• EXPERTS IN
  • STATUTORY TOWN PLANNING
  • PLANNING PERMITS
  • VCAT

The State government has implemented Amendment VC280, the Great Design Fast Track into all planning schemes in Victoria.

The amendment provides an option of expedited review for high-quality townhouses and apartment developments where the Minister for Planning is the responsible authority.

The amendment introduces a particular provisions Clause 53.25 into all planning schemes. Application made under this clause will be subject to the requirements to provide notice but will be exempt from third party review (the ability to appeal to VCAT).

Proposed developments must meet the requirements of build quality, design, and sustainability.  The responsible authority may waive or vary any of the following:

To be eligible, a proposed development must obtain written advice from the Office of the Victorian Government Architect and written advice from the Chief Executive Officer or delegate, Invest Victoria demonstrating the likely feasibility of the proposed development, both to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

CS Town Planning will continue to monitor planning policy amendments and advise clients accordingly.

#tonwplanning #planningpermit

A Parliamentary inquiry has been announced that will look into the recent amendments to the Victoria Planning Provisions over the past few months. A Legislative Council Select Committee will conduct hearings to consider the impact of the following provisions:

Input will be sought from planning professionals with a final report due by 13 May 2025.

CS Town Planning will continue to monitor planning policy and advise clients accordingly.

#tonwplanning #planningpermit

Clause 55 includes a new provision, 55.02-7 Tree Canopy.  This provision under the category of Neighbourhood Character includes the objectives of:

There are 2 requirements for tree canopy coverage based on the size of a site, minimum 10% for sites 1000 m2 or under and 20% for sites over 1,000 m2. Trees that make up the canopy cover can be a combination of existing and new trees, with standards for trees that are to be retained and a table used to calculate the characteristics of trees that would constitute the minimum coverage.

It appears that the standards in this provision would not be difficult to meet. The Townhouse and Low-Rise Guidelines prepared by the State government show 4 trees on a on an 850 m2 site and 5 trees on a 1500 m2 site. As the size of the site increase, so to does the size of the canopy. This is also a minimum standard and although an approved development may meet the minimum requirements, future owners have the ability to plant more trees and contribute to the canopy coverage.

But when you dig deeper there is more to it. The challenge is that a prescriptive standard is being applied to trees, and trees grow at different rates under different conditions and may not meet the desired standard. Possibly a foreshadowing of the potential challenges to come, this provision strays from the approach of a black and white prescriptive standard as, any tree required to be planted under this standard must be of species to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, having regard to the location and relevant geographic factors.

There are other options that can be implemented to achieve the objectives of reducing visual impact of buildings on the streetscape, being climate responsive, supporting biodiversity, well being and amenity and reducing urban heat which generally comes under the category of landscaping. Trees are not the only solution and may not suit all properties and all conditions.

CS Town Planning will continue to review and assess how development proposals test the application of Clause 55 standards and advise clients accordingly. 

#tonwplanning #planningpermit

VC267 that recently amended Clause 55 of planning schemes introduced new standards for domestic rooftop solar energy systems. A VCAT case in 2020 foreshadowed the challenges in providing and implementing planning policy on this topic.

In Clause 55 there are 7 standards under section 55.05 Sustainability of which 4 are new standards. Two of the new standards, B5-2 and B5-3 apply to domestic rooftop solar energy systems. These standards have been introduced to deal with the complexity around what constitutes a well-placed position for a solar system, that without policy in place has the potential to become a not so well-placed system.

This complexity is considered in a red dot VCAT case from 2020, Ramjee v Manningham CC. This case considered amenity issues created by a proposed addition to a medical centre that would have resulted in the overshadowing of an existing solar panel system on an adjacent residential building.

In the Decision Summary of this case, reference is made to guidance that was available through an amendment made to planning schemes in 1998. This amendment introduced a decision guideline in the General Residential Zone requiring decision makers to consider the impact of overshadowing on existing rooftop solar energy systems. There was also an accompanying planning practice note that was not part of the planning scheme or incorporated as a reference document.

There was insightful discussion around the consideration of overshadowing a rooftop solar systems and the level of policy/guidance available at the time, with direction and concluding comments including:

Five years on, there are now specific standards in Clause 55. Standard B5-2 applies to building setbacks to new buildings that limit the impact of reduced sunlight on an existing domestic solar energy system. This standard is applicable in a Township Zone, General Residential Zone or Neighbourhood Residential Zone, where building heights are more consistent and less likely to create overshadowing compared to a Mixed Use Zone and Residential Growth Zone. The side and rear setback requirements for new buildings on an adjacent site have been taken from the previous Standard B17. The aim of this prescriptive requirement is to prevent overshadowing.

By applying this standard in selected zones and with setbacks for new buildings that are familiar, the approach to this standard is clear and conservative. An installed rooftop solar system will now influence new building setbacks and heights on adjacent properties similar the previous Standard B17, which was designed to limit the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings.  Not applying this standard to other zones that recognises the potential impact this could have on future investment and housing supply as it could put an artificial limit on building heights and residential density.

The objective of Standard B5-3 is the appropriate siting of a solar rooftop system which applies to the position, minimum dimensions and surface area. The technology in solar panels has and will continue to evolve and improve. The building owner and installer should be able to and would likely determine the optimal site-specific design of a system including and understanding of the future system limitations resulting from the setback requirements of standard 5-2.

The implication of this standard is that if the standards are not met the objective is not met. In this instance, if the generation of alternative energy was the objective, it is likely that it could be demonstrated that if the standards were not met, the objective would be. This puts into question if standard B5-3 is an example of policy overreach and if is it required.

Discussion in the case of Ramjee v Manningham CC foreshadowed challenges in providing direction on this topic. CS Town Planning will continue to review and assess how development proposals test the application of Clause 55 standards and advise clients accordingly. 

#planningpermit #townplanning #vcat

In late February 2025, the state government announced the imminent release of VC267 as ‘Automatic’ Approvals To Deliver Townhouse Revolution. From the description of what was coming, and although this has proved not to be the case, it appeared that amendments to the planning scheme had the potential to be introducing a fast track process similar to qualifying for a VicSmart application.

Since the approval of VC267 there has been analysis of how changes to the standards may contribute to a quicker more efficient assessment process and an increase in the supply of housing. A revision of the standards in Clause 55 have resulted in a prescriptive, deemed to comply approach that should reduce the review timeline. There is also the potential to revive development proposals that were not previously approved that may now meet the standards and loosen up housing supply.

In Victoria, Councils have a statutory requirement to determine a planning permit application within 60 days. To date there has been no indication that this requirement will change as the 60 day timeline remains in place. In the February 2024 media release, there were statements that can be drawn upon to understand the governments expectation that how, if not mandated, the new Clause 55 will impact review timelines.

The media release recognised that (t)he average assessment time for a planning permit is 145 days – well over the statutory deadline. In a quote attributed to the Minister for Planning Sonya Kilkenny, the new Clause 55 can reduce planning permit assessment times by at least 60 per cent.

Reducing the assessment time by 60% brings the average assessment time to 58 days, representing a reduction of 87 days from the average time and 2 days from the statutory requirement. The expectation is that as council planners and consultants become familiar with Clause 55, greater efficiencies will be made. Although a reduction of 87 days is a significant achievement, bringing it in line with the statutory requirement tends to deflate expectations and provide the potential for assessment creep to extend beyond the statutory timeframe.

CS Town Planning will continue to monitor how Clause 55 affects our clients’ development proposals and planning application assessment timelines.

On the popular reality show The Block, the highs and lows of development are revealed, but not all of the lows are. One component of the process that never makes it to TV is the permit process, and this would no doubt be