In July 2016 the state government founded a department and established a two year programme tasked with making the Victorian planning system more effective and accessible.
The programme was backed by $25 million of tax payer money, earmarked to run from July 2016 to June 2018 and named SMART Planning. As the programme now enters its last six months we look back at what has been achieved, what is earmarked to be achieved by June 2018 and what will happen after the programme finishes.
What has been achieved?
The most notable achievement of the programme has been the expansion of the VicSmart planning permit process. This is a process that allows ‘simpler’ applications, such as minor buildings and works in a commercial zone to benefit from a ten business day turnaround from lodgement of a planning application to Council to receipt of a decision. Since the programme started in July 2016 the qualifying criteria for VicSmart applications has been broadened which has helped business’, in particular benefit from reduced waiting times for planning permits and has assisted them in opening or growing their business. The expansion of VicSmart has been a great success and we hope to see it continue to expand if the programme is extended beyond June 2018. Specifically, expanded to include house extensions in residentially zoned land that meet prescriptive section criteria.
The programme also boasts the launching of VicPlan which is an online interactive mapping tool that allows users to search information on planning controls affecting a property in a quick, user friendly way. While VicPlan is undoubtly a more modern and user friendly website interface than its predecessor it still only provides the exact depth of information on planning controls that its predecessor did. It lists the council the property is within and a link to the zone and overlay controls for users to read. VicPlan is held up as one of the best outcomes of the programme to date and all be it, a much sleeker website interface it is an underwhelming outcome of the programme that presents the exact same depth of information as its predecessor.
Coupled with VicPlan the programme boasts the launching of a new website which contains all the council planning schemes in one location. This website is known as the Planning Scheme Information Management System (PSIMS). This outcome presents an improvement to the previous dated interface but is not a significant improvement that assists people involved in the planning industry.
The content of planning schemes across the state has been condensed to remove 3000 pages of clutter from planning schemes. This was a practical and sensible outcome of the programme.
The team have prepared Amendment VC142 which will affect every council in the state. This amendment will update the language and land use definitions of the scheme to reflect more modern living standards, introduce some additional planning permit exemptions for works in a heritage area and introduce some new planning permit triggers for works that were previously exempt.
What is to be achieved by June 2018?
The approval of Amendment VC142 will be a key goal of the programme that should comfortably be completed.
Establishment of a website that will allow for electronic lodgement of both planning scheme amendments and planning permit applications to the state government. This is a website for state government planning applications only. It is not a website that can be used to lodge planning applications for local councils to assess.
What will happen when the programme ends in June 2018?
If the programme successfully obtains funding to continue after June 2018 they will launch a new programme called ‘Transform’. As of January 2018 the objectives of transform were broad and no specific deliverables publically set out. Between September 2017 and December 2017 the team here were involved in direct consultations with the leaders of the programme to collaborate on what the goals of ‘Transform’ should be and where efforts should be focused if the programme is extended. Between January and June 2018 it will be up to the SMART plan team to formulate their business case to ensure additional funding is made available for ‘Transform’.
At CS Town Planning Services we are well known for building design, town planning and VCAT representation mainly for multi-unit developments.
Multi-unit developments take time to take from concept to decision due to the standard processes in place for planning applications at Local Councils. From mum and dad investors through to experienced development companies, the process can be frustrating especially given the sometimes subjective clauses in planning legislation that can have different interpretations.
But what is the process if you only want to make a simple modification to an already approved building? What if you want to put a small sign up to advertise your business? Will this require a long, complicated planning application?
The answer to that is not necessarily. At CS Town Planning Services we have a number of commercial clients and one such client has been rolling out minor alterations to their bank branches over the past twelve months. The alteration is to replace an outdated item with a new version, with no changes to the building footprint or use and no alterations to the facade of the building. Many of these minor works are considered exempt from planning due to the zone the building is located in; however when it comes to certain zones and in particular, a Heritage Overlay then planning consent is required.
This year we have explored the Vicsmart process for these projects in Victoria. Vicsmart is a planning process for minor works with a prescriptive list of what is and isn’t accepted under this system. The main bonus of using Vicsmart instead of a traditional planning application is two fold: time and cost savings. For example; minor buildings and works to a shop in a Heritage Overlay costing $9,000 would cost the applicant $1,102.30 and take approximately 60 days to get a permit. Through Vicsmart the same process would cost $192 and take 10 business days. The difference is due to the fact the applicant must only use Vicsmart for a set list of applications and therefore they are predetermined as appropriate for the process without needing in depth analysis or reporting. The applications are also not advertised to the public.
