPOSE;
b. WHETHER THEY WILL BE MOVED TO ACCOMMODATION THAT IS CLOSE TO
EXISTING SOCIAL SUPPORT NETWORKS, EDUCATIONAL, HEALTH AND WELFARE
SERVICES;
c. WHETHER CURRENT TENANTS WILL BE ABLE TO RETURN TO THE ESTATES;
Minister’s Pledge
In collaboration with the Victorian Public Tenants Association (VPTA), the Minister for Housing has
made a pledge guaranteeing all existing tenants the right to return to their current estate once the
redevelopment is completed. To accommodate families returning to estates, DHHS will work
proactively throughout the process to provide suitably sized homes, which may include flexible
apartments that can be adapted for larger households.
The Minister’s pledge outlines the government’s commitment to all relocated residents, as follows:
1. Public housing tenants who are relocated as part of the public housing renewal project will
have the right to return to their estates after construction has finished.
2. Public housing tenants who return to the new estates will still have their rent calculation
limited to 25 per cent of their household income.
3. Public housing tenants who return to the new estates will experience no reduction in their
security of tenure.
All tenants have been advised of this commitment.
Tenant Relocation
Renewal projects are a normal part of the government’s management of public housing, and the
relocation of tenants is something that DHHS regularly oversees as part of its ongoing renewal
activity. DHHS is heavily focused on engaging with current tenants of the renewal sites to ensure
that they have the best opportunity to move smoothly to an alternative location and, if they choose
to, return when renewal is complete.
Communication and engagement with tenants has been prioritised as part of a multi-stage process
of consultation and engagement with key stakeholders. DHHS has contacted each tenant to advise
them of the renewal program. DHHS as of 6 December 2017 has also held 42 consultation sessions
for tenants and local organisations specifically aimed at outlining the tenant relocation process,
answering any of the tenants’ questions and communicating their right to return and security of
tenure. Additionally, tenants have been involved in three stages of consultation across all the
estates, giving them the opportunity to contribute to the planning and to see redevelopment plans
and get an understanding of how their feedback has been incorporated into the planning process.
A relocations strategy and implementation plan have been developed for the program to ensure
current estate residents are well informed and feel valued, empowered and effectively supported
throughout the process. Maintaining tenant welfare throughout the relocation process is of
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
21 of 67
22
paramount importance, particularly noting that many tenants face a range of personal and health
challenges.
A relocations team comprised of experienced DHHS housing staff has been established to work with
tenants to determine their relocation needs. Members of this team already know some of the
affected tenants, including their complexities and needs, and will have established relationships
with other key support agencies.
Relocations process
The relocations team is working with each household individually to make their move as smooth
and stress free as possible, by:
• meeting with each tenant or household to help them understand the relocation process
• helping tenants identify their needs and consider their options for moving to another home.
There will be no income eligibility reassessment as part of the relocation process.
Tenants will be relocated from the sites prior to any demolition works commencing. Where there
are multiple public housing buildings on a site, tenants will not remain in one building while
another PHRP building is being redeveloped.7 The schedule for relocations is interdependent with
the overall renewal program schedule and will involve an iterative process of reviewing, gathering
information, analysing and updating.
The relocations will be staged across the sites and tenants will be given plenty of notice about their
move. Relocations are underway at Heidelberg West; a small number of tenants in other estates
have also started relocating, where their identified relocation requirements have been matched to
homes that were available. As of 5 January 2018, a total of 42 tenants had been relocated.
The relocations process is as follows:
the relocations team works with tenants one-on-one to identify their location preferences
and find suitable accommodation
DHHS pays reasonable relocation costs, including:
o Removal costs o Reconnection fees for gas, electricity, telephone and internet (where a
telephone and internet was previously connected)
Mail redirection for up to six monthsrelocations officers maintain contact with tenants for
the first two months after relocation to ensure they are settling in and to assist in resolving
any issues
area officers will assist relocating tenants beyond the initial two months to ensure that their
needs continue to be met
once the estates are redeveloped, relocated tenants who exercise their right to return will be
assisted to do so.
New tenant relocation forms have been prepared, which reaffirm the Minister’s pledge for right of
return. They also make clear how the department will work with tenants to understand their
7 With the exception of Flemington (not a PHRP site, but part of the procurement process), and possibly Ascot
Vale, where the high rise towers are on the same site.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
22 of 67
23
housing needs, and ensure that they are offered appropriate options, both when moving out of the
estates and if/when they choose to return when the redevelopment is complete. Relocations team
members will follow up forms with calls or home visits as appropriate, to ensure that tenants
understand their options and can take full advantage of them.
In addition to tenants, there are a number of other onsite stakeholders that will be affected by the
redevelopments, primarily community facilities. The relocations team will work with these
stakeholders to ensure they are kept informed, their needs are understood, they are aware they
will need to relocate and they are helped through the relocation process.
Accommodation that is secure, stable and fit for purpose
As the majority of the estates selected for renewal were built between the 1950s and 1970s, they
do not meet the modern standards that tenants are entitled to expect. The sites contain multi-
storey walk-ups without lifts, which are not accessible for older residents, residents with disabilities
and are difficult for families with young children. Additionally, these old buildings are significantly
run down, have low amenity and very high maintenance costs, including being expensive and
inefficient for residents to heat and cool.
The new buildings delivered on each estate will be built according to the Victorian Government’s
Better Apartment Design Standards. All public housing properties will be accessible and meet the
Liveable Housing – Gold standard. The homes will be seven-star energy rated and designed to cater
for contemporary living standards and lifestyles, including internal laundries, built-in storage and
access to natural light and ventilation.
For tenants on these estates who have been waiting for transfers to more appropriate properties,
the PHRP provides an opportunity for them to be moved to homes that are
fit for purpose and that better meet their needs.
The relocations team will work closely with each tenant to ensure their new accommodation is
suitable, and attempt to match tenants with homes that best suit their long term needs.
As part of the relocation process, tenants’ needs will be assessed against the
Victorian Housing Register’s Matching Clients with Housing and Special Accommodation
Requirements Operational Guidelines.
DHHS will prioritise the use of public and community housing properties for relocations. On some
occasions, it may be necessary to lease some private dwellings (with tenants retaining all rights as a
public tenant). Where tenants are offered a private lease option, this will be done with the full
understanding that this housing is temporary and they will remain a public housing resident. The
relocations team will continue to work with these tenants to find a permanent housing solution.
Accommodation that is close to existing social support networks, educational, health and welfare
services
Tenants will be asked to provide preferences for where they would like to move to. They can give
preferences to stay in their local area or to move to an area of their choice, including outside of
metropolitan Melbourne.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
23 of 67
24
The relocations team will work with the specifications set by each tenant and DHHS has committed
to make every effort to help tenants to stay connected to their existing networks, including school
and community services. Where this is not possible, tenants will be helped to identify schools and
service providers near their new home.
Where a tenant has been relocated into interim housing but does not want to move back to the
renewal site, the relocations team will work with the tenant to find a suitable alternative home.
Links
Q&As for residents about relocation:: http://www.housing.vic.gov.au/brunswick-west-
renewal (applies to all sites)
Victorian Housing Register: Matching Clients with Housing and Special Accommodation
Requirements Operational Guidelines: https://fac.dhhs.vic.gov.au/victorian-housing-
register
4. THE ALLOCATION OF PARTS OF THE SITES BETWEEN THE PROPOSED NEW PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE HOUSING UNITS;
One of the key objectives of the PHRP is to create mixed communities that include both public and
private residents, and are integrated within the development and the wider community. This aims
to offset some of the challenges stemming from the concentration of sizeable disadvantaged groups
in one location or neighbourhood, which were recently highlighted by the Australian Housing and
Urban Research Institute (AHURI).8
Proponents seeking to develop sites on behalf of DHHS must also satisfy minimum requirements on
each site, which will be specified in the procurement documents. These include ensuring that public
housing is visually and architecturally indistinguishable from the private housing, making provision
for individual street frontages for public housing, and ensuring that whole street blocks or large lots
are not exclusively allocated for public housing. A copy of the objectives as outlined in the
Registration of Capability document is provided in Attachment 2.
As each PHRP site is different, a different approach to the integration of public and private housing
will be required in each case. Through the procurement process, all proponents must identify areas
of each site that will be used for public housing, while meeting objectives. These include the
integration of public and private housing to provide an integrated, tenure blind community on each
site through design, built form and equality of access to public realm to enable and foster
community and neighbourhood interaction.
The final design, configuration and allocation of housing between private and public homes on each
site will be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcomes of the planning process, the
nature of proposals received during the procurement process, tenant preferences and satisfying
DHHS’s integration objectives for the project.
8 https://www.ahuri.edu.au/policy/ahuri-briefs/public-housing-renewal-and-social-mix
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
24 of 67
25
5. THE LACK OF PUBLIC CONDITION ASSESSMENTS OF THE ESTATES OR ALTERNATIVE
OPTIONS SUCH AS REFURBISHMENT OF ALL OR PART OF THE EXISTING HOUSING UNITS;
One of the key drivers of the PHRP is to modernise and realign the ageing public housing portfolio
so that it meets the needs of current and future public housing tenants. Refurbishment can be an
effective response to extend the useful life of ageing homes that are otherwise well-suited to the
needs of public housing tenants and applicants. However, it does not address the broader challenge
of realigning the configuration and design of public housing to meet the needs and expectations of
tenants and the wider community.
The public housing estates that form part of the PHRP are largely comprised of low-rise walk-up
apartments, most of which are more than 40 years old. The configuration and design of these
homes often does not meet the needs or expectations of public housing tenants, nor the wider
community. For example, many have poor thermal efficiency (increasing the costs of heating and
cooling for tenants), limited access for people with disabilities or mobility impairments (e.g. walk-
up apartments with no lifts), external or shared facilities like laundries, and poorly-designed public
or common spaces that can appear uninviting or unsafe.
Upgrading properties is expensive and would not address all of the structural issues associated with
the current homes. Recent estimates suggest a cost of $200,000 per unit, which includes the
installation of lifts and improvements in thermal efficiency, as well as upgrades to bathrooms,
kitchens and internal features. It would not address other challenges such as inappropriate floor
plans or room configurations, nor estate design, layout or safety. As a result, upgrades would
perpetuate, rather than address, the challenge of modernising Victoria’s public housing so that it
can meet the needs of current and future tenants. It has therefore been ruled out as a feasible
option.
The PHRP also presents an important opportunity to start to renew and realign Victoria’s public
housing stock to reduce the average age and associated maintenance liabilities of the housing
portfolio (currently 35 years), and more effectively respond to the growing demand for one- and
two-bedroom homes – two key challenges identified by VAGO.9
These broader factors were key drivers for the selection of renewal sites, to ensure that such a
substantial renewal and redevelopment program would support and align with broader objectives.
In addition, the financial viability of redevelopment was an important consideration, enabling the
Director of Housing to subsidise the replacement and growth of existing public housing stock through
the development and sale of private housing. This ensures that the government is able to maximise the
social and economic value from the funding available. For example, the $185 million set aside for the
stage one of the PHRP is expected to deliver around 1,750 new public housing dwellings across the nine
Melbourne sites it is funding (including an increase of 10% from existing levels). The cost of purchasing
these new homes from the market could be as much as $875 million located in more affordable
locations. The estimated cost of upgrading the existing 1,600 properties would be around $320 million,
and would not deliver any increase in public housing number.
9 Victorian Auditor General’s Office, 2017, Managing Victoria’s Public Housing, State Government of Victoria,
Melbourne.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
25 of 67
26
6. THE PROPOSED SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN DENSITY AND HEIGHTS AND ANY LOCAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, SUCH AS THE LOSS OF OPEN SPACE AND MATURE
VEGETATION;
The planning process is an important component of this program. The planning for the sites will be
assessed through the Social Housing Renewal Standing Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee),
which was established by the Minister for Planning on 19 March 2017, pursuant to section 151 of
the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
The Minister for Planning is responsible for the advisory committee process. The Advisory Committee was appointed to provide expert advice on the suitability of planning proposals to facilitate the renewal and redevelopment of existing public housing estates to increase the supply of social housing. It is a streamlined but rigorous process, which enables new housing to be delivered quickly,
responding to the urgent demand for social housing, without compromising on the quality and
suitability of the entire development. The establishment of the Advisory Committee is linked to
Plan Melbourne commitments to streamline the decision-making process for social housing
proposals. It potentially reduces the length of the process, which can take from 18 months to 3
years normally, to approximately six months, enabling much-needed social housing to be provided
in a timely manner for people in need.
