However, concerns were raised about how to deliver improved housing affordability and better environmental management. There was broad support for Plan Melbourne showing leadership in relation to the impacts and mitigation of climate change. It was felt that the key elements raised in this chapter must be integrated and embedded throughout Plan Melbourne 2016 as is critical. ‘future proofing’ There was support for the recognition of a partnership with local government. They also wanted a clearer explanation of the intended roles of local governments, and of the proposed Victorian Planning Authority. Figure 6 located here shows the level of support for housing, climate change, people, place and identity and partnerships with local government as key concepts across different submitter categories 3 Delivering jobs and investment Chapter 3 of the discussion paper dealt with how Plan Melbourne 2016 could help support jobs and investment. It sought feedback about, among other things: planning for the expanded central city to ensure commercial development opportunities are preserved renaming and planning national employment clusters updating the designation of some activity centres and reviewing planning boundaries for some national employment clusters planning tools to protect strategic agricultural land protecting extractive industries. 3.1 Preserving commercial development opportunities A few submitters recognised the need to ensure that land for commercial uses is preserved in the central city urban renewal precincts. 3.2 National employment clusters The discussion paper included two alternative options: planning for national employment clusters on core institutions and ‘Focus businesses’ (option A) a broader approach to planning for national employment clusters ‘Take that looks beyond the core institutions and B). businesses’ (option Of the 65 responses, 86% preferred option B, indicating support for broadening the approach to planning for national employment clusters by looking beyond the core institutions and businesses. There was also support for changing their name to national employment and innovation clusters. However, many submitters also felt that the specialisations on which clusters are based needed to be supported, and that emerging start-ups and other innovation employment opportunities also needed support.
However, concerns were raised about how to deliver improved housing affordability and better environmental management. There was broad support for Plan Melbourne showing leadership in relation to the impacts and mitigation of climate change. It was felt that the key elements raised in this chapter must be integrated and embedded throughout Plan Melbourne 2016 as ‘future proofing’ is critical. There was support for the recognition of a partnership with local government. They also wanted a clearer explanation of the intended roles of local governments, and of the proposed Victorian Planning Authority. Figure 6 located here shows the level of support for housing, climate change, people, place and identity and partnerships with local government as key concepts across different submitter categories 3 Delivering jobs and investment Chapter 3 of the discussion paper dealt with how Plan Melbourne 2016 could help support jobs and investment. It sought feedback about, among other things: planning for the expanded central city to ensure commercial development opportunities are preserved renaming and planning national employment clusters updating the designation of some activity centres and reviewing planning boundaries for some national employment clusters planning tools to protect strategic agricultural land protecting extractive industries. 3.1 Preserving commercial development opportunities A few submitters recognised the need to ensure that land for commercial uses is preserved in the central city urban renewal precincts. 3.2 National employment clusters The discussion paper included two alternative options: ‘Focus planning for national employment clusters on core institutions and businesses’ (option A) ‘Take a broader approach to planning for national employment clusters that looks beyond the core institutions and businesses’ (option B). Of the 65 responses, 86% preferred option B, indicating support for broadening the approach to planning for national employment clusters by looking beyond the core institutions and businesses. There was also support for changing their name to national employment and innovation clusters. However, many submitters also felt that the specialisations on which clusters are based needed to be supported, and that emerging start-ups and other innovation employment opportunities also needed support.
Plan-Melbourne-refresh-Summary-of-submissions-report-word-accessible-version.docx