Report: Select Committee on Victoria Planning Provisions Amendments VC257, VC267 and VC274

This report came out today in the Legislative Council, Victoria.  Non-Labor members of the Committee criticised the amendments for failing to consult the community as they are required to by law, and found that they contain little or nothing that would provide the much-claimed affordable housing, and failed on environmental counts.  The full report is here: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/49a10f/globalassets/tabled-paper-documents/tabled-paper-9164/inquiry-into-vic-planning-provisions-amendments.pdf

Below is not the entire report, but only the Chair's foreword and the Recommendations and Findings.

Chair’s foreword
Housing is one of the great policy challenges of our time. It is clear that Victoria needs many more homes, especially more genuinely affordable homes, in well located areas near public transport, jobs and services. This is what the Government has sought to address with its Victoria Planning Provisions amendments VC257, VC267 and VC274. The amendments change statewide planning provisions to enable denser housing in activity centres, including in middle ring suburbs, while also making the most significant changes to ResCode since 2001, moving townhouse and low-rise approvals to a stricter ‘deemed-to-comply’ framework.

The amendments are made on the promise of certainty and speed, largely at the expense of third party involvement and decision-making discretion. It is inevitable that planning reforms that involve such significant trade-offs will be contested.

I commend the Government for seriously seeking to address Victoria’s housing challenges. The Committee found widespread support for the Government’s objectives of increasing housing supply and affordability in well located areas, and a strong appetite from Victorians to be involved in discussions about the future of their state, city and neighbourhoods.

A major problem facing the Committee was the absence of requested modelling from the Government, to demonstrate that the amendments will achieve their objectives. Without that modelling, the Committee was reluctant to downplay the many unintended consequences arising from the new planning provisions that were identified by users of the planning system.

Of the many unintended consequences identified by stakeholders, the most concerning for me related to the new townhouse and low-rise code: the removal of consideration of flood risks from the planning process, the reduction of environmentally sustainable development standards in major local government areas, and the excessive removal of existing trees. Surely we can address Victoria’s housing challenges without also creating these new risks.

Many community groups and councils felt strongly that they were not adequately consulted and that their concerns were not taken into consideration. While some resistance to planning reform will always exist, I worry that the Government is overlooking the benefits of consultative and collaborative engagement with councils and communities. More work is necessary if Victoria’s housing distribution policies, and the mechanisms that will bring those policies about, are to achieve widespread public support.

Given the dramatic scope of these planning amendments, the Committee felt that a process of monitoring these changes and seeking to improve their efficacy over time is needed. This is consistent with previous recommendations of the Victorian Auditor General in 2008 and 2017 — recommendations which the Government has not acted on.

I hope the Government will embrace the findings and recommendations in this report and make changes to the new planning provisions so that Victorians can have confidence that the Government’s planning reforms have been chosen for the right reasons.

As one witness put to us, this is a once in a generation opportunity to get it right.

We must ensure that we do.

I wish to thank all those who contributed to this inquiry, either through submissions or at public hearings. The short time available to the Committee meant that we were not able to explore every issue in the report to the extent we would have liked. However, this important evidence has been published online and I hope it will inform policy makers in the years to come.

I would also like to thank my fellow Committee members for their diligence and hard work throughout the inquiry. Notwithstanding the vigorous debate reflected in the report, that it was adopted unanimously by the Committee, bodes well for the prospects of successful and durable planning reform.

Finally, I wish to thank the Secretariat staff, many of whom were directed from other projects to assist the Committee in completing its work in such a short amount of time. Keir Delaney, Matt Newington, Kieran Crowe, Whitny Kappa, Julie Barnes, Sylvette Bassy and Elektra Banikos: thank you for outstanding work on this inquiry.

David Ettershank MLC
Chair

Inquiry into Victoria Planning Provisions amendments VC257, VC267 and VC274

Findings and recommendations

Introduction
FINDING 1: The Committee finds that the Department of Transport and Planning and
other agencies of government have not provided requested materials and background
documents sought by the Committee during this inquiry and that the explanations are
not accepted.

RECOMMENDATION 1: The Department of Transport and Planning and other
agencies are required by the Committee to provide all sought documents and
materials. If these are provided after the Committee has reported, the Committee
Secretariat place these documents on the Committee’s website for at least 2 months
to make them available to the community and council.

FINDING 2: The Minister for Planning, Sonya Kilkenny did not appear at the Inquiry.

RECOMMENDATION 2: The Minister should provide to the Inquiry and the
Parliament the briefs or other material on which she relied supporting the gazettal
of the three planning scheme amendments.

Issues raised

FINDING 3: All witnesses appearing before the Committee expressed support
for the policy objective of facilitating significant increases in well-located housing.
While some witnesses argued strongly that the new planning provisions introduced
under the amendments will be inefficient, or ineffective, or will create unintended
consequences, their criticism was focused on the design of the planning provisions
rather than the policy aims of the planning scheme amendments. Other witnesses
argued that the reforms could contribute to the construction of more homes.

FINDING 4: The Committee was not provided with any modelling about the
expected effect of any of the amendments on housing supply generally, and the effect
of increased supply on house prices.

RECOMMENDATION 3: That the Victorian Government publish publicly modelling to
demonstrate how the planning scheme amendments will impact on housing supply and
affordability.

FINDING 5: Little convincing evidence was advanced to the Inquiry that the State
Government’s announced planning changes will guarantee additional housing and no
substantive evidence was advanced that the Government’s plan would with certainty
provide additional affordable housing.

FINDING 6: The Victorian Government did not properly consult on these three
amendments and the Committee is of the view that the Minister has inappropriately
exempted herself from expected consultation.