The Advisory Committee will consider proposals to change a planning scheme, and/or a combined planning permit application and it must consider:
all relevant submissions
alignment with Homes for Victorians and Plan Melbourne 2017-2050
alignment with the Planning and Environment Act and any other relevant provisions of the planning schemes
whether the Minister for Planning should act as Responsible Authority and if this would expedite future planning approvals
whether proposals should be approved, subject to recommended changes.
The Advisory Committee will produce a written report for each matter referred to it for the Minister for Planning within 20 days of the last hearing day.
As part of the planning scheme amendment for each site, it is proposed to rezone each estate to a
Mixed Use Zone and introduce a new Development Plan Overlay (DPO). The DPO requires issues
such as density, heights, open space and vegetation removal to be considered in an integrated way.
The DPO is a built form control in the local Planning Scheme that guides, but does not prescribe, the
future use and development of the land. Once a DPO is approved, a developer of land under the
overlay must prepare a Development Plan for the site which is more prescriptive on the detail of
the future development, prior to seeking approval of a Planning Permit. The DPO is used to:
• require a Development Plan to be prepared to coordinate proposed use or development,
before a permit under the zone can be granted
• guide the content of the Development Plan by specifying that it should contain particular
requirements
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
26 of 67
27
• provide certainty about the nature of the proposed use or development
• ensure that permits granted are in general conformity with the Development Plan
• apply particular permit conditions that help to implement the Development Plan.
The planning scheme amendment documentation that is available for public exhibition contains
expert reports on urban design, traffic, arboriculture, town planning and architectural inputs.
Councils and the public are welcome to make submissions to the Advisory Committee in response
to these matters. The Advisory Committee will assess these materials and the proposal as a whole
and provide a recommendation to the Minister for Planning.
Urban design principles have been developed in collaboration with the Office of the Victorian
Government Architect (OVGA) to guide the urban design, planning and procurement stages of each
project. (Attachment 1)
The retention of trees and improvements to open space are important for a range of urban design,
safety and health reasons. Many mature trees noted as being of high value will be retained. These
requirements, together with broader planning scheme policy objectives, requirements in relation to
apartment design, urban design principles and recommendations from the Advisory Committee will
inform acceptable built form outcomes on the sites. Where trees are removed, these will be
replaced by planting two new trees.
7. THE REMOVAL OF PLANNING CONTROLS FROM LOCAL COUNCILS, AND PLANNING
IMPLICATIONS SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES INCLUDING EXISTING NEIGHBOURHOOD
CHARACTER, TRAFFIC FLOW AND PROVISIONS OF SERVICES;
To date, the design process has included the input of residents, key community stakeholders,
neighbours and local councils. DHHS facilitated design workshops with each council and councils
attended each of the Office of Victorian Government Architect (OVGA) Design Review Committee
workshops. Where a council has not been able to attend the workshop, a follow up meeting with
the OVGA is facilitated for the council to provide input.
The Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference state that the Advisory Committee will provide
advice on whether the Minister for Planning should act as responsible authority for the sites and if
this would expedite future planning approvals. Following the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee, the responsible authority could be the Minister for Planning or the relevant council.
The Advisory Committee will consider submissions from councils and the public about the impact of
the proposals in relation to neighbourhood character, traffic, services and amenity.
A Development Plan Overlay (DPO) requires that a Development Plan or ‘master plan’ be approved
by the responsible authority for the site, which controls the form of development. The DPO
includes a requirement to prepare an Integrated Transport and Traffic Management Plan to support
the Development Plan and its approval. It includes the need to identify Green Travel Plan initiatives
to support reduced private car usage, provision of bicycle parking and also address bicycle and
pedestrian accessibility.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
27 of 67
28
DHHS will further engage with the community regarding the use of the public realm during the
development plan process. As part of the planning process a DPO requires the developer to provide
a final Development Plan for approval by the responsible authority that includes the following
items:
a site context analysis
preliminary architectural plans
integrated transport and traffic management plan
arboriculture assessment report
landscape and open space plan
ecological sustainable development plan
services and infrastructure plan
environmental site assessment
a staging plan.
If the Minister for Planning becomes the responsible authority for a site, both DHHS and the
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) will consult with the relevant
council throughout the planning process. After DHHS and its delivery partners submit final
Development Plan or planning permit applications, the Minister for Planning may refer the
applications to the Advisory Committee for further review prior to his final assessment.
DHHS has established working relationships with all the councils affected by the program to ensure
their concerns and inputs are listened to and that their residents are notified. DHHS will continue to
work with councils throughout the program and has executed or is preparing Memoranda of
Understanding with a number of councils to this effect.
8. THE PROPOSED LOSS OF THIRD PARTY APPEAL RIGHTS;
The process for the Social Housing Renewal Standing Advisory Committee is not new. Advisory
committees are an established feature of the Victorian planning system, and may be appointed by
the Minister for Planning to consider specific development proposals or to review planning policies.
They obtain public input and provide assessment of issues. Advisory committees are appointed
with a terms of reference approved by the Minister for Planning.
An example of this is the Government Land Standing Advisory Committee established in 2015 to
streamline planning for surplus government land. Twenty five sites have been rezoned to date
through this process.
A DPO requires that a Development Plan or ‘master plan’ be approved by the responsible authority
for the site, which controls the form of development. The DPO requires issues such as density,
design and traffic impacts to be considered in an integrated way. A planning permit is still required
under a DPO however there are no third party appeal rights for a proposal that accords with an
approved Development Plan.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
28 of 67
29
The Terms of Reference require the Advisory Committee to provide advice on whether the
proposed changes to the planning scheme should be approved, subject to any recommended
changes. This will include advice on height and built form envelopes proposed as part of the DPO,
vegetation and traffic implications.
The Terms of Reference set out the roles and responsibility of DELWP for the exhibition of the
DHHS proposals including:
provision for a four week public notification period
followed by a directions hearing and a public hearing where all submitters have an opportunity to be heard
councils receive direct notification of a proposal and will also have an opportunity to be heard at a public hearing.
DHHS has informed and engaged with the relevant public housing residents that are affected by the
proposal.
Consultation with the broader community on each proposed planning amendment carried out by
DELWP to date has included:
1) Letters and an information sheet were sent to surrounding owners and occupiers as identified, informing them of the notification period and information packs. For each site, DELWP sought the input from the respective councils on the extent of consultation required and relied on the respective councils rates data base in order to write to surrounding owners and occupiers. DELWP also took advice from councils on any significant interest groups and or referral authorities who should be notified of the proposed planning scheme amendment.
2) Advertisements were placed in the public notices sections of local newspapers.
3) An information pack was prepared for the proposal by DHHS that provided explanatory information, the proposed planning scheme amendment documents and supporting documents (including where appropriate traffic report, urban design, arboricultural reports and town planning report). This information was available in electronic format at the commencement of the exhibition period, and remains on DELWP’s website. Hard copy information packs were made available at selected Council offices and local libraries.
4) DELWP sent a letter and information sheet to the four prescribed ministers as set out under the Planning and Environment Act.
Following inconsistencies in the documents provided for exhibition, the Advisory Committee has
directed DELWP to undertake additional notification. This was carried out for Gronn Place in
Brunswick West, BellBardia and Tarakan Estates in Heidelberg West, Walker Street in Northcote,
and Abbotsford Street in North Melbourne. Submitters and nearby owners and occupiers were sent
supplementary information and provided with an additional period of time to comment on these
changes prior to the hearing.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
29 of 67
30
9. THE TRANSPARENCY AND GENUINE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION WITH AFFECTED
RESIDENTS, NEIGHBOURING COMMUNITIES AND THE BROADER VICTORIAN COMMUNITY
REGARDING THE SHORT, MEDIUM AND LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PHRP MODEL
AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED;
Community consultation is a critical component of the delivery of the PHRP and the government is
committed to understanding the needs and concerns of residents, neighbours and stakeholders.
Since the commencement of the program, the government has engaged proactively with residents
and local communities to ensure they are aware of what is proposed and to alert them to
opportunities to have a say in the process.
DHHS is running a multi-stage process of consultation and engagement with tenants and their
advocates, members of the communities neighbouring the estates, local government, statutory
regulators, utilities and other interested parties from the wider community.
Consultations are genuine opportunities to learn from the people who will be most affected by the
program. Feedback is resulting in changes to the plans for each site, with these changes being
communicated back to allow people to see how their input has been taken into account. For
example, the ”you talked, we listened” sections on recent brochures (Attachment 3).
DHHS has refined and improved the format of sessions as the process has progressed and in
response to feedback from stakeholders.
As at 11 December 2017:
approximately 2,973 people have attended engagement events held by DHHS
6,884 letter and flyers have been provided to tenants of the estates
16,850 letters have been sent to neighbours.
Structured engagement process
Four phases of community engagement are being conducted for each site.10
Phase 1: Establishing values and priorities
The first phase of engagement run by DHHS focused on providing initial information about the
renewal program and working with estate tenants and local organisations to develop ideas for the
redevelopment of each site.
Activities included:
Tenants were invited to attend sessions held on the estates, where they were encouraged to
share ideas for the renewal program and to reflect on the things they love about their estate
and the things they would like to see improved.
10 Current engagement processes exclude the Bangs Street, Prahran site, which has an approved development plan overlay and master plan. Engagement was, however, conducted with the Prahran/South Yarra community over three stages between 2011 and 2015 as part of the planning approval process for the Prahran Masterplan.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
30 of 67
31
Facilitated workshops were held with local government, service providers and community
leaders to discuss the project, share ideas and values, and identify initial questions and
concerns.
The objectives of the first phase of engagement activities were to:
Inform the vision for the redevelopment of the estate by identifying areas for improvement
on the estate, as well as the values and aspirations of the tenants for their community.
Ensure that the redevelopment will meet the needs of the tenants and those working on the
site into the future.
Strengthen existing relationships and ensure those affected are aware of further
opportunities for input.
This phase has been completed for each site. Feedback was used to develop the next stage plans for
phase two.
Phase 2: Next stage plans
The second round of engagement being conducted by DHHS encourages discussion with, and further
feedback from, tenants, neighbours and stakeholders on the design for each site. Next stage plans
developed for each site are a conversation prompt and an initial concept plan, reflecting DHHS’
ideas for the renewal following community feedback from phase one.
The next stage plan for each site contains a high-level overview of the proposed redevelopment,
including the layout of the renewed estate, building heights, pedestrian, cyclist and car movement
through the site, open space, play areas and community facilities, the retention of significant trees
and parking. It also shows how each estate can be better connected to and integrated with the local
neighbourhood.
Activities during this phase include:
Further engagement sessions for public housing tenants and local residents where attendees
can have their questions answered and provide feedback on the ideas proposed in the next
stage plan.
Facilitated workshops conducted with local service providers to seek their views and for
them to provide feedback and have questions answered.
An online survey as an additional or alternative opportunity to provide feedback.
The objectives of the second phase of engagement activities were to:
Provide DHHS with further feedback to inform the development of the planning scheme
amendment documentation, including the draft design framework.
Provide tenants, neighbours and organisations with sufficient information, should they wish
to prepare a formal submission for the Planning Scheme Amendment phase.
Examples of changes made due to feedback provided in the phase two sessions include:
For the Brighton site, the height on one building was reduced by three levels, addressing
concerns regarding overshadowing and reducing the anticipated number of private
dwellings. A central park area will be introduced on the site to provide additional open space
and assist with flood mitigation.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
31 of 67
32
In North Melbourne, a significant section of the site (approximately 5,500m2) has been
reserved for a new school campus to help relieve pressure on existing inner city schools, also
reducing the amount of dwellings to be introduced on the site. Nearby heritage buildings
have been taken into consideration, with a stepping down of the height of proposed
buildings at the edges of the site.
Phase 3: Exhibition of the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment
To enable the redevelopment of the renewal sites, DHHS will need to make a number of land use
and design control changes to the planning scheme. DHHS has engaged architecture, town planning
and traffic engineer consultants to produce the draft Design Framework and Planning Scheme
Amendment documentation for each of the project sites, reflecting feedback from tenants,
neighbours and local organisations.11
The purpose of community engagement on the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment for each
site is to:
Publish the Planning Scheme Amendment documentation online for interested parties to
view.
Undertake a formal notice period.
Seek formal written submissions through an online portal.
Undertake public hearings.
DHHS acknowledges the complexity of the planning process and therefore at the beginning of the
formal notice period, DHHS hosts additional drop-in consultation sessions to display and explain the
proposed Planning Scheme Amendment and explain how people are able to participate in the
process. These sessions provide an opportunity for attendees to understand more about the
proposed changes to the planning rules and how to make a submission.
As outlined in the response to Term of Reference Six, the planning process is led by the Department
of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) on behalf of Planning Panels Victoria. This
includes managing the formal submission process. An independent Social Housing Renewal Standing
Advisory Committee has been appointed by the Minister for Planning to assess the planning
application for each site.