So, does it really work?
The answer is a resounding yes! In the last 6 months we have lodged 18 applications through the Vicsmart process. All of these applications have resulted in an approved permit with very little interaction with Council between lodgement and permit receipt. We have kept some statistics on the process and report the following:
Average days from lodgement to permit: 10.78 business days
Average days from lodgement to permit – metro Melbourne: 14 business days
Average days from lodgement to permit – regional Victoria: 9.17 business days
This process has allowed us to efficiently deliver tight deadlines and allow the flow from concept to construction for these minor alterations in a smooth and successful way. Without the Vicsmart process, our client’s bill would have been $19,841.40 for planning fees and instead is $3,456. This is a really important consideration too when looking at small businesses, where a simple alteration that costs $6,000 to construct may cost over $1,000 in planning fees!
So, any down side to this process?
The Vicsmart process is really useful tool for many different purposes and is underutilised overall due to the fact that Local Councils often don’t inform applicants that they could use the process. Whether intentional or more likely through confusion over what is applicable, it is a definite issue. There is also a lack of clarity over certain applications and whether they are appropriate for the process. The other issue is there aren’t enough minor works covered through the process so often something that should be available through Vicsmart is ruled out due to an Overlay that has no relevance to the application. These points were echoed recently through the Victorian State Government in their Smart Planning Discussion Paper ‘Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions’.
The discussion paper raises the argument that Vicsmart should be utilised much more broadly and cover many more application types. The way this would work is by setting either very clear preset codes for self assessment or a detailed list of application types much like they use in New South Wales or Queensland. This opens the door for a much more efficient system for many application types, reducing cost and time for businesses and investors. And it is really good news. In Victoria we have a lot of activity in building and development and minor works are often delayed due to planning applications that are not necessary for the works involved. Broadening the Vicsmart ‘net’ would allow for a smooth, more simplified planning process for appropriate applications.
To find out how we can improve planning efficiency for your company or project, give us a call on 03 9824 1902 or email info@cstownplanning.com.au
Recently, we have seen an increase in enquiries to our office from people wanting to take their Council to VCAT over restrictive permit conditions or refusals.
So, we thought it would be interesting to find out some statistics relating to successes at VCAT for applicants taking on Council. Below are results as recorded on the Victorian State Government website for VCAT hearings in the previous Financial Year. We have narrowed the information down to the five Councils that we work in the most: Banyule; Boroondara; Glen Eira; Knox; and Monash.
Banyule
Total number of cases heard: 38
Cases affirmed (won by Council): 4 (11%)
Cases varied (changes made to application but ultimately approved): 12 (32%)
Cases set aside (won by applicant): 18 (47%)
Cases withdrawn (withdrawn before hearing): 4 (11%)
Boroondara
Total number of cases heard: 88
Cases affirmed: 30 (34%)
Cases varied: 19 (22%)
Cases set aside: 33 (38%)
Cases withdrawn: 6 (7%)
Glen Eira
Total number of cases heard: 155
Cases affirmed: 19 (12%)
Cases varied: 39 (25%)
Cases set aside: 86 (55%)
Cases withdrawn: 11 (7%)
Knox
Total number of cases heard: 26
Cases affirmed: 8 (31%)
Cases varied: 4 (15%)
Cases set aside: 13 (50%)
Cases withdrawn: 1 (4%)
Monash
Total number of cases heard: 99
Cases affirmed: 78 (79%)
Cases varied: 12 (12%)
Cases set aside: 9 (9%)
Cases withdrawn: 0 (0%)
So what does that tell us? Overall, against Council, applicants have won their cases outright 43% of the time and applicants have had their applications varied but approved through VCAT 23% of the time. This tells us that Councils have been overturned 66% of the time. This figure is somewhat misleading overall as readers will note that Glen Eira has a success rate of 12% against Monash with a success rate of 79%. This tells us that Councils have very different success rates to each other and that it appears to be a lot more challenging to take Monash to VCAT over a refusal than the other councils listed… or does it?
