Implementing Movement & Place 2.0 into Victorian Land use Planning
Movement & Place 2.0 is embedded in the Victorian planning system, but its practical implementation still raises questions for strategic planners. Many councils already apply the principles, yet aligning them with updated typologies and statutory mechanisms will be the next challenge. This article reflects on how Movement & Place operates and what still needs to be resolved from a strategic urban and land use planning perspective.
Having previously applied Movement & Place while working on the Activity Centre Program at DTP, I found it a practical framework for identifying land use, transport and urban design conflicts early and it also supported stakeholder collaboration. It is also simple enough for planners to apply at a high strategic level, with more detailed transport analysis and modelling undertaken where needed to stress-test options and feasibility. The current Guide is designed to support different practitioners and different levels of technical depth.
Like the Urban Design Guidelines 2.0, Movement & Place 2.0 can operate through both upstream strategic planning and downstream development assessment. So, the implementation matter is not whether it belongs upstream or downstream, but what decisions need to be made at what scale, by whom and at what time.
Operation of Movement & Place within the Victorian planning system
Movement & Place 2.0 is a policy guideline within the State Planning Policy Framework of the Victoria Planning Provisions. It supports the land use and transport objectives in Clause 18, including Clause 18.01-1S Land Use and Transport Integration, Clause 18.01-2S Transport System and Clause 18.02-4S Roads. These policies may be relevant to development proposals involving access and loading, street activation, public realm impacts, pedestrian priority, street layout and walkability, cycling networks, road interfaces, traffic impacts, road safety and public transport integration
Movement & Place directions can also inform Development Framework Plans and planning controls, particularly though Built form Overlays in which they are explicitly called out but also through other planning controls that support framework plans. Its influence can therefore extend from structure planning and planning scheme amendments into development assessment.
Making decisions at the right scale
The framework can be applied at different scales, and the Guide recognises application from individual streets and sites through corridors, precincts and regions.
Some decisions are inherently network‑scale — movement hierarchy, major connections, freight routes, public transport corridors and strategic cycling networks. Others sit at the precinct or corridor scale, including street classification, future place function, land‑use intensity and modal priorities. At the site scale, decisions become more specific: access, crossovers, loading, pedestrian interfaces and frontage design.
Planning authorities already recognise the importance of establishing Movement & Place directions at the municipal, network, corridor and precinct scale, particularly in areas undergoing change, because decisions made at these levels shape how impacts are understood and managed downstream. Although I haven’t completed a formal review of council adoption, many councils have already applied these principles, with others continuing to grow.
What happens when the strategic layer is missing?
If a development application is lodged where no broader Movement & Place work has been undertaken, and existing movement network plans are outdated it may create a situation where the function of an adjoining street may be unclear. For example, a corridor expected to support more housing, better pedestrian priority and continued traffic movement may need an agreed Movement & Place direction before individual applications can respond to it consistently.
Proponents can reasonably be expected to demonstrate how development responds to an established strategic direction, and significant development proposals may require more detailed Movement & Place work. However, establishing the broader strategic direction would generally be the role of the planning authority rather than an individual proponent.
Beyond Classification of Streets
Movement & Place provides a common language for bringing land use, transport and urban design considerations together. The simplified Destination, Connection and Local Living typologies make the framework easy to use, while more detailed classifications can still be used to consider multimodal needs and support technical assessment. Detailed decisions will still require appropriate evidence and, where necessary, technical traffic count studies and transport modelling analysis.
The more difficult task is resolving trade-offs. The framework provides performance indicators to help identify and consider competing priorities. But I learnt a valuable lesson working on an activity center beside North Road, an arterial road that also functions as a freight corridor that identifying trade-offs is easier than resolving them. There are still further questions about who makes trade-off decisions, how they are translated into statutory mechanisms, and how they subsequently influence infrastructure planning and delivery.
The Remaining Implementation Questions
There are still some messy implementation questions beyond Movement & Place classification and framework plans.
How are competing priorities weighted?
Who owns the decision when land use and transport conflict?
Can applicants clearly understand what the strategic direction means for their site?
And how should existing strategic work transition to Movement & Place 2.0?
There is also the question of what the planning system can actually deliver?
Some outcomes may require statutory protection, while others depend on engineering standards, infrastructure planning, funding and capital works.
From Strategic Intent to Implementation
For councils, especially those constrained by funds and priorities, the objective should be to identify at what level they should establish Movement & Place directions and then determine which outcomes need statutory expression through Development Framework Plans or other appropriate planning controls.
When translating Movement & Place informed directions into the planning scheme, I think five questions are useful:
What strategic outcome are we trying to secure?
Which parts require statutory expression through the planning system?
What is the appropriate planning mechanism?
How will it work alongside engineering and infrastructure requirements?
What needs to happen outside the planning scheme to deliver the outcome?
Then there is the question of how legacy classifications should transition to the new framework, and when a more substantial review may be needed. Movement & Place 2.0 explicitly updates the 2019 framework with clearer typologies and classifications, Vision and Validate, stronger place outcomes and improved land-use integration, so this is a valid implementation issue to raise.
The aim is not to layer Movement & Place assessments at every stage. It is to set strategic directions at the right scale and translate them into statutory controls that reflect context and the practical limits, both upstream and downstream, of what the planning system can realistically deliver and assess at the development approval stage.