The planning process runs as follows:
Interested tenants, community members and organisations can lodge a written submission.
Stakeholders who made a written submission are invited to present to the Advisory
Committee in-person at a public hearing.
The Advisory Committee considers all written and oral submissions before making a
recommendation to the Minister for Planning.
Once approved, the Planning Scheme Amendment will set the built form outcomes on each of the
sites, including building setbacks and heights and indicative dwelling yields.
11 Excluding Bangs Street, Prahran, which has an approved development plan overlay.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
32 of 67
33
Phase 4
DHHS will continue to engage with tenants, neighbours, key stakeholders and councils on site
specific issues such as use of open spaces. Once developers are appointed for sites, there will be a
formal fourth phase of consultation and community engagement conducted by DHHS in
collaboration with developers on their proposed Development Plan. The consultation required of
developers will be specified in the Request for Proposal. Key elements include:
development of a detailed Community and Communications Plan and engaging with the local
community and key stakeholders through various stages of Development
actively engage key stakeholder groups including:
o social housing residents
o local council
o local representative bodies through the Consultative Committee
o Victorian Public Tenants Association (VPTA)
o local support organisations i.e. community not-for-profits
o local resident groups
o government representatives.
providing feedback to the community and stakeholders through documents such as:
o “What we Heard” reports that identify feedback received, what was changed, or what
was not changed and why
o ongoing information updates through online information and newsletters to local
neighbours advising key milestones and any impacts during construction
o regular updates to DHHS and local councils.
DHHS will assist tenants in the renewal estates to find a new home and will pay for their moving
costs. Tenants who are relocated as part of the public housing renewal project will have the right to
return to their estates after construction has finished. This is addressed more thoroughly in the
response to the third term of reference.
Recognising the impact that a significant demolition and construction project will have on the
surrounding area, DHHS will also work with councils, developers, tenants and nearby residents to
minimise impacts on neighbours at each site.
Long term implications
More social housing is required and current housing stock that is not fit for purpose needs to be
replaced. The renewal program model allows the government to retain and grow social housing and
develop more integrated and diverse housing options and communities, in locations that have
excellent access to jobs, services and transport, in a financially sensible and viable manner. This
includes retaining public ownership of much of the land on these sites, via ownership of the public
housing properties, while increasing tenure mix, as well as access to affordable housing for all
Victorians.
Attachments
Attachment 3 - North Melbourne Engagement Brochure (as an example)
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
33 of 67
34
Attachment 4 – North Melbourne Story Boards (as an example)
Links
Further information is available at: http://www.housing.vic.gov.au/public-housing-renewal-
program
10. PUBLIC HOUSING ESTATES WHERE SIMILAR MODELS ARE ENVISAGED OR
UNDERWAY, INCLUDING —
a. MARKHAM AVENUE, ASHBURTON;
b. KOOLKUNA LANE, HAMPTON; AND
c. THE CORNER OF STOKES STREET AND PENOLA STREET, PRESTON;
DHHS regularly undertakes renewal projects to replace old, out-dated or unsuitable social housing
with new homes that better meet the needs of tenants and the wider community. These vary in
scale from smaller redevelopments to larger multi-suburb community renewal schemes. The
current renewal projects are a continuation of this important and necessary activity. An overview of
different projects, including those identified in the Terms of Reference, is provided below.
Information on current and past DHHS projects is regularly updated and can be found at
http://housing.vic.gov.au/projects
Markham Avenue, Ashburton
The Markham Estate was built in 1955 and comprised 56 public housing dwellings of concrete panel
construction in nine individual blocks. Demolition of all buildings was completed in March 2016.
DHHS has engaged Development Victoria to undertake the redevelopment of the site, which would
have included 62 public housing dwellings (that is replace and grow to at least 110 per cent of
previous) and 163 private housing units.
The project model for Markham Ave was broadly similar to other renewal sites – the income
generated from private sales will contribute towards the replacement and growth of public housing
on the site.
During 2016, consultation was held with the community regarding plans to redevelop the site. A
number of issues were raised by the community through this process, including density, traffic and
adverse effect on community infrastructure. Consultation was also held with local tenant groups, to
keep them informed on the renewal plans.
Following community consultation a combined Town Planning amendment and permit application
was submitted to the Minister for Planning. A number of further amendments to the Town Planning
application were requested by stakeholders, which led to an amended submission. The Minister for
Planning subsequently approved the Markham Housing Estate Incorporated Document in
September 2017, which was gazetted on 5 October 2017. The development must include no more
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
34 of 67
35
than 225 dwellings and adopt a mixed tenure approach, so as to ensure a fully-integrated housing
outcome while delivering 110 per cent replacement of previous public housing.
On 16 November 2017, the C251 Planning Amendment was revoked in Parliament and the project
is currently under review.
Links
http://www.places.vic.gov.au/precincts-and-development/markham
Koolkuna Lane, Hampton
The Director of Housing currently owns 16 elderly persons units at the corner of Koolkuna Lane and
Willis Street, Hampton, which are no longer fit for purpose. They will form part of the Hampton
Station Precinct Enhancement Project, which is being delivered by VicTrack and is expected to
commence in late 2018, subject to planning approvals.
EPC Pacific trading as Village @ Hampton Pty Ltd has been appointed as the developer for the
project, which includes new housing, as well as station upgrades and associated works. A total of 18
public housing units will be delivered (an increase of more than 110 per cent of existing).
The project model for Koolkuna Lane is similar to other PHRP sites in that the income from private
sales will be used to fund the replacement and growth of public housing on the site.
Stakeholder and community consultation occurred in November 2016, which included a project
website, on-street engagement and two drop-in sessions. Feedback from these sessions informed
plans for a building of up to seven-storeys with nine shops and 207 dwellings (including 18 for
DHHS), which were submitted to Council in December 2016.
The matter has been referred to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and is
currently awaiting determination..
Links
http://hamptonstationprecinct.engagementhq.com/Hampton-Station-Precinct
Stokes, Penola, and Oakover Streets, Preston
The redevelopment of public housing at Preston is occurring over two stages. This redevelopment is
also similar to other renewal sites, in that there will be an increase in public housing to at least 110
per cent of previous levels. Private housing will be included in the development, creating a mixed
community, and using sales income to support the provision of the new public housing. This
replaces public housing that was no longer fit for purpose and was demolished in stages over a
number of years to 2012.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
35 of 67
36
Stage One
Sixty-two public housing properties had previously occupied a site at Stokes and Penola Streets,
which was known as the Huttonham public housing estate. The government committed
$20 million to redevelop the estate, which was identified in Homes for Victorians.
Stage One of the Preston renewal project will see construction of 68 new public housing dwellings
in two buildings. Site 1 (29-35 Stokes Street) will deliver 22 apartments in three storeys. Site 2 (6-20
Stokes Street and 15-19 Penola Street) includes 46 apartments in four storeys. A contract has been
awarded to S J Higgins Pty Ltd to deliver the 68 new homes.
DHHS has amended development plans taking into account feedback through the planning process.
This included increased setbacks and landscaping, providing a greater buffer to neighbours on the
northern side of the site.
Stage Two
Stage Two of the Preston project forms part of the current procurement process, which includes
eight renewal sites, including six PHRP-funded sites.
Stage Two of the Preston renewal project encompasses two sites. The first is a vacant site at the
corner of Stokes and Penola Streets, while the second is on Oakover Road and currently has
26 public housing properties on it.
Redevelopment of these two sites will deliver a minimum of 30 public housing properties, plus
private housing. The combination of public housing on this site and the 68 units in Stage One will
see public housing increase by 110 per cent across three sites in the two stages.
Five relocatable modular units are being provided on the vacant land at Stage Two as part of the
Towards Home initiatives, offering short-term accommodation and intensive support to people
who are homeless so that they can move into and sustain longer-term accommodation.
Links
http://www.housing.vic.gov.au/preston-renewal-project
Olympia Housing Initiative
Announced in 2012, this ten-year initiative aims to revitalise Heidelberg West, Heidelberg Heights
and Bellfield suburbs in Melbourne. The project includes two streams.
Stream One will replace least 600 unsuitable or outdated public housing properties, replacing
ageing stock with newly-constructed housing that better meets the needs of the community and
will contribute to making better neighbourhoods. This is achieved through an incremental, self-
funding sale and build program, with voluntary tenant participation and tender of small sites as
they become available. The Olympia Initiative includes the following objectives:
reduce the concentration of public housing and achieve a better balance between public and
private housing across the area
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
36 of 67
37
improve amenity for both public and private residents and create a more sustainable
community
keep the same amount of public housing in the area but make it newer, more comfortable
and more accessible
reduce the overall public housing maintenance burden by replacing ageing stock
better align properties to match current and future tenancy requirements and undertake
systematic stock re-profiling
assist in addressing stock under-utilisation in the area
help reduce stigmatisation for public housing in the 3081 post code area
ensure streetscapes for public and private housing are indistinguishable.
Stream Two is designed to identify larger sites for redevelopment and opportunities for potential
partnership with the private and/or community sector. The Tarakan and Bell Bardia sites in the
current PHRP sit within the Olympia Housing Initiative area and could provide a model for larger
scale renewal of other sites in the area.
Since commencement in 2012, over 900 tenants have been contacted about voluntary participation
in the initiative and to date over 230 families have been relocated to homes better suited to their
needs. To date 224 new homes have been built, with a further 35 in the pipeline in the current
financial year and more programed for completion in forward years.
Developments to date have included a new $4.4 million state-of-the-art ‘village-style’ residential
development in Perth Street for single people, families and older persons. The new homes are close
to public transport connecting to local shopping centres, schools and Austin Hospital. All new
residences are six-star energy rated including their solar hot water services to reduce utility bills.
Eleven units have been built for older persons and are fully-accessible with lift access in the three-
storey part of the accommodation.
Links
https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/new-public-housing-for-heidelberg-west-community/
https://vhhsba.vic.gov.au/housing-and-infrastructure/olympia-housing-initiative
McIntyre Drive, Altona
This 69 one-bedroom apartment development was built to house single aged persons on low
incomes. It is U-shaped and built around a central courtyard that creates a central meeting and
recreation point for residents. The homes are set back from the street and are six-star energy rated.
They have solar boosted gas hot water, good natural light and natural ventilation with either a
balcony or private courtyard. All 25 ground floor apartments are accessible to people living with a
disability and the remainder of the homes can be adapted for residents with a disability.
Completed in September 2012, the development was a partnership between the Victorian
Government, MGS Architects and Kane Construction. The redevelopment received two awards in
2013:
The Frederick Romberg Award for Residential Architecture Multiple Housing (Australian
Institute of Architecture)
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
37 of 67
38
The Best Overend Award for Residential Architecture – Multiple Housing (Victorian
Architecture Awards)
It is owned by the Victorian Director of Housing and managed by Yarra Community Housing
(now called Unison).
Links
DHHS: http://www.premiersdesignawards.com.au/entry/mcintyre-drive-social-housing-altona/
Architecture Award: https://architectureau.com/articles/2013-national-architecture-awards-
frederick-romberg-award/
Valley Park Redevelopment (Westmeadows)
The Valley Park Redevelopment is a 12-year project to redevelop The Mews public housing estate in
Westmeadows. Through a a partnership between the Victorian Government, Frasers Property and
not-for-profit Baptcare, it will deliver145 new social housing homes, 209 new homes for private
sale and a 90-bed supported aged care centre. The development also incorporates new landscaped
parks, bike and pedestrian paths, improved community park facilities and sporting/fitness areas
and aims to create an integrated and vibrant community. The project commenced in 2008 and is
scheduled for completion in 2020. To date, the project has delivered 57 new social homes, with a
further 88 new to be constructed.
Links
http://www.housing.vic.gov.au/other-housing-projects
11. PREVIOUS VICTORIAN PUBLIC HOUSING RENEWAL PROJECTS, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO THE KENSINGTON, CARLTON AND PRAHRAN PUBLIC HOUSING ESTATES;
The PHRP and associated renewal projects build on and extend the experience of previous public
housing redevelopments in inner metropolitan Melbourne. An overview of three major projects, in
Kensington, Carlton and Prahran is outlined below, and the key elements of the current program
that draw on these ae highlighted. Fact sheets for each project are provided in Attachment 5.
Kensington Estate Redevelopment (2002 – 2012)
The redevelopment of the Holland Park public housing estate in Kensington was the first (and
largest at the time) major redevelopment of its kind undertaken in Victoria since the major slum
clearance undertaken by the Housing Commission in the 1960s and 1970s. It involved demolition of
over 400 old and out-dated public housing dwellings, which were replaced with new, accessible and
modern public and private housing.