RECOMMENDATION 4: At a minimum, modification of planning scheme
amendments should be undertaken after a round of genuine consultation with councils
and communities.

FINDING 7: Where local councils are expected to implement new planning provisions
introduced under amendments to the Victoria Planning Provisions, it is reasonable
that they be given notice of the full detail of those provisions with enough time to
prepare for their commencement. This did not occur in relation to amendment VC267.

RECOMMENDATION 5: That the Victorian Government make a policy, by
30 June 2025, that applies to all amendments to the Victoria Planning Provisions,
other than prescribed amendments, to require an informal notice period in which all
amendment documents are published for no less than 28 days before the amendment
is gazetted, and to require that those documents are brought to the attention of the
responsible authorities whose duty it will be to administer the new provisions.

FINDING 8: The Committee makes no conclusions about whether amendment
VC257 gives proper effect to the objectives of planning in Victoria, but finds that the
controls introduced by VC257 have the potential to give proper effect to the objectives
depending on how their local schedules are drafted and where they apply.

FINDING 9: The Committee acknowledges that the concerns expressed by many
submitters that heritage and heritage values are at serious risk of being compromised
by these planning amendments are valid. Protections should be available to protect
our city and its magnificent heritage buildings and zones.

FINDING 10: There is a significant difference between the views of the Department
of Transport and Planning, and the views of planning system users outside of the
Department, about the adequacy of the consultation that led to VC257. While the
Department provided some evidence of a high quantity of consultation, others tended
to criticise the quality of that consultation.

FINDING 11: The speed with which the activity centres program and planning
controls were developed was a factor that contributed to the under-utilisation of the
expert Activity Centre Standing Advisory Committee.

RECOMMENDATION 6: That the Victorian Government review the expert advisory
mechanism and consultation methods (with planning experts, local councils and
communities) for the first 10 activity centres and make improvements about both in
relation to the next 50 activity centres.

FINDING 12: The advice of the Standing Committee on Activity Centres specifically
provided advice to change the planning scheme amendments to protect heritage. This
advice was not followed by the Minister for Planning.

FINDING 13: Victoria Planning Provisions amendment VC267’s exemption in clause
55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions from the requirements of the decision guidelines
at clause 65 represents a substantial change to how residential development
assessments are conducted where planning permits are required.

FINDING 14: The clause 65 decision guidelines of the Victoria Planning Provisions
assist in guiding sound planning decisions. The most important are the guidelines that
require consideration of risks to human life and health, and to the environment. These
include:

• any significant effects the environment, including the contamination of land, may
have on the use or development
• the effect on the environment, human health and amenity of the area
• factors likely to cause or contribute to land degradation, salinity or reduce water
quality
• the extent and character of native vegetation and the likelihood of its destruction
• the degree of flood, erosion or fire hazard associated with the location of the land
and the use, development or management of the land so as to minimise any such
hazard.

RECOMMENDATION 7: The decision guidelines of clause 65 of the Victoria Planning
Provisions should apply to all decisions made under clause 55. This is most important
where risks to human life and health, and to the environment, should be identified and
managed.

RECOMMENDATION 8: The Victorian Government work with councils to manage
flood, bushfire and climate hazard risks and improve identification of risks to human life
and health, and to the environment, in the Victoria Planning Provisions, including the
planning scheme amendment process for overlays with up to date modelling.

FINDING 15: Without being presented with any evidence to the contrary, the
Committee is concerned that clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions may lead to
the excessive removal of existing trees and reduce tree canopy.

RECOMMENDATION 9: That the Victorian Government publish and release
modelling regarding the expected impact of the planning scheme amendments on tree
canopy and vegetation in areas affected by the changes.

RECOMMENDATION 10: That the Victorian Government make improvements to
clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions including the addition of a separate
landscaping objective and standards, and changes to the tree canopy cover objective
and standards. The introduction of any improvements should be undertaken as early as
possible.

FINDING 16: New environmentally sustainable development standards now
consistently apply to residential developments under clause 55 of the Victoria
Planning Provisions for all parts of the state, where they did not apply before.
However, the effect of clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions and the
exemptions from clause 65 and the ability to consider local planning policies has
had the effect of lowering some environmentally sustainable development standards
in 28 local government areas. Whether the lifting of environmentally sustainable
development standards across the state, and the lowering of some environmentally
sustainable development standards in 28 local government areas, creates a net
benefit overall, has not been proven.

RECOMMENDATION 11: That the Victorian Government promptly review and
improve the environmentally sustainable development standards in clause 55 of the
Victoria Planning Provisions with a view to ensuring the statewide standards meet the
higher standards found in 28 local government areas.

FINDING 17: The performance of clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions,
including its performance in relation to the administrative process, must be measured.

FINDING 18: The planning amendments mark a reduction in long standing third
party appeal rights in the planning system.

FINDING 19: The Committee makes no conclusions about whether amendment
VC274 gives proper effect to the objectives of planning in Victoria, but finds that the
controls introduced by VC274 have the potential to give proper effect to the objectives
depending on how their local schedules are drafted and where they apply.

FINDING 20: The Victorian Government failed to implement the recommendations
of the Victorian Auditor-General in 2008 and 2017 to create a performance and
continuous improvement mechanism for the Victoria Planning Provisions. This has
contributed, in part, to the problems with the planning system that the amendments
are trying to solve.

RECOMMENDATION 12: That, after consultation with relevant stakeholders, the
Victorian Government act on the recommendations of the Victorian Auditor-General
from 2008 and 2017 in relation to the performance and continuous improvement of the
Victoria Planning Provisions