16 May 2025
Message from VIC President, Patrick Fensham MPIA (Fellow)
Members will no doubt be aware that the Parliamentary Select Committee Inquiry report into recent amendments to the Victoria Planning Provisions was released and debated in Parliament this week. The Committee was considering whether the amendments gave proper effect to the legislated objectives of planning in Victoria, and consequently into the merits of their revocation in the Parliament. The three amendments being considered were:
- VC257 (Activity Centre Built Form Overlay and Housing Choice and Transport Zone)
- VC267 (Townhouse and Low-Rise Code)
- VC274 (Precinct Zone)
The Committee consisted of three Labor members, three Liberal members, and three ‘cross-benchers’ being two Greens and the chair David Ettershank.
PIA Victoria submitted a report to and were represented in person by myself and Jane Keddie as one of our Vice Presidents at the Inquiry hearings. Both our submission and the Inquiry report commended the Government on its aim of increasing the supply of different kinds of housing in well-located areas close to transport and jobs. However, as with many aspects of planning, it’s in the drafting as statutory law, rather than the mere intent, that matters. This was a point we emphasised strongly to the committee and where our practitioner and industry insights appeared particularly valuable.
PIA’s submission to the Inquiry particularly highlighted concerns around VC267 (Townhouse and Low-Rise Code). This statewide amendment ‘switches-off’ longstanding parts of Victoria’s planning framework namely:
- Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act (broadly covering strategic planning matters)
- Clause 65 used by Councils to introduce local environmental and other factors in decision-making (this change, in our view having likely wide ranging and deeply problematic consequences).
As it stands the Code provides for more permissive development envelopes while removing third party rights of review, and undoes decades of careful local government planning (costing millions of dollars) directed and supported by state government funding and guidance.
The Inquiry report – endorsed unanimously by all Labor, Liberal and cross-bench members – mentions PIA’s submission and evidence numerous times; this is the same in the minority report from the Greens members which addressed Social and Affordable Housing more directly.
The committee report echoed PIA’s submission and evidence in agreeing that:
- the Government did not properly consult on the three amendments
- the Government did not produce evidence on their likely impact on housing supply and affordability.
The Inquiry made 12 carefully worded and reasonable recommendations in response to its findings.
It recommended the provision of more evidence to justify such significant planning reforms and deeper consultation with experts, local government and communities. The report also supported PIA’s advice and recommended reinstating Clause 65, and reinstating and improving landscaping and ESD requirements.
It was beyond disappointing to see the unanimously endorsed report characterised as a ‘sham inquiry’ by the government in the media even before it was debated. The suggested recommendations for sensible change were dismissed by the Government in the Parliament on Wednesday afternoon.
So here we are. A cross-party Upper House report recommending that risks to human health, life and the environment (amongst other matters) should be considered in residential development decisions across Victoria has been rejected by the Government and labelled a ‘sham’.
In the media communications the Minister for Planning said that ‘Victorians have had enough – get on board or get out of the way. Wow! Are those of us who support more housing but expect it to be safe from hazard, well-designed and environmentally sustainable also required to ‘get out of the way’?
The Minister for Housing and Building said that ‘young Victorians [want] to buy or rent an affordable home close to where they grew up, in communities that are connected to jobs, public transport, healthcare and education.’ But the VC267 changes in particular don’t provide for this and there’s been no evidence provided to suggest that they do.
The most likely scenario is that the changes will fast track poorly designed low to mid rise housing that will emerge in an ad hoc way across the residential zones of Victoria – from the remotest town in the Mallee to the outer suburbs of Melbourne, regardless of whether that land is flood prone, contaminated or can even be legally developed. The changes promise zero new or upgraded infrastructure. They work directly against the idea of well-located housing and undermine the more meritorious ambitions of directing housing to activity centre catchments and against the consideration of ‘orderly development’ that the Planning and Environment Act typically requires. They are at odds with the new Plan for Victoria vision for housing that provides ‘accessible services, lively centres and open space’ and ‘buildings and developments designed and built in environmentally sustainable ways’.
As it stands VC 267 is an egregious so-called ‘reform’: a low point in Victoria’s recent planning history. Let’s hope the arrogant response to the good-work of the Inquiry and the political rhetoric is not the final word. There is still room for sensible adjustments which PIA would happily advise on and support.
As the Committee pointed out ‘amendment VC267 constitutes the most fundamental changes to the way residential development is assessed in Victoria since ResCode commenced in August 2001. The scale of change should have been met with a well-resourced and orderly program of transition’. This has been the case with previous reforms to Victoria’s residential codes but the same has not occurred with VC267. A well resolved code can play a role in delivering the much-needed shift to good quality and higher density housing in Melbourne’s suburbs – but VC267 will not.