The redevelopment, which commenced in 2002 was funded using a financial delivery model
whereby the state government engaged a private developer to undertake renewal of the public
estate, including replacement of the majority of the public housing stock, redevelopment of
community facilities, and urban design of the overall site. The cost of this was offset through the
sale of private housing on the site.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
38 of 67
39
The benefits of this approach included:
• leveraging the experience of the private sector in a major public housing redevelopment
• gaining best value for government investment: of the overall development cost of $150 million, the government contributed approximately one third, or $47 million12, and delivered major redevelopment of a run-down estate to provide a mixed community of public, community and private housing with a place-based approach to community development
• introduction of mix of public and private housing, which – along with other landscaping and layout features of the redevelopment – helped to re-integrate the estate into the local neighbourhood, moving away from the isolated, inward-looking design of the estate in the past
Other benefits of the redevelopment included:
• increase in overall housing supply (public and private) in a well-located inner metropolitan area, close to public transport, amenities, services and employment opportunities
• re-alignment of public housing stock with public housing demand; an increase in one- and two-bedroom dwellings on the estate reflected the composition of the public housing waiting list
• introduction of an innovative place management model whereby private rental, public housing tenancy management, owners corporation and facilities management services and community building were delivered by a single provider on-site
The redevelopment process introduced the following governance structures to assist with the
planning and development of the estate:
• the Kensington Estate Redevelopment Advisory Committee, to consider options and strategies for the redevelopment of the whole estate
• a Community Liaison Committee (CLC), bringing together representatives of public housing tenants, local schools and community organisations, the Office of Housing, Department of Human Services and Melbourne City Council to oversee the redevelopment process
• an independent social impact study to capture lessons learnt during the initial stages of the
redevelopment so that these could be applied as it progressed.13
The redevelopment of the estate resulted in 453 social housing dwellings (210 new public dwellings,
15 new community dwellings, 228 upgraded public housing dwellings in the two retained high-rise
towers) and 497 private dwellings, an increase of 37 per cent in total housing on the estate. This
equates to a housing mix of 48 per cent social housing dwellings to 52 per cent private dwellings.
Carlton Housing Redevelopment (2007 – present)
The drivers for the redevelopment of public housing in Carlton were similar to those that had led to
the redevelopment in Kensington. Ageing public housing stock, particularly in the form of
concentrated blocks of walk-up dwellings, was in poor condition, no longer fit for purpose for public
housing tenants and no longer aligned with contemporary expectations for public housing. The
design and layout of the buildings created other issues, which included concerns about safety and
12
Projectlink, 2012, viewed 11 January 2017, <https://www.projectlink.com.au/news/150-million-kensington-redevelopment-
complete>. 13
Swinburne University of Technology, 2004, viewed 11 January 2018, <https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/items/0c953f21-
59be-4f56-aad3-f31a6f6a7bd4/1/>.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
39 of 67
40
security, lack of amenity and comfort for tenants, and the visual impact of the estates within the
wider Carlton neighbourhood.
The Carlton redevelopment was confirmed in 2007 and has continued over a number of years and
terms of government.
Key elements of the Carlton redevelopment that built on the Kensington Estate project include:
• value: when announced the Carlton redevelopment was valued at $250 million14, with a net
government investment of $50 million15
• scale: the Carlton project covers an area of 7.4 hectares (25 per cent greater than
Kensington) and took a coordinated approach to redevelopment of three separate Director
of Housing owned sites. These included two public housing estates at Lygon and Rathdowne
Streets and Elgin and Nicholson Streets and a third site at Keppel and Cardigan Streets that
comprised disused heritage buildings but did not previously have any public housing
• stakeholder engagement: a broader, more structured and inclusive approach was adopted to
involve the local community in the development process
• measuring impact: a baseline study was undertaken prior to demolition of any public housing
and post-occupancy studies looking at levels of comfort, building efficiency, resource
consumption and sustainability of replacement public housing were undertaken at the end of
key stages in the redevelopment16
• maintaining the number of public housing dwellings: in Carlton there was a commitment to
maintain the existing number of public housing dwellings on the estates at a minimum. As a
result, 192 old public housing walk-up dwellings have been replaced by 246 new, well-
designed public housing dwellings, a 28 per cent increase in the number of public housing
dwellings
• integration: a stated commitment of the Carlton redevelopment from the outset was to re-
integrate the public housing estates into the local neighbourhood through building yield,
design and infrastructure planning, as well as integration of public and private dwellings
within each site through ‘tenure blind’ design
• wider community benefits: an intentional focus on development of additional facilities to
benefit the entire community, including aged care and wellbeing, a community wellbeing
centre, new public parks and playgrounds and a work and learning centre; the Victorian
Government also invested in the adjoining primary school
• partnership: leveraging the expertise and investment of the private and mutual sectors
through the Living Carlton Consortium to deliver a mix of social and private housing, as well
as independent living and aged care facilities in a well-connected inner city location.
To date, the Carlton Housing redevelopment has delivered 246 new public housing dwellings and
663 new private dwellings, with further private housing dwellings in the pipeline. A further 818 high
rise public housing dwellings on the estates have been retained and progressively upgraded.
A 2014 research study conducted by Flinders University in conjunction with the
Brotherhood of St Laurence and VicHealth investigated the health and social impacts of the
14 PAEC, 17 May 2007, p7 15 Hansard, 7 June 2006, p2133 16 A formal evaluation has not yet been undertaken as the final stages of the redevelopment are still underway, due for completion in November 2020.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
40 of 67
41
relocation of public housing tenants in Victoria and South Australia. In Victoria, the research
focussed on the experience of tenants, service providers and local residents in the Carlton Housing
Estate17. The study identified a range of different resident perceptions of the redevelopment
process, but on the whole concluded that, “many of the outcomes of the redevelopment have been
positive, particularly in relation to the quality of the new units and surroundings and this was
echoed in the improved perceptions of residents living in the surrounding suburb”.
Prahran Horace Petty Estate (2011-2013)
The redevelopment of public housing on the Horace Petty Estate is distinct from the Kensington and
Carlton redevelopments in that it is solely public housing, rather than a mix of public and private
homes. It was financed through the Commonwealth Government’s Housing Affordability Fund As
with the other developments, it replaced old, out-dated walk-up public housing with new, well-
designed and fit for purpose public housing, with a substantial increase in the number of dwellings
from 24 to 188.
The redevelopment covered only a small portion of the Horace Petty Estate on the corner of
Malvern and Surrey Roads. One of the conditions of the Commonwealth funding was that the
Victorian Government develop a master plan for the balance of the estate, setting out the
redevelopment strategy over the next 30 years. Stakeholder consultation was undertaken over
three stages between 2011 and 2015, culminating in the approval of a development plan for the
Horace Petty and neighbouring public housing estates at Bangs, King and Essex Streets in Prahran in
December 2016.
This led to the identification of the Bangs Street estate as one of the sites to be redeveloped as part
of the current renewal program.
Current Public Housing Renewal Program
The Victorian Government has built on its experience in previous public housing estate
redevelopments to inform the process, requirements and desired outcomes of the current PHRP.
These include:
• continually improving processes to engage with all stakeholders affected by the
redevelopment and to use their input to inform the design of each project
• implementation of an updated Tenant Relocation Strategy that puts tenants at the centre,
ensures they are consulted early, takes into account their individual needs and circumstances
and is sensitive to the impact of relocation
• engaging tenants around the ‘Rights’ pledge negotiated with the VPTA on the right to return,
security of tenure and maintenance of rent at 25 per cent of income
• replacement and growth of public housing stock with a minimum 110 per cent of the
previous number of new dwellings to be provided on each site
17
Arthurson, K Ziersch, A and Levin, I, 2014, The relocation research project: Implementing relocation policies that enhance residents’ health, wellbeing and social inclusion, Southgate Institute for Health, Society and Equity, Flinders University, South Australia. Available online at https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/media-and-resources/publications/the-relocation-research-project
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
41 of 67
42
• provide new public and private homes, including some prioritised for first homebuyers, in
well-located areas, close to public transport, community facilities, jobs and services
• provide a mix of public and private dwellings that in their design, quality and appearance are
‘tenure blind’, reducing the segregation and stigmatisation of public housing
• integrate social and private housing within each site and provide equal access to the public
realm and facilities for all residents
• re-integrate sites with the wider neighbourhood and make them outward-facing, rather than
inward-looking, separate communities
• provide the hard and soft economic and community infrastructure to encourage interaction
between all residents of each site and members of the local neighbourhood; requirements
include development of public spaces, services and facilities as well as a community benefit
plan for each site
• delivery of a mix of public housing dwelling types that align with current housing demand,
with built in flexibility to allow for future adaptation
adopting a delivery model that enables partnerships with the private sector and ensures that
government shares in the value and benefits of the development.
12. BEST PRACTICE MODELS FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC HOUSING FROM WITHIN
AUSTRALIA AND OVERSEAS;
National and international research provides extensive insight into models of public housing
renewal. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute has recently reviewed the evidence
and experience within the Australian context18 and identified a number of policy and practice
implications, including:
Disadvantaged householders are ‘significantly harmed by the presence of sizable disadvantaged
groups concentrated in their neighbourhoods’.
The spatial allocation of social, affordable and private housing should be considered at the
neighbourhood scale.
Policy approaches should be voluntary, gradualist, housing option-enhancing strategies that
over the longer term expand opportunities for lower income families to live in communities with
households of greater economic means.
Meaningful consultation about the renewal plan with existing residents of the broad
neighbourhood is essential.
A long term commitment is required to overcome social problems and empower local people;
local facilities, accessible community development support and training, and other community
participation mechanisms need to be adequately resourced and given sufficient time to embed
and grow.
18
Public housing renewal and social mix: policy brief, AHURI, 1 September 2017, Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 16 October 2017, < https://www.ahuri.edu.au/policy/ahuri-briefs/public-housing-renewal-and-social-mix >
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
42 of 67
43
One of the key gains stemming from tenure-mix policies is their ability to reduce the
stigmatisation felt by social housing tenants.
These policy directions are reflected in the process, requirements and desired outcomes of the
PHRP, including those set out below.
The PHRP reduces the concentration of public housing on a single site, helping to reduce the
stigmatisation of public housing, and the impact of social issues that are often associated with
high concentrations of lower-income households.
The PHRP will provide new public and private homes, including some prioritised for first
homebuyers, in well-located areas, close to public transport, community facilities, jobs and
services. It complements the other initiatives set out in Homes for Victorians, which together
will increase the range of housing options and availability in well-connected, high amenity
locations.
The program aims to maintain and sustainably increase public housing in inner city locations
rather than displacing it. The sites chosen enable all households, regardless of tenure or income
to benefit from the advantages of living in a vibrant, connected neighbourhood. It also seeks to
re-integrate sites with the wider neighbourhood and make them outward-facing, rather than
inward-looking.
The PHRP builds on previous Victorian redevelopments through significantly improved processes
to engage with all stakeholders affected by the redevelopment and to use their input to inform
the design of each project. The planning process provides opportunity for members of the
estates and local neighbourhoods to view and provide input on the development plans and is
supported by resources and information to ensure that these are understood by all members of
the community. The Tenant Relocation Strategy puts tenants at the centre, ensures they are
consulted early, takes into account their individual needs and circumstances and is sensitive to
the impact of relocation.
The renewal sites will provide the hard and soft infrastructure to encourage interaction between
all residents of each site and members of the local neighbourhood. Requirements of the
redevelopments include development of public spaces, services and facilities as well as a
community benefit plan for each site.
Reduction in segregation of public and private housing, and the sense of stigma associated with
this, will be achieved through providing a mix of public and private dwellings that in their design,
quality and appearance are ‘tenure blind’. The PHRP will integrate social and private housing
within each site and provide equal access to the public realm and facilities for all residents,
regardless of tenure.
An overview of three interstate urban renewal program examples is provided below, to provide
some additional context for the PHRP, relative to the past or current experiences of other
jurisdictions.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
43 of 67
44
New South Wales: Communities Plus
The NSW Communities Plus initiative involves 43 development or renewal projects, including five
major urban renewal projects, seven new communities and 21 neighbourhood renewal projects. It
aims to deliver 23,000 new and replacement social housing dwellings, 40,000 private housing
dwellings and 500 affordable housing dwellings.
The Communities Plus program has three key objectives, which are to:
deliver more housing and a better social housing experience, with more opportunities and
incentives to avoid or move beyond social housing
develop new mixed communities where social housing blends in with private and affordable
housing, with better access to transport and employment, improved community facilities and
open spaces
partner with the private and not for profit sectors to fast track the redevelopment of sites in
metropolitan Sydney and regional NSW.
