John Cicero
10 February 2025

In recent months, I have been reading and listening to opinion pieces on the “housing crisis” and more recently on initiatives at both Federal and State level on how to fix the problem. Let me give you my perspective. 

I will start with the recent announcement by the Victorian Government. 

The first point that I make is that it is not revolutionary policy of encouraging greater density within our activity centres, it has been policy of both major parties for at least 25 years.

Some activity centres are a manifestation of that policy. For example, Box Hill, Moonee Ponds, Forrest Hill and Footscray, to name a few. However, the vast majority of activity centres have not densified notwithstanding this policy, and often despite specific controls promoting such densification. An example is Werribee where the activity centre, centred around a train station (with a direct train into Melbourne taking less than 40 minutes) has seen one midrise building of 12 storeys develop, notwithstanding specific controls that are about 10 years old. Interestingly, that building was developed on Council owned land after Council made a commitment to take a number of the floors within the building which I am reliably told are largely unoccupied. 

So, the Government’s recent announcement should be seen as an attempt to implement policy as opposed as to new policy, but the policy outcomes have to be delivered and they will not be delivered by the State Government. They will be delivered by the Private Sector. 

There is little point in putting colours on a map and creating a policy, or control narrative, to facilitate the densification of activity centres, if the Private Sector cannot deliver the built forms outcomes that are envisaged by such policy or controls. 

Accordingly, the starting point for Government should have been consultation with the Private Sector to see whether or not 10-20 storey buildings in the nominated activity centre could or would in fact be built and over what period of time. My advice from many of our experienced developers who would otherwise be the developers that the Government would be relying upon to deliver the policy outcomes is that, certainly in the short to medium term, there is little to no prospect of any critical mass of medium to high rise buildings contemplated by policy being delivered in these activity centres. The numbers just don’t “stack up” and are unlikely to unless there are some fundamental changes in other policy and workplace settings. Factors like the cost of construction, unionised labour, the continuing influence of the CMFEU, ESD aspirations, climate change, land cost, land assembly are factors in the mid to high rise space that are causing a dearth of cranes in our city and suburban skylines. 

There is no doubt in my mind that the most recent policy announcements in relation to densification of activity centres will not address the housing supply side of the equation. Certainly, not in the short to medium term. 

Let me now turn to the Victorian Liberal Opposition. The shadow Planning Minister’s immediate response to the policy announcement on activity centres was to say that it was going to destroy the character of our suburbs. That is a comment that is grounded in politics and not in planning. Let me be clear,the principle of greater densities within our activity centres and within a walkable catchment of a public transport asset is fundamentally a good policy. The challenge is how that policy can be delivered, particularly in the short to medium term. 

The response of the shadow Minister was, in my opinion, “policy on the run” but the Liberal opposition needs to do more than that and provide an alternate policy position that addresses the housing supply and affordability issue. Playing politics is not going to address those issues. 

So, where to from here? 

If we were living in a utopian world, then we would have a bipartisan approach on these issues. We do not and regrettably, the politicians will continue to make policy grounded in politics rather than planning. 

Here are some suggestions: – 

1. First of all, consult with the Private Sector to understand what the Private Sector can deliver in the short to medium term and where it can deliver a diversity of housing including affordable housing. 
2. When you have that information, then tailor policy and controls that will facilitate the delivery of the product that can be built by the Private Sector in the short to medium term.
3. On the basis of my conversations with a number of our developer clients, it is clear that 10-20 storey buildings, in most of the nominated activity centres, will simply not be able to be delivered within the short to medium term. It will be, at best, a “slow burn” for that outcome. 
4. What is deliverable is the attached dwelling/town house model and the low to medium rise apartments of 3-6 storeys, as has been delivered in a number of the activity centres and areas around the periphery of those centres. If that is the product that is deliverable within the short to medium term, implement policy and controls such as codification of ResCode to facilitate those outcomes. 
5. Do not abandon our greenfields. Melbourne’s competitive edge on housing supply and affordability was built on the back of greenfield development in its growth areas. This Government’s position on greenfields has seen Victoria slip behind States such as WA, SA, South East QLD and even NSW. Slowing down development in the greenfields is not the answer to this Government’s apparent obsession with a 70/30 split in favour of our established suburbs. 
6. Land is available to be developed. What is challenging is the provision of infrastructure in a timely manner and, in that regard, I believe that the recent announcement by the Federal opposition of investing in infrastructure in the greenfields is good policy. 
7. Lastly, we need a cultural shift at all levels of Government involved in the development approvals process. I have said and continue to say, that we need to make decision makers accountable. I think it is extremely important and will help to change the culture from one that has traditionally been prohibitive, into one that it is facilitative – as it is needed now more than ever.

I have no doubt that these changes would help the private sector to deliver on the outcomes that this community needs, particularly when it comes to housing.

I live in eternal hope.