This week, Premier Jacinta Allan and Minister for Planning Sonya Kilkenny announced a proposed Bill to reform the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act), which will go before Parliament next week. The response has been mixed.
The reforms seek to implement some recommendations from Anna Cronin’s 2021 report ‘Turning Best Practice into Common Practice – Planning and Building Approvals Process Review report to Government’. A major change introduces three streams of planning applications, each with its own assessment pathway:
There is a raft of other amendments, including changes to planning scheme amendment processes, clearer assessment requirements for extensions of time for existing permits, and tightened notice requirements.
The changes to notification and appeal rights appear to be creating the greatest concern. However, recent amendments to Clause 54 (VC292) and Clause 55 (VC282) have already introduced deemed-to-comply assessments that limit Council’s consideration of local policies, remove third-party appeal rights for compliant applications, and aim to speed up decision-making for single and multi-dwelling developments up to three storeys. The proposed mid-rise code for 4 to 6 storey development will likely provide similar deemed-to-comply provisions.
It’s still difficult to fully grasp all ramifications of these changes. Acting Deputy Secretary for Planning and Land Services, Colleen Peterson, advised via LinkedIn that even if the bill passes, reforms will roll out over an approximately two-year period to enable development of details and subordinate instruments, with further stakeholder engagement planned.
Was reform necessary? With the criticism of planning reforms, the question arises: did our system need an overhaul? In my opinion, yes. An opinion also shared by Anna Cronin. The P&E Act is 38 years old, and while amendments have been made along the way, a comprehensive review was long overdue. Band-aid fixes aren’t sufficient anymore.
Are the recently introduced and announced amendments perfect? No, not in my opinion. Were they ever going to satisfy everyone? Certainly not. The Department of Transport and Planning acknowledges the amendments aren’t perfect but emphasises the need for change. The Minister for Planning and DTP remain open to refinements along the way.
Developers typically complain the system is too uncertain, too restrictive, and too slow. Objectors and Councils generally argue it allows too much change, favours developers, and that the 60-day assessment timeframe stipulated by Planning Regulations and P&E Act is insufficient given workloads and the complexity of information to be processed.
The suite of planning reforms is an attempt to provide certainty and improve decision timeframes for residential development, but the planning system is just one egg that needs cracking to address the housing crisis. Interestingly, since the planning reforms were announced, a new conversation has sparked about what’s stalling housing delivery.
The narrative suggests that while planning system improvements are welcomed by some, other factors are the primary barriers to delivering new housing:
These issues sit outside planning and beyond my expertise, but they’re undoubtedly the remaining eggs that need cracking if we’re to make inroads into Victoria’s housing shortage. All the planning reform in the world won’t deliver new housing if projects don’t sell and construction costs make them unfeasible.
There is certainly much more information to come as these reforms develop. Want to stay informed on planning reforms and industry insights? Sign up to Ratio’s newsletter here for more detailed analysis and updates.