The Ivanhoe Estate at Macquarie Park is one of the major projects within the Communities Plus
program and was recently announced by the NSW Government. It will be delivered by the Aspire
consortium, comprising Frasers Property Australia, Citta Property Group and Mission Australia
Housing, which will provide social and affordable housing, as well as support services for tenants.
Ivanhoe will transform 259 existing social housing properties into a new neighbourhood of around
3,000 homes, including at least 950 social housing properties and 128 affordable rental homes. The
increase is possible due to the large size of the estate (at 8.6 hectares it is half the size of the Ascot
Vale estate) and significant development potential relative to the number of existing homes. The
project is expected to be self-funding through the sale of private homes and will deliver an increase
in social housing at no net cost to the government.
Separately, NSW has sought to sell a small number of high-value public housing sites, such as Millers
Point in Sydney, and reinvest the funds into the wider social housing portfolio. This included the
sale of 290 public housing homes to generate $340 million to invest in public housing off site in
affordable locations.19
Links:
https://www.communitiesplus.com.au/
https://www.communitiesplus.com.au/major-sites/ivanhoe-1
Western Australia: New Living
The New Living public housing renewal program has been operating in Western Australia since the
mid-1990s. It has seen the redevelopment and renewal of numerous public housing estates across
Perth and regional Western Australia. The key components of New Living projects have been the
refurbishment of public housing stock, of which some were retained for public housing and others
sold to create home ownership opportunities and the reduction of the overall concentration of
public housing in relevant towns or suburbs.
19
https://www.property.nsw.gov.au/millers-point-0
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
44 of 67
45
The New North is the largest of these projects, which commenced in 1998 and was completed in
2016. It covered four suburbs with high public housing concentrations in Perth’s mid-northern
suburbs.
The New North project included the refurbishment of over 2,660 public housing properties and the
demolition of a further 574 (comprising low rise apartments, townhouses and detached homes).
Of the refurbished properties, 1,405 were sold, creating opportunities for first homebuyers and
shared equity purchasers. The remainder were retained for public housing, improving and extending
the life of ageing properties. Development of 290 vacant residential lots created land supply for
additional private housing.
Outcomes of the New North project included a reduction in social housing presence from 29 per
cent to 10 per cent, reductions in crime by between 66 per cent and 84 per cent in project suburbs,
strong collaboration with existing and new residents to build community engagement, and
partnerships with local government to invest in local parks, improvements to road network and
streetscapes, as well as new community facilities that improved the social and physical amenity of
the area.
Links:
https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2016/09/New-North-urban-
renewal-18-years-in-the-making.aspx
South Australia: Renewing Our Streets and Suburbs
The Renewing Our Streets and Suburbs initiative aims to renew aged South Australian Housing Trust
dwellings and includes a program of redevelopment and refurbishment. Its aim is to renew 4500
pre-1968 Housing Trust homes located within 10 kilometres of the city by 2020.
The program of renewal will range from renovations to complete redevelopments and/or the
transfer of tenant and property management to community housing providers. It includes a number
of Neighbourhood Urban Renewal Projects, which aim to:
create a mix of new private and social housing
provide a range of housing types to suit different households, lifestyle needs, including
families, older people, singles, purchasers and renters from across a range of income levels
contribute to improving the appearance and amenity of the local area
focus housing growth in established suburbs, close to transport, and other services and facilities.
The program involves the sale of a small number of public housing properties, where they do not
meet current requirements. Some of these will be sold through affordable housing programs,
providing opportunities for low and moderate income households. The income from the sale of
these properties will be used to support the refurbishment or replacement of public homes.
The Renewing Our Streets and Suburbs program is complemented by a number of other South
Australian government social housing initiatives, including “One Thousand Homes in 1000 Days”, the
Better Neighbourhoods renewal program and the transfer of up to 5,000 public housing properties
to the community housing sector.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
45 of 67
46
The Morphettville Neighbourhood Renewal Project is one example, which covers an 11-hectare site
located 8 kilometres from the city. The project will involve a staged redevelopment and
refurbishment of public housing to deliver a range of choices in the size and design, and overall will
provide more suitable options for South Australia Housing tenants.
Other aged South Australian Housing Trust dwellings will be demolished to create new land
allotments on which both new public and private housing will be developed.
Once completed in late 2020 it is expected that there will be a total of approximately 305 homes in
the Morphetville project area. These homes will consist of existing private properties and up to 200
new housing allotments, including 177 new houses for sale (30 of which will be new affordable
houses or land for sale). It also includes approximately 24 renovated Housing Trust dwellings for sale
plus 45 new and pre-existing dwellings to be upgraded and retained by the Housing Trust.
Links:
https://renewalsa.sa.gov.au/building-our-future/renewing-streets-suburbs/
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
46 of 67
47
CONCLUSION The Department of Health and Human Services appreciates the opportunity to provide a submission to
the Committee’s Inquiry into the Public Housing Renewal Program.
Further information on Homes for Victorians, including associated renewal and social housing growth, is
available on the Department’s website https://dhhs.vic.gov.au/homes-for-victorians.
Should the Committee require further information to assist with its deliberations, the Department will
endeavour to provide this wherever possible.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
47 of 67
PHRP Design objectives
The following 13 design objectives are high-level requirements that were developed in collaboration with the department, Office of the Victorian Government Architect and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning to guide the development of high quality urban design, architecture, landscape architecture and ESD outcomes for the Program.
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 1
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
48 of 67
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 2
Page 1 of 2
Public Housing Renewal Program Objectives (from Registration of Capability)
2.3.1 Policy objectives
• Contribute to achieving the outcomes of Homes for Victorians policy of March 2017.
• Achieve a volume of Social Housing on each Site that is at least ten per cent greater than the current number of Public Housing dwellings on the Site.
• Improve the social balance by integrating Social Housing into the local residential neighbourhood.
• Improve the social balance on the Sites by the introduction of private housing.
• Achieve ‘value for money’ by maximising the return from the sale of private dwellings and commercial developments for the DOH to reinvest into the Social Housing component of the Program.
• Build capability in the Registered Housing Associations sector by encouraging partnerships between private developers and Registered Housing Associations to deliver the Program Packages.
• Deliver the Program in accordance with the powers and functions vested in the DOH under the Housing Act 1983 (Vic).
2.3.2 Design and place objectives
• Deliver new Social Housing stock in accordance with ‘Better Apartments Design Standards’ (March 2017) and the Livable Housing Guidelines – gold level. (www.livablehousingaustralia.org.au/)
• Produce a design that provides ‘value for money’ asset management and ‘whole of life’ outcomes.
• Deliver well-designed buildings and places that make the most of Sites and their opportunities, enabling the best and most efficient use for owners, occupants and other users, while also providing broader benefits such as creating high quality buildings and public spaces.
• Deliver an outcome that has private and Social Housing dwellings integrated into a unified community.
• Ensure that the developments on each Site are consistent with: o Clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions or the Guidelines for Higher Density
Residential Development (as applicable) o Plan Melbourne Refresh.
2.3.3 Ecologically sustainable development objectives
• Promote ESD principles at the core of the developments at both the precinct and building scale. This includes demonstrating leadership aligned with Victoria’s climate change framework and targets, energy efficiency and productivity statement and renewable energy roadmap.