Let’s have a look at CS Town Planning Service’s VCAT statistics for the same period. In the last financial year we represented clients in five VCAT hearings. One of the hearings was against Glen Eira, and the other four were against Monash. Our success was 100% in all matters, meaning our client came away with an approval for their development every time we took a case to VCAT. If you look at the statistics above, you will note that Monash had nine cases set aside at VCAT in the last financial year, with CS Town Planning Services’ clients making up 44% of those! This is quite remarkable when you consider that Monash is successful in 79% of cases at VCAT overall.
Like any appeal, you will always need strong evidence to support your case. These may include alterations to the original application, including amending plans. You may also need an expert witness to support your claims. Most importantly though, you need someone representing you with a track record and proven success.
So, if you are considering taking your Council to VCAT over a recent planning decision; give us a call for an informal and confidential chat today 03 9824 1902.
It is not unusual for planning applications to become contentious between neighbours.
In fact they can often become very heated and relationships can become strained and often breakdown between neighbours. We have seen it first hand on more than one occasion. While we accept this for what it is as part of the planning process it none the less saddens us when relationships between neighbours sour as a result of one developing their property at the perceived expense or detriment of another. The below tale of woe sets out an all too familiar occurrence and explains how perilous poor neighbourly relations can be in the planning approval process.
In June 2015 we applied to Nillumbik Council to develop a second house on a large block of land in Eltham. Anyone who knows Nillumbik Council will be aware of their strident position on tree retention within sites as part of development. This was our main concern at the outset of the project as the site was semi-rural in character and surrounded in large native trees. However, our client had a different concern. He was convinced from the outset of the project that his neighbour would take them to VCAT even if Council supported the application. The reason he was convinced was because there was a long history of dispute between them and this planning application was going to present the next battle. The combative saga had been ongoing for a number of years and involved a wide ranging, yet typical neighbourly disputes such as fencing, noise complaints etc. The Council approved the planning application on the 9th October 2015 but as expected an appeal against this approval was lodged to VCAT by the neighbour. The development itself comfortably complied with the regulations as set out in the planning scheme and hence received Council support. Despite this any neighbour can still appeal the decision of Council without the need to provide any compelling evidence to support the grounds of their appeal. The case was heard by VCAT on the 28th April 2016 and the VCAT order upholding the Councils approval was issued on the 24th June 2016. Although a positive outcome, this unnecessary saga cost our client a full nine month delay in the commencement of his project. The development commenced construction in late 2016 and is scheduled to be complete in late 2017 as an owner builder project. Predictably our client wanted to know if there was any avenue to pursue costs associated with the delay and the appeal from his neighbour after the decision was issued by VCAT. The simple answer is no. It would require a very unique set of circumstances for VCAT to award costs against an objector appealing an approval decision by a local Council, despite the clear weakness in their case. The reason for this is because it would be seen as a deterrent to any future objector to a planning decision to appeal if the threat of costs being awarded against them looms. This could be perceived as being unjust towards objectors in the planning process and an advantage for developers.
Planning permit approvals is an adversarial process and if a dispute emerges it is likely neither party will end up happy with the outcome. The test for professionals in the industry is to reach an outcome that is acceptable to parties. It is always in your interests to maintain amicable relationships and open communication with your neighbours if you intend to develop your site. A simple concept but not an easy one when the stakes are high and emotions are charged.
Back in 2011 our client approached us about subdividing his backyard and selling the land as a vacant block.
Our client was clear that he didn’t want to develop the back of the property and he also did not want to undertake the process of designing a house for the purposes of getting the subdivision approved. He simply wanted to subdivide the land and let the future purchaser build whatever house they wished on the property. This is a common request for the team here at CS. In this particular case we successfully applied to Banyule to approve the subdivision without house plans through the use of a ‘Building Exclusion Zone’ on the back section of the site. As the name suggests this was an area we designated on the plan as being exempt from any buildings or structures. This exclusion zone essentially hugged the property boundary line but was set back from the boundary by a distance of three metres on all sides. The remaining area on the site became known as the ‘Building Envelope Area’ and this was the area any future house could be constructed on the site. The city council were comfortable with this proposal but as part of Banyule Council’s approval of the subdivision the Building Exclusion Zone had to be registered on the title for the land as a Restriction. This meant that in the future if any landowner of the back section of the site wanted to build outside the designated building envelope they would have to apply to Banyule City Council for consent to do so. Our client placed the back yard on the market as a vacant block on completion of the subdivision in 2016. It was quickly acquired by a new owner eager to build their dream home in Greensborough on an affordable block of land. The new owner complied with the Building Exclusion Zone as registered on title and was able to obtain a building permit for their new home prior to settlement of the land. It was a great success story for both our client and the new owner of the site.
