Victoria’s recent planning reforms looked to be on the edge of cancellation this week, as Victoria’s upper house debated a motion from the Opposition to revoke amendments VC257, VC267 and VC274.
What happened?
Amendments VC257, VC267 and VC274 pertain to the changes to the Victoria Planning Provisions and implement the Victorian Government’s housing agenda through planning controls for the ten pilot Activity Centres, the new Townhouse and Low-Rise Code, and the Precinct Zone.
A Select Committee was appointed to consider whether the amendments give ‘proper effect to the objectives of planning in Victoria’. The Committee, made up of Members of the Legislative Council (MLC) from the Government, Opposition and the crossbench (Greens, Independents, Minor Parties) accepted submissions from a range of parties both for and against the amendments. Urbis Directors Mark Sheppard and Mick Meyer appeared at the hearing and gave evidence on behalf of peak industry bodies – VPELA and the Property Council of Australia.
On Tuesday this week, the Committee handed down its final report. While it did not go as far as recommending revocation of the amendments, it was critical of the Government for the manner in which consultation was undertaken, and for not providing the information requested by the Committee, such as modelling for the effectiveness of the amendments. Interestingly, they chose to make no findings as to whether the amendments give proper effect to the objectives of planning, instead finding that they ‘have the potential’ to do so, depending on how they are implemented through local provisions. They also urged the Government to reconsider the operation of the ‘deemed-to-comply’ provisions and to reinstate the broader considerations at Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines) of the Victoria Planning Provisions for applications that meet the code.
After the Committee’s report was released, the Opposition led an attempt to overturn the amendments in the Upper House. In the House, the Opposition condemned a ‘veritable cavalcade of amendments’ for ‘the lack of consultation’ undertaken and stated that the amendments would ‘put at risk our liveability and the quality of life in many of our suburbs.’
Naturally, Government MLCs defended their reform agenda and the amendments themselves. With only fourteen members in the Legislative Council, the Opposition needed the support of multiple crossbenchers. In the end, the motion was defeated by 22 votes to 15, and the amendments remained in force.
Where to next for planning reform?
The Government has escaped revocation of its planning scheme amendments, and as such they remain in force. While the Select Committee did not recommend revocation of the amendments, they did urge the Government to reconsider aspects of the amendments. It may be that the Government determines to make some tweaks to the amendments in response to the report. We look forward to reviewing the Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations, which we expect to be released in coming weeks. It will be interesting to see how these recommendations are approached by Government, given that switching off Clause 65 is an important aspect of the deemed-to-comply system.
Revocation motions are rare but provide an important check on the power of the Minister for Planning, allowing the Parliament to debate the Minister’s decision to exempt themself from the usual provisions of the Act. As the Government is without a majority in the Upper House, the crossbench plays an important role in such motions.
The Government’s reform agenda is far from finished, with new planning controls to be applied to fifty more Activity Centres over the remainder of 2025 and 2026. They may choose to adopt a different approach for the next batch of centres, to avoid the same scrutiny in parliament if at all possible. Reforms to or replacement of the Planning and Environment Act, which we’re expecting in the next few years, will also require the support of the crossbench.
Urbis is pleased to see the continued application of Amendments VC257, VC267 and VC274. They represent important progress in our planning system and create opportunities for further and much needed housing development in Victoria.
We’ll continue to closely monitor the ongoing changes to Victoria’s planning system over the coming months. If you want to know more about how these changes might affect your projects, please get in touch with us.