• All Social Housing to be constructed to a minimum NatHERS 7 Stars per building and a minimum of 5 Stars green star for buildings (noting the potential opportunity for cost effective volume Green Star ratings). Constructing the private development component to these standards is encouraged as well as maximising renewable energy. Especially for the larger sites, a comprehensive precinct sustainability strategy and quality assurance will be expected.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
49 of 67
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 2
Page 2 of 2
2.2.4 Key program delivery and construction objectives
• Certain and timely delivery of the Program.
• Funded commitments to deliver the Program Packages.
• Certainty of price.
• Optimum risk allocation between the DOH and the Successful Proponents.
• Ability of Successful Proponents to deliver the Program requirements for the relevant Program Packages.
• Meet the requirements of the following Victorian Government policies: o Victorian Industry Participation Policy o Major Programs Skills Guarantee o Public Tenant Employment Program o Climate Change Framework and 2020 Target
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
50 of 67
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 3 - TOR 9 North Melbourne Engagement Brochure PHRP SUBMISSION 172
51 of 67
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 3 - TOR 9 North Melbourne Engagement Brochure PHRP SUBMISSION 172
52 of 67
Ы¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¹®¿³
©©©ò¸±«·²¹òª·½ò¹±ªò¿«
ß °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» ر³» º±® Ê·½¬±®·¿² ¬®¿¬»¹§ô
¬¸» Ê·½¬±®·¿² Ù±ª»®²³»²¬ ¸¿ ½±³³·¬¬»¼
üîòé ¾·´´·±² º±® ±½·¿´ ¸±«·²¹ô ¬¸» ¾·¹¹»¬
½±³³·¬³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» »½¬±® ·² ±«® ͬ¿¬»� ¸·¬±®§ò
̸» Ы¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¶»½¬ · ¿ üïèë ³·´´·±² ·²ª»¬³»²¬ô
·³°®±ª·²¹ ±½·¿´ ¸±«·²¹ ¿½®± ³»¬®±°±´·¬¿² Ó»´¾±«®²»ò
̸» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º Ø»¿´¬¸ ¿²¼ Ø«³¿² Í»®ª·½» ø¬¸»
¼»°¿®¬³»²¬÷ · °´¿²²·²¹ ¬± ®»¼»ª»´±° ¿ ²«³¾»® ±º ¿¹»·²¹ °«¾´·½
¸±«·²¹ »¬¿¬» ·²¬± ª·¾®¿²¬ô ¾»¬¬»®ó½±²²»½¬»¼ô ³·¨»¼ó¬»²«®»
²»·¹¸¾±«®¸±±¼ ©¸»®» °»±°´» ½¿² ´·ª» ·² ¸±«·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ · ¿º»
¿²¼ »½«®»ò ̸» ¼»°¿®¬³»²¬ ©¿²¬ ¬± ¹®±© ±½·¿´ ¸±«·²¹ ·²
¬¸»» ¿®»¿ ¾»½¿«» ¬¸»§ ¿®» ½´±» ¬± ¬®¿²°±®¬ô »¼«½¿¬·±² ¿²¼
©±®µ ±°°±®¬«²·¬·»ô ¿ ©»´´ ¿ «°°±®¬ »®ª·½»ò ͱ½·¿´ ¸±«·²¹
¿¬ »¿½¸ »¬¿¬» ©·´´ ·²½®»¿» ¾§ ¿¬ ´»¿¬ ïð °»® ½»²¬ ¿²¼ ¼»´·ª»®
°®±°»®¬·» ¬¸¿¬ ¾»¬¬»® «·¬ ¬¸» ²»»¼ ±º ¬»²¿²¬ò
̸» ͬ¿¬» Ù±ª»®²³»²¬ · °¿®¬²»®·²¹ ©·¬¸ °®·ª¿¬» ¼»ª»´±°»®
¬± ¼»´·ª»® ·²¬»¹®¿¬»¼ ½±³³«²·¬·» ¬¸¿¬ ´»¿¼ ¬± ¹®»¿¬»®
±°°±®¬«²·¬·» º±® ®»·¼»²¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸» »´·³·²¿¬·±² ±º °«¾´·½ ¸±«·²¹
� ß¾¾±¬º±®¼ ͬ®»»¬ô Ò±®¬¸ Ó»´¾±«®²»
ï
ïéðìðíïÁЫ¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¶»½¬ Ô¿®¹» ëçì¨èìï³³ÁÒ±®¬̧ Ó»¾́Áßï ̈ ç °¿¹»ÁÍ»°ïéÁÚ×ÒßÔò·²¼¼ ï èñðçñïé ìæìî ÐÓ
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 4 - TOR 9 North Melbourne Story Boards PHRP SUBMISSION 172
53 of 67
ɸ¿¬ ©»�ª» ¼±²» ± º¿®
�É» ¾»¹¿² ¬¿´µ·²¹ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» »¬¿¬» ½±³³«²·¬§ ¬± «²¼»®¬¿²¼
©¸¿¬ ¬¸»§�¼ ´·µ» ¬± »» ±² ¬¸» ®»²»©»¼ ¿²¼ ®»¼»ª»´±°»¼ ·¬»ò
�Þ¿»¼ ±² ©¸¿¬ ©»�¼ ¸»¿®¼ô ±«® ¼»·¹²»® °®»°¿®»¼ ½±²½»°¬ µ»¬½¸»ò
λ·¼»²¬ô ¬¿µ»¸±´¼»® ¿²¼ ²»·¹¸¾±«® ©»®» ·²ª·¬»¼ ¬± ½±³³»²¬ ±²
¬¸» °´¿² ¿²¼ ¸»´° ¸¿°» ¬¸» º«¬«®» ±º ¬¸» Ò±®¬¸ Ó»´¾±«®²» »¬¿¬»ò
л±°´» ©»®» ¿¾´» ¬± ¸¿ª» ¬¸»·® ¿§ ·² °»®±² ¿²¼ ±²´·²»ò
Ó¿®½¸îðïé
Ó¿§
îðïé
ß¾±«¬ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬
â É»�®» ®»°´¿½·²¹ ®«²¼±©² ©¿´µó«° ¾«·´¼·²¹ ½±²¬®«½¬»¼ ·² ¬¸»
ïçëð�ô ©·¬¸ ²»©ô ³±¼»®² ¸±³» ¾«·´¬ ¬± ß«¬®¿´·¿² ¿²¼ ·²¬»®²¿¬·±²¿´
¾»¬ °®¿½¬·»ò
â ̸»®» ©·´´ ¾» ³±®
¬¸»®» ©·´´ ¾» ¿ ³·¨ ±º °®·ª¿¬» ¿²¼ °«¾´·½ ¸±«·²¹ò ̸· ¸»´° º«²¼
¾»¬¬»® ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ½®»¿¬» ¿ ª·¾®¿²¬ô ·²¬»¹®¿¬»¼ ½±³³«²·¬§ò
â ̸»®» ©·´´ ¾» ¸±³» ¬± «·¬ ±´¼»® ®»·¼»²¬ô °»±°´» ©·¬¸ ¼·¿¾·´·¬·»ô
¿²¼ º¿³·´·» ©·¬¸ §±«²¹ ½¸·´¼®»²ò
â Ñ°»² °¿½» ©·´´ ¾» ¼»·¹²»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿º»¬§ ¿²¼ »½«®·¬§ ·² ³·²¼ò
â Ý«®®»²¬ ®
±º ¬¸»» ²»© ¸±³»ò
â É»�ª» ³¿¼» °®±ª··±² º±® ³«½¸ó²»»¼»¼ô ²»© »¼«½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ¿®¬
º¿½·´·¬·»ô ¸»´°·²¹ ®»´·»ª» °®»«®» ±² ·²²»® ½·¬§ ½¸±±´ò ̸»»
º¿½·´·¬·» ©·´´ ¾» ¼»ª»´±°»¼ º±´´±©·²¹ º«®¬¸»® ½±²«´¬¿¬·±² ©·¬¸ ¬¸»
¾®±¿¼»® ½±³³«²·¬§ ¿²¼ »¼«½¿¬±®
̸» ß¾¾±¬º±®¼ ͬ®»»¬ô Ò±®¬¸ Ó»´¾±«®²» °®±°±¿´
Ы¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¹®¿³ î
ïéðìðíïÁЫ¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¶»½¬ Ô¿®¹» ëçì¨èìï³³ÁÒ±®¬̧ Ó»¾́Áßï ̈ ç °¿¹»ÁÍ»°ïéÁÚ×ÒßÔò·²¼¼ î èñðçñïé ìæìî ÐÓ
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 4 - TOR 9 North Melbourne Story Boards PHRP SUBMISSION 172
54 of 67
̸» ͵»¬½¸ д¿²
â ̸» ͵»¬½¸ д¿² º±®³»¼ ¬¸» ¾¿· ±º ¬¸» ½±²«´¬¿¬·±² ©» ¸»´¼ ·²
Ó¿§ îðïéò
â ׬ ¸±© °±·¾´» ¸»·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ »¬¾¿½µ ¿º¬»® ¿² ·²·¬·¿´ ¿²¿´§· ±º
º®±³ ®»·¼»²¬ò
â ̸» ͵»¬½¸ д¿² ©¿ ¼»ª»´±°»¼ ·² ´·²» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» °®·²½·°´» ±º ¬¸»
λ²»©¿´ Ю±¹®¿³ô ¬¿µ·²¹ ·²¬± ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±² ¬¸» ±°°±®¬«²·¬·» ¿²¼
½±²¬®¿·²¬ ±º ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ·¬»ô ·²½´«¼·²¹æ
� Þ«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬ ¬®¿²·¬·±² � °´¿½·²¹ ¬¸» ´±©»¬ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ·²
¿®»¿ ©¸»®» ¬¸» ´¿²¼ ¾±®¼»® »¨·¬·²¹ ¸±«» ¿²¼ ¸»®·¬¿¹»
¿®»¿ô ©·¬¸ ¬¿´´»® ¾«·´¼·²¹ ´±½¿¬»¼ ·² ´» »²·¬·ª» ¿®»¿ò
� ׳°®±ª»¼ ±°»² °¿½» � °®±ª·¼·²¹ °«¾´·½ ±°»² °¿½» º±® ¬¸»
´±½¿´ ½±³³«²·¬§ ©·¬¸ ¹±±¼ ½±²²»½¬·±² ¬± Ó±´»©±®¬¸ ¿²¼
ß¾¾±¬º±®¼ ͬ®»»¬ò
� л¼»¬®·¿² ½±²²»½¬·±² � »²¸¿²½·²¹ °»¼»¬®·¿² ½±²²»½¬·±²
¾»¬©»»² ɱ±¼ ͬ®»»¬ ¿²¼ Ó±´»©±®¬¸ ͬ®»»¬ô ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸»
²»© ±°»² °¿½»ò
� Ý¿¬»®·²¹ º±® ´±½¿´ ²»»¼ ó °®±ª·¼·²¹ °¿½» º±® ½¿º» ¿²¼
±¬¸»® ¸±° ¬± ½¿¬»® º±® ´±½¿´ ²»»¼ ¿²¼ °®±ª·¼» ±°°±®¬«²·¬·»
º±® ±½·¿´··²¹ò
Ы¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¹®¿³ í
ïéðìðíïÁЫ¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¶»½¬ Ô¿®¹» ëçì¨èìï³³ÁÒ±®¬̧ Ó»¾́Áßï ̈ ç °¿¹»ÁÍ»°ïéÁÚ×ÒßÔò·²¼¼ í èñðçñïé ìæìî ÐÓ
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 4 - TOR 9 North Melbourne Story Boards PHRP SUBMISSION 172
55 of 67
̸» Í«°°±®¬·²¹ ܱ½«³»²¬
â ̸» °®±°±»¼ °´¿²²·²¹ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¸¿ ¾»»² ¼»ª»´±°»¼ º±´´±©·²¹ ¿
¼»·¹²ó´»¼ °®±½»ò
â ̸» «°°±®
¿»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¿² Ë®¾¿² Ü»·¹² Ú®¿³»©±®µò
â ̸» Ü»·¹² Ú®¿³»©±®µ � ¿ °¸§·½¿´ ·²¬»®°®»¬¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ª··±² ¿²¼
¼±½«³»²¬ô Ü»·¹² Ю·²½·°´» ¿²¼ ½±²«´¬¿¬·±² º»»¼¾¿½µ ¿²¼
®»°±²¼ ¬± ·¬» ±°°±®¬«²·¬·» ¿²¼ ½±²¬®¿·²¬ò ̸» Ú®¿³»©±®µ
°®±ª·¼» ¿ ¼»·¹² ®»°±²» ¬±æ
� Þ«·´¬ º±®³ � ¸±©·²¹ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸»·® ¼·¬¿²½» º®±³
¾±«²¼¿®·» ±² ¬¸» ·¬»ò
� ײ¬»®²¿´ ½±²²»½¬·±² ¿²¼ ³±ª»³»²¬ ²»¬©±®µ � ¸±©·²¹ ¸±©
½¿®ô °»±°´» ¿²¼ ¾·½§½´» ³¿§ ³±ª» ·²¬± ¿²¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» ·¬»ò
� ß³»²·¬§ � ¿¼¼®»» ¿½½» ¬± «²´·¹¸¬ô ±°»² °¿½»ô ª·»© ¿²¼
·¬» ¿º»¬§ô ¼®·ª»² ¾§ ¬¸» «®¾¿² ¼»·¹²ò
� п®µ·²¹ � ¸±©·²¹ ©¸»®» ¿²¼ ¸±© ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ ²«³¾»® ±º
°¿®µ·²¹ °¿½» ½¿² ¾» ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼ ±² ·¬»ò
� Ô¿²¼½¿°» � ¸±©·²¹ °®»»®ª¿¬·±² ±º ½«®®»²¬ ¬®»» ¿²¼ ¿®»¿
©¸»®» ²»© ¬®»» ³¿§ ¾» °´¿²¬»¼ò
â ̸» ¼±½«³»²¬ ¿´± ¸±© §±« ·² ©¸·½¸ ¼·®»½¬·±² ¸¿¼±© ©·´´ º¿´´ ¿¬
¼·ºº»®»²¬ ¬·³» ±º ¬¸» ¼¿§ò
Ы¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¹®¿³ ì
ïéðìðíïÁЫ¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¶»½¬ Ô¿®¹» ëçì¨èìï³³ÁÒ±®¬̧ Ó»¾́Áßï ̈ ç °¿¹»ÁÍ»°ïéÁÚ×ÒßÔò·²¼¼ ì èñðçñïé ìæìî ÐÓ
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 4 - TOR 9 North Melbourne Story Boards PHRP SUBMISSION 172
56 of 67
â Ú±´´±©·²¹ °«¾´·½ ®»°±²» ¬± ¬¸» ±®·¹·²¿´ ¼»·¹² ¿²¼ ©·¼»® º»»¼¾¿½µ
¿¾±«¬ »¼«½¿¬·±²¿´ ²»»¼ ·² ¬¸» ½±³³
½¸¿²¹» ¬± ¬¸» ¼»·¹² ±º ¬¸» ·¬»ò
â º ´¿²¼ ø¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ëôëðð³î÷ ¸¿ ¾»»²
®»»®ª»¼ º±® ¿ ²»© ½¸±±´ô ©·¬¸ ¿½½» ¬± Ó±´»©±®¬¸ ͬ®»»¬ò
̸» ¬§°» ±º »¼«½¿¬·±²¿´ º¿½·´·¬·» ¬± ¾» °®±ª·¼»¼ ©·´´ ¾» ¼»½·¼»¼
º±´´±©·²¹ º«®¬¸»® ½±²«´¬¿¬·±² ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ½±³³«²·¬§ ¿²¼ »¼«½¿¬±®ò
â É»�ª» ®»¼«½»¼ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ ²±© ¸¿ª» ³±®» ½»®¬¿·²¬§ ¿¾±«¬
¬¸» ´±½¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸»» ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ©¸»®» ¬¸» ±°»² °¿½» ©·´´ ¾»
©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ²»© ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Þ«·´¼·²¹ ¾»¬©»»² í ó ïî ¬±®»§ ©»®»
±®·¹·²¿´´§ °®±°±»¼å ¸»·¹¸¬ ¸¿ª» ²±© ¾»»² ®»¼«½»¼ ¬± ¾»¬©»»²
í ¿²¼ ç ¬±®»§ò
â Ò»¿®¾§ ¸»®·¬¿¹» ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ¬¿µ»² ·²¬± ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²ô
©·¬¸ ¿ ¬»°°·²¹ ¼±©² ±º ¬¸» ¸»·¹¸¬ ±º °®±°±»¼ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¿¬ ¬¸»
»¼¹» ±º ¬¸» ·¬»ò
â ̸» Ø¿®¼©·½µ» ͬ®»»¬ ´¿²»©¿§ô »¨¬»²·±² ±º ɱ±¼ ͬ®»»¬ ¿²¼ ¿
²»© »¿¬ó©»¬ ®±¿¼ ®»¼«½» ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ±º ²»© ª»¸·½´» ¿½½»
°±·²¬ ±²¬± ß¾¾±¬º±®¼ ô Ó±´»©±®¬¸ ¿²¼ Ø¿·²» ͬ®»»¬ò Ý¿®
°¿®µ·²¹ º±® ¬¸» ²»© ¸±³» ©·´´ ¿´´ ¾» ¿½½»»¼ º®±³ ·²·¼» ¬¸» ·¬»ò
× Ò Ü × Ý ßÌ × Ê Û × Ó ßÙÛ Ñ Ò ÔÇ
ɸ¿¬ ¸¿ ½¸¿²¹»¼ ·²½» ¬¸» µ»¬½¸ °´¿²á
Ы¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¹®¿³ ë
ïéðìðíïÁЫ¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¶»½¬ Ô¿®¹» ëçì¨èìï³³ÁÒ±®¬̧ Ó»¾́Áßï ̈ ç °¿¹»ÁÍ»°ïéÁÚ×ÒßÔò·²¼¼ ë èñðçñïé ìæìî ÐÓ
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 4 - TOR 9 North Melbourne Story Boards PHRP SUBMISSION 172