Approvals for vacant lot land subdivisions such as this one in Greensborough are difficult to obtain. This is because the local council planning department prefer approving subdivisions with house plans attached to provide them and the neighbours more certainty about how the new house will look. In the town planning process if the council approve a vacant lot land subdivision there is rarely any avenue for the community or councils planning department to have a say in the design and appearance of the new building. Almost every metropolitan Council will discourage vacant lot subdivision applications in established neighbourhoods and for this reason we discourage our clients from pursuing them.
It is much easier to get Council on board with a subdivision where house plans are included and a vacant lot subdivision application has a much higher chance of rejection by Council.
This development involved demolition of the existing home and construction of two double storey dwellings on the property.
It was approved by Banyule City Council in January 2014, construction commenced in September 2015 and the development was finished in September 2016. Banyule City Council have very robust planning regulations relating to trees and there were significant trees on this site and the neighbouring properties that needed to be retained as part of the development.
The CS Town Planning team worked diligently with an appointed arborist to design a proposal that would not impact the significant trees during construction. There was a large tree on the neighbouring property that required a large no construction zone around it which meant the design had to include a bigger back yard for the front dwelling than would typically be required. Retention of trees is a significant issue for councils, especially Banyule and Nillumbik Councils.
If you are completing a subdivision in an area where there a number of trees involved we will recommend a reputable arborist to be involved in the application so that we can be sure of Council support.
It seems that more and more local councils are moving towards a paperless future and moving services and payments online. This is good news for developers as a fully online planning application process will save you time and money, with smoother lodgement and easier to track documents, not to mention a huge reduction in paper usage.
Councils with fully online planning permit applications are:
- Banyule
- Brimbank
- Darebin
- Hobson’s Bay
- Maribyrnong
- Moreland
- Mornington Peninsula
- Port Phillip
- Stonnington
Councils accepting emailed application documents are:
- Bayside
- Kingston
Many councils we have spoken to lately that are currently accepting paper only lodgements are moving across to online within the year, and this is great news for the bottom line.
So, if you are planning your next project within a council listed above, your application process just got a little simpler and cost effective.
There will no longer be a two dwelling maximum on sites in the zone.
The zone will now require that a specific percentage of the site area be reserved as backyard or garden space and there will be no limit on the number of dwellings that can be built on a site. The area required for driveways cannot be included in the calculation of yard space.
The percentages of yard space required for sites are:
- For a site less than 400 square metres – no prescriptive requirement;
- For a site between 401 – 500 square metres – 25%;
- For a site between 501 – 650 square metres – 30%;
- For a site greater than 651 square metres – 35%;
The above requirements will also apply to sites in the general residential zone. This reform will apply to every council in the state of Victoria.
In addition to abolishing the two dwelling maximum the state government have also increased the maximum building height limit in the neighbourhood residential zone from 8 metres to 9 metres and there is a mandatory building height of 11 metres introduced for the general residential zone.
These changes came into effect across every Council on the 27/3/2017.
Planning fees increase by thousands of dollars as Victorian Planning Minister overhauls the system.
Developers will pay significantly more for permits along with a range of new fee categories.
Mr Wynne, Victorian Planning Mininster, said that rate payers had been footing the bill for developers for too long. He claims this is a long awaited resolution that will ensure costs are more appropriately borne by those making planning applications.
These new fees came into effect on the 13th of October 2016.
Andrews Labour Government have released a draft of the Apartment Design Guidelines aimed at increasing design standards while maintaining affordability in Melbourne’s booming apartment market. Specific areas where better standards are sought are natural light and ventilation and introducing minimum standards that will support health and wellbeing of occupants. For the past four years Melbourne has won title of the world’s most liveable city. These draft design standards aim to enhance Victoria’s reputation for liveability.
Community survey participants ranked the key issues affecting apartment by most to least important and identified daylight space, natural ventilation, noise and energy as the top issues. At present Victoria has a limited level of design guidance for apartment developments when compared to other Australian states.
Visit haveyoursay.delwp.vic.gov.au/better-apartments to provide your feedback before 19 September 2016. Your feedback will inform final Apartment Design Standards that will be introduced later this year.