57 of 67
Ю±°±»¼ д¿²²·²¹ ß³»²¼³»²¬
â ̸»» ¿®» ¬¸» ¬»½¸²·½¿´ ¼±½«³»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ·³°´»³»²¬ ½¸¿²¹» ¬±
¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ó»´¾±«®²»� °´¿²²·²¹ ®«´»ô »²¿¾´·²¹ ¬¸» ®»²»©¿´ ±º
¬¸» Ò±®¬¸ Ó»´¾±«®²» ·¬» ¿²¼ ·²½´«¼»æ
� 릱²·²¹ � ׬ · °®±°±»¼ ¬± ®»¦±²» ¬¸» ·¬» ¬± �³·¨»¼ó«»�ò
̸· ¿´´±© ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ ¹·ª» ¿°°®±ª¿´
º±® ±¬¸»® ¿³»²·¬·» «½¸ ¿ ¿ ½¿º7 ±® ³¿´´ ¸±°ò
� Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ д¿² Ѫ»®´¿§ � ̸· · ¬¸» ¼±½«³»²¬ ¬¸¿¬
©·´´ °®±ª·¼» ¬¸» ´·³·¬ ±² ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ »¬¾¿½µò
ß Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ д¿² ²»»¼ ¬± ¾» °®»°¿®»¼ ¾»º±®» °´¿²²·²¹
°»®³··±² ½¿² ¾» ¹®¿²¬»¼ º±® ¿ ²»© ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò ̸» °´¿² »¬
±«¬ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ³¿¬¬»® ¬¸¿¬ ©·´´ ²»»¼ ¬± ¾» ½±²·¼»®»¼ô «½¸ ¿æ
� ß ¬®¿²°±®
� ß² »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ·¬» ¿»³»²¬
� ß² »½±´±¹·½¿´´§ «¬¿·²¿¾´» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °´¿² ¿²¼å
� ß ´¿²¼½¿°» ¿²¼ ±°»² °¿½» °´¿²
� п®µ·²¹ Ѫ»®´¿§ � ß°°´·» ¿ ¸±«»ó¬±ó½¿®°¿®µ ®¿¬·± º±® ¬¸»
»²¹·²»»®·²¹ ¿»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ®¿¬·± ¬¸¿¬ ¿°°´·» ¬± ²»¿®¾§
¿®»¿ ·² ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ó»´¾±«®²»ò
� λ°±²·¾´» ß«¬¸±®·¬§ � ׬ · °®±°±»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ó·²·¬»® º±®
д¿²²·²¹ ¾»½±³» ¬¸» °»®±² ®»°±²·¾´» º±® ³¿µ·²¹ ¿´´
¼»½··±² ±² ¿ º«¬«®» °´¿²²·²¹ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ¿¬ ¬¸» ·¬»ò
� Ѭ¸»® °®±½»¼«®¿´ ·¬»³ � ß² Û¨°´¿²¿¬±®§ λ°±®¬ ¼»¬¿·´·²¹
¬¸» °´¿²²·²¹ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ô ½¸¿²¹» ¬± °´¿²²·²¹ ³¿° ¿²¼
¿¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª» ·«»ò
â ̸»» ¿®» ¬¸» µ»§ ¼±½«³»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ͬ¿²¼·²¹ ß¼ª·±®§ ݱ³³·¬¬»»
©·´´ ¾» ¿»·²¹ ¿²¼ ³¿µ·²¹ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ±²ò
̸· ½±³³·¬¬»» ¸¿ ¾»»² ¿°°±·²¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ó·²·¬»® º±® д¿²²·²¹
¬± ½±²·¼»® ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °´¿²²·²¹ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ò
Ы¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¹®¿³ ê
ïéðìðíïÁЫ¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¶»½¬ Ô¿®¹» ëçì¨èìï³³ÁÒ±®¬̧ Ó»¾́Áßï ̈ ç °¿¹»ÁÍ»°ïéÁÚ×ÒßÔò·²¼¼ ê èñðçñïé ìæìî ÐÓ
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 4 - TOR 9 North Melbourne Story Boards PHRP SUBMISSION 172
58 of 67
̸» íÜ ×³¿¹»
â ̸»» ·³¿¹» ¿®» ¿² ¿®¬·¬·½ ·³°®»·±² ±º ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬
¿²¼ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ¼»·¹²»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» °¿®¿³»¬»® »¬ ¾§ ¬¸»
Ü»·¹² Ú®¿³»©±®µò
â ̸»§ ½±²·¼»® ´±½¿´ ½¸¿®¿½¬»®ô «®®±«²¼·²¹ ´¿²¼½¿°»
¿²¼ ¿®½¸·¬»½¬«®»ô ¿²¼ °±·¾´» ¾«·´¼·²¹ ³¿¬»®·¿´ò
Ы¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¹®¿³ é
ïéðìðíïÁЫ¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¶»½¬ Ô¿®¹» ëçì¨èìï³³ÁÒ±®¬̧ Ó»¾́Áßï ̈ ç °¿¹»ÁÍ»°ïéÁÚ×ÒßÔò·²¼¼ é èñðçñïé ìæìî ÐÓ
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 4 - TOR 9 North Melbourne Story Boards PHRP SUBMISSION 172
59 of 67
Ò»¨¬ ͬ»°
Û¨¸·¾·¬·±² ±º ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ °´¿²²·²¹ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ · «²¼»®©¿§ ¿²¼
©·´´ º±®³¿´´§ ½±²½´«¼» ±² îð Í»°¬»³¾»® îðïéò DZ« ¿®» ·²ª·¬»¼ ¬±
½±²·¼»® ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °®±°±¿´ ¿²¼ ³¿µ» ¿ «¾³··±² ¬± ¬¸»
ͬ¿²¼·²¹ ß¼ª·±®§ ݱ³³·¬¬»»ò DZ«�´´ ¿´± ¸¿ª» ¬¸» ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ ¬±
»´»½¬ ¬± ¾» ¸»¿®¼ ¿¬ ¬¸» ͬ¿²¼·²¹ ß¼ª·±®§ ݱ³³·¬¬»» Ø»¿®·²¹ò
Ô»¬¬»® ©»®» »²¬ ¬± îððð °®±°»®¬·» ¿¼ª··²¹ ±º ¬¸» «¾³··±²
°®±½»ò Ú«´´ ¼»¬¿·´ ±² ¸±© ¬± ³¿µ» ¿ «¾³··±² ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¼»½··±²
³¿µ·²¹ °®±½» · ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ±²´·²» ¿¬ ©©©ò°´¿²²·²¹òª·½ò¹±ªò¿«ñ¸®°
̸· ½±²«´¬¿¬·±² °®±½» · ¾»·²¹ ³¿²¿¹»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬
±º Û²ª·®±²³»²¬ô Ô¿²¼ô É¿¬»® ¿²¼ д¿²²·²¹ ±² ¾»¸¿´º ±º д¿²²·²¹
п²»´ Ê·½¬±®·¿ò
Ы¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ¬± ½±²·¼»® ¿´´ «¾³··±² ®»½»·ª»¼ ©·´´ ½±³³»²½»
±² îí ѽ¬±¾»® îðïéò
Ы¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¹®¿³ è
ïéðìðíïÁЫ¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¶»½¬ Ô¿®¹» ëçì¨èìï³³ÁÒ±®¬̧ Ó»¾́Áßï ̈ ç °¿¹»ÁÍ»°ïéÁÚ×ÒßÔò·²¼¼ è èñðçñïé ìæìî ÐÓ
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 4 - TOR 9 North Melbourne Story Boards PHRP SUBMISSION 172
60 of 67
Ó·²·¬»®� д»¼¹»
Ñ«® °®±³·» ¬± §±«æ
â DZ« ¸¿ª
â DZ« ©·´´ ½¸±±» ©¸»®» §±« ³±ª» ¬±ò
â DZ«® ·²½±³» ¿²¼ »´·¹·¾·´·¬§ ©·´´ ²±¬ ¾» ®»¿»»¼ ¿ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±½»ò
â DZ«® ®»²¬ ©·´´ ²±¬ ½¸¿²¹»ô ·º §±«® ½·®½«³¬¿²½» ¸¿ª» ²±¬ ½¸¿²¹»¼ò
â É» ©·´´ ¿°°´§ ¿´´ °®±½»» º¿·®´§ò
â É» ©·´´ ¬¿´µ ¬± §±« ¿¾±«¬ §±«® ²»»¼ò
â ݱ²·¼»® §±«® ²»»¼ ¾»º±®» ±ºº»®·²¹ §±« ±°¬·±² ¬± ³±ª» ¬± ¿²±¬¸»® ¸±³»ò
â É» ©·´´ °¿§ ¬¸» ®»¿±²¿¾´» ½±¬ ·²½«®®»¼ ©¸»² §±« ®»´±½¿¬»ô ¿²¼ ·º §±«
³±ª» ¾¿½µ ¬± ¬¸» »¬¿¬»ò
Ы¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¹®¿³ ç
ïéðìðíïÁЫ¾´·½ ر«·²¹ λ²»©¿´ Ю±¶»½¬ Ô¿®¹» ëçì¨èìï³³ÁÒ±®¬̧ Ó»¾́Áßï ̈ ç °¿¹»ÁÍ»°ïéÁÚ×ÒßÔò·²¼¼ ç èñðçñïé ìæìî ÐÓ
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 4 - TOR 9 North Melbourne Story Boards PHRP SUBMISSION 172
61 of 67
Quick Facts
• 210 new public dwellings
• 15 social (community) housingdwellings
• 497 private dwellings
• Retention and upgrade of twohigh rise towers containingover 200 public housingdwellings
• New community facilitiesincluding a café* and socialenterprise
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 5 - TOR 11 Fact Sheets
Project Profile:Kensington Estate Redevelopment
Objectives
When the Kensington Estate Redevelopment Strategy was approved in August 1999, the stated objectives included:
• achievement of the highest possible dwelling yield on site, subject to a number of criteria including urban design
and site planning principles
• most of the new public housing dwellings on site (81 per cent) to have one or two bedrooms, with flexibility to
accommodate those with disabilities and different types of households
• overall density to be higher than the surrounding area, with a yield of about 650 (additional) dwellings
• integration of new public and private dwellings, with 30 to 40 per cent of new housing to be public housing
• complementary stock acquisition to maintain public housing numbers in the region.
About the project
• The original Kensington public housing estate covered a six hectare site
bounded by Kensington Road and Altona, Ormond and Derby Streets.
• It was built between 1957 and 1971 as part of the Housing
Commission’s ‘slum clearance’ program.
• On completion in 1971, the Kensington estate provided 738 public
housing dwellings for people on low incomes (three 12-storey high-rise
towers containing 360 dwellings and 14 walk-up blocks containing 378
dwellings). Three quarters of the dwellings were designated for families
and a quarter for older people.
• Over subsequent decades, a number of social and economic factors led
to demographic changes in the estate and surrounding area. By March
1998 the population of the estate had reduced to 1,800, just sixty per cent of the population when it was first
constructed, suggesting significant underutilisation of stock.
• The original make-up of the estate was considered to no longer meet the community needs and changing
demographic of the area (and the demand on the public housing waiting list). Other social factors associated with
high-rise public housing estates were also considered to be an issue.
• Successive governments in the 1980s and early 1990s actively considered redevelopment of the
Kensington estate. While significant upgrading works were undertaken by the Labor government in the early
1980s, including improvements to security, communal areas and conversion of some bedsitter units to larger one-
bedroom apartments1, no major redevelopment was undertaken.
• In March 1998, the then Housing Minister announced the demolition of the high-rise tower at 72 Derby Street and
the establishment of the Kensington Estate Advisory Committee to consider strategies for redevelopment of the
rest of the site.
1 This resulted in a net loss of 53 dwellings on the estate, so that by 1998 just before redevelopment the total dwellings on the estate was 694,comprising 316 dwellings in three high rise towers and 14 blocks of walk-up s containing 378 dwellings.
* Developed by Urban Communities Ltd (now called Unison) using government grant funding under AMES scheme, after completion of main siteredevelopment
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
62 of 67
Project Profile: Kensington Estate Redevelopment Page 2 of 6
• The Committee made a number of recommendations as part of their Kensington Estate Redevelopment Strategy
Final Report, which were endorsed by the then Housing Minister. In September 1999, the incoming
Labor Government adopted the report and confirmed the development would proceed.
• In December 2001, following a tender process, the Premier announced Becton as the successful developer for
the project. A development agreement with Becton signed in July 2002.
• Work on the redevelopment took place over 10 stages between 2002 and 2012. A detailed timeline is below.
Completion date / current status
• The completion of the Kensington Estate redevelopment was announced by the then Housing Minister in
April 2012.
• The total number of dwelling demolished in the redevelopment was 486 (14 walk-up blocks and one high-rise).
• In addition, public housing dwellings in the two retained high-rise buildings were upgraded under a separate
initiative, providing new kitchens, new bathrooms, new paint and carpet and improved security and environmental
efficiency. Conversion of some three-bedroom dwellings to one bedroom dwellings was also undertaken.
• On completion, the redevelopment delivered a total of 939 dwellings, including 225 new social housing dwellings,
497 new private housing dwellings and 2172 upgraded public housing dwellings in the two high rise towers.
• Other outcomes of the re-development included:
– improved physical amenity and quality of dwellings, including a minimum 5-star energy rating in new buildings
– re-integration of the estate into the local Kensington area: physical boundaries of the former site were
removed and new townhouses and apartments complement the design of the surrounding neighbourhood
– newly landscaped open space, recreation areas and children’s playgrounds
– introduction of an innovative place management model whereby a single, on-site organisation provides private
rental and public housing tenancy management, owners corporation and facilities management, and
community building activities in an integrated service offering
– changed perception of the estate among tenants and members of the surrounding neighbourhood
– reduced stigma experienced by public housing tenants.
Timeline
• April-Sept 1998 - relocation of residents from 72 Derby Street high rise tower
• High-rise tower was demolished in 1999
• September 2000 to October 2002 - relocation of tenants from 378 walk-up flats
• February 2003 - demolition works on the walk ups completed
• August 2003 - construction of new dwellings commences, following site works
• Aug - Sept 2004 - completion of 20 public housing dwellings at 59-63 Kensington Road and first residents return.
• July-July 2005 - completion of 97 public housing dwellings at 78 Clifford Terrace
• September 2005 - completion of 11 public housing dwellings at 65 Kensington Road
• June 2008 - completion of 10 public housing dwellings at 78 Altona Street
• June 2009 - completion of 20 dwellings at 60 Altona Street (8 dwellings) and 100 Ormond Street (12 dwellings)
• June 2010 - completion of 16 public housing dwellings at 70 Derby Street and 15 community housing dwellings at
80 Ormond Street
• November 2011 - completion of 22 public housing dwellings at 50 Clifford terrace
• April 2012 - completion of final 12 public housing dwellings at 30 Clifford terrace, project completion announced.
2 Subsequent upgrades and reconfiguration has increased the current number of dwellings in the two retained high rise buildings to 228.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
63 of 67
NB: Highlighted references are not publicly available; the Carlton baseline study was published online but is no longeraccessible.
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 5 - TOR 11 Fact Sheets
Project Profile:Carlton Housing Redevelopment
Objectives:
The 2007 Development Plan incorporated the following objectives for the Carlton Housing Redevelopment:
• Integrate the site with the local neighbourhood – to be achieved through scale, design, sightlines, sensitivity
to neighbourhood character and heritage and introducing a mix of social and private housing on the sites.
• Achieve a high level of urban design – focussing on the landscaping and building layout to include best
practice for ecological sustainable design, crime reduction, spatial location, shadowing and visual impact as well
as accessibility for tenants and local area residents.
• Design modern, efficient building and units – emphasising the architectural and build quality and accessibility
of the buildings and units.
• Ensure the re-developed sites continue to meet community needs – maintaining level of social housing along
with private housing and incorporating infrastructure that facilitates community building and the general health
and wellbeing of tenants.
About the project
• The Carlton Housing Redevelopment covers three sites totalling
7.4 hectares and comprising:
– Lygon/Rathdowne site: bounded by Lygon Street, Princes Street,
Drummond Street, Neill Street and Rathdowne Street, Carlton;
– Elgin/Nicholson Street site: bounded by Nicholson Street, Elgin Street,
Canning Street and Palmerston Street
– Keppel/Cardigan site (the former Queen Elizabeth Centre): bounded
by Keppel Street, Cardigan Street, Cemetery Road East and
Swanston Street.
• Before redevelopment in 2006, the Carlton public housing estates
provided of 1036 dwellings for people on low incomes, including:
– Lygon and Rathdowne site: 136 three-bedroom walk-up dwellings and
648 high rise dwellings
– Elgin and Nicholson site: 56 three-bedroom walk-up dwellings and 196
high rise dwellings
– Keppel and Cardigan site: no social housing but contained heritage
buildings including the Queen Elizabeth Centre women’s refuge and
maternal health centre, which was unoccupied since 1998.
• The need for demolition and redevelopment of the walk-up dwellings had
been considered for some time: the walk-ups had not been upgraded
except for responsive maintenance since their construction in the 1960s.
• A 1995 audit of the Lygon/Rathdowne Precinct highlighted the poor
condition of the buildings as well as concerns about security, privacy and accessibility as a result of the out-dated
design. The Elgin/Nicholson walk-ups were built at a similar time and were in a similar state of disrepair. This was
re-confirmed in a 2001 review of the site.
Quick Facts
• 246 new public housingapartments to replace 192 olddwellings
• 847 new apartments for privatesale
• 4 new public parks and upgradeof the Neill Street reserve to apark
• 3 children’s playgrounds
• New community facilities andcommunity gardens
• A community wellbeing precinctthat provides:
- 168 bed aged care centrerun by Australian Unity
- rehabilitation services
- child care
- a range of complimentaryservices for use by thebroader Carlton community
• 181 independent livingdwellings on land sold toAustralian Unity
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
64 of 67
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 5 - TOR 11 Fact Sheets
Project Profile: Carlton Housing Redevelopment Page 4 of 6
• Studies also concluded that the three-bedroom dwellings were no longer matched to community need, with
smaller household sizes driving demand for more one and two-bedroom dwellings.
• The Carlton Housing Redevelopment was initiated by the commitment made in 2000 by the then
Minister for Housing to redevelop the Rathdowne Street and Elgin Street walk-ups.
• Various options were considered in the light of strategic and policy directions of both state and local government
at the time including: Growing Victoria Together (2001), Office of Housing Asset Management Plan 2003/04 to
2007/08, Melbourne 2030 and City Plan 2010.
• The redevelopment plan was subsequently broadened to include other Director of Housing owned properties in
Carlton and to achieve greater benefits for the wider Carlton community, including housing for older persons to
meet the growing demand for aged care facilities in a well-located suburb and the introduction of community
wellbeing facilities.
• A Development Plan was approved by the Minister for Planning in 2007 following a public consultation period
under the guidance of a Community Liaison Committee.
• Following an Expression of Interest and Request for Proposal tendering process, a Development Agreement was
signed in September 2009 with Living Carlton Consortium comprising Australand Carlton Pty Ltd and Citta
Property Group.
• The development is being undertaken over nine stages, as set out under timing below.
Completion date / current status
• Six stages of the redevelopment have been completed, delivering 246 public dwellings across the three sites, an
increase of 54 dwellings. This does not include the aged care accommodation facilities.
• As at October 2017, 663 private dwellings have been constructed with a further 184 in the planning pipeline.
• The total number of dwellings delivered through the redevelopment to date is therefore 909 new public and
private dwellings, in addition to 8181 retained public housing dwellings in the high-rise towers.
• The current estimated completion date for the private component is November 2020.
Timeline
• June 2011 – completion of Stage 1, 84 public and 90 private dwellings on the Lygon/Rathdowne Streets site
• September 2012 – completion of Stage 2, 50 public and 98 private dwellings on the Keppel/Cardigan Streets site
• April 2014 – completion of Stage 3, 112 public and 120 private dwellings on the Elgin/Nicholson Streets site, and
Stage 5a, the Australian Unity Aged Care centre and Wellbeing Centre
• Dec 2014 – completion of Stage 9, 110 private dwellings on the Lygon/Rathdowne Streets site
• Dec 2015 – completion of Stages 4 and 8, 102 private dwellings on the Keppel/Cardigan Streets site
• March 2017 – completion of Stage 6, 143 private dwellings on the Lygon/Rathdowne Streets site
• April 2017 – completion of Stage 5b, 96 Australian Unity Independent Living units
• January 2018– expected commencement of Stage 7a, 69 private dwellings facing Palmerston Street on the
Elgin/Nicholson Street site; planning permit achieved for Stage 5c, comprising a further 85 Australian Unity
Independent Living and Aged Care Units
• Late 2018 – expected commencement of Stage 7b on the Elgin/Nicholson Streets site consisting of 115 private
dwellings, subject to planning approval.
1 Subsequent upgrades and remodelling has reduced the number of high rise dwellings in the Lygon / Rathdowne precinct to 622,the Elgin/Nicholson precinct has 196 high rise dwellings.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
65 of 67
Quick Facts
• Demolition of 24 walk-up
dwellings
• Construction of 188 new
public housing dwellings
• A new playground and park
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 5 - TOR 11 Fact Sheets
Project Profile:
Prahran Horace Petty Estate
Objectives
The stated priorities for the Horace Petty Estate redevelopment were:
• facilitate a sustainable and vibrant community
• create well-designed housing, facilities and outdoor spaces
• re-integrate the estates with neighbouring areas
• incorporate environmentally sustainable design
• incorporate accessible design principles
• be capable of delivery and long term economic success.
About the project
• The Horace Petty estate, also known as “the Prahran Housing Estate”, is public housing bounded by Malvern and
Surrey Roads and Bray, Simmons Streets, in South Yarra.
• It was one of Melbourne’s first high-rise estates, built during the 1960s and early 1970s, when the
Housing Commission of Victoria developed a large number of medium-density and high-rise estates in the inner
city, including the neighbouring estates at King, Bangs and Essex Streets.
• The Horace Petty Estate was completed in 1967 and provided well-located public housing in inner Melbourne for
Victorians on low incomes.
• Over time the layout of the estates, the design of housing and outdoor spaces and the sites’ physical separation
from their surrounds (links to existing streets were blocked when the sites were redeveloped) has contributed to
the isolation of many social housing residents.
• The profile of social housing need has also changed: on project completion in 1967 the Horace Petty estate
accommodated 2,449 people in 624 flats; by the 2011 census, the site housed just 1,168 people in 624 flats,
suggesting an increase in single person or small group households and resulting in under-occupancy.
• The needs of social housing residents also changed over the 40 year period, with an increase in older people and
people with disabilities; the housing and facilities were no longer well matched to need and did not support people
to remain independent or age in place.
• In August 2009, the State Government negotiated funding of $175.3 million from the Federal Government under
the Housing Affordability Fund to redevelop a number of walk-up public housing dwellings which included the
dwellings on the Prahran estate. The funding was contingent on development of a Masterplan to guide future
renewal for the balance of each of the estates.
• In October 2010, the Minister for Planning at the time, as the Responsible Planning Authority, approved a
planning amendment for the redevelopment project at Prahran.
• Building commenced in 2011 and was completed in 2013.
Current status
• The redevelopment project on the south-east corner of the Horace Petty Estate (Malvern and Surrey Roads) was
completed in 2013. It involved demolition of 24 walk-up apartments, which were replaced by 188 new public
housing dwellings, owned and managed by the Director of Housing.
• It included construction of a new playground and park.
• An existing 13-storey Z-shaped social housing tower that incorporated 108 dwellings was retained.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
66 of 67
DHHS Inquiry Submission Attachment 5 - TOR 11 Fact Sheets
Project Profile: Horace Petty Estate, Stage 1 Page 6 of 6
Prahran Estate Renewal Masterplan
• The development of the renewal plan for the rest of the Horace Petty Estate was a condition attached to the
Commonwealth Housing Affordability Fund grant.
• There was a three-phase stakeholder engagement process to guide the planning process:
– Phase one to begin developing the plans was conducted between September and October 2011 and included
background studies and consultation with the community on the renewal priorities.
– Phase two to seek community and stakeholder feedback on two draft masterplans that were produced as a
result of phase one was conducted between May and July 2014. The plans presented key concepts and ideas.
– Phase three was conducted between August and September 2015 and used the outputs and feedback from
the first two phases to finalise the plan.
• In August 2013, in response to feedback from community members, the City of Stonnington and the Victorian
Government Architect, the Victorian Government broadened the masterplan for the Horace Petty estate to include
neighbouring social housing estates at Bangs, Essex and King Streets.
• The inclusion of the smaller Prahran estates provided the potential to improve housing, outdoor spaces, facilities
and overall amenity across the whole precinct – not just Horace Petty estate. It also provided the opportunity to
better connect all of the Prahran estates with the surrounding neighbourhoods and to more effectively stage the
renewal process over time.
• The Masterplan encompassing all the Prahran estates (Horace Petty, Bangs, King and Essex Streets) was
submitted for approval in January 2016 and approved by the Minister for Planning in December 2016.
• The Bangs Street site forms part of the current Public Housing Renewal Program.
PHRP SUBMISSION 172
67 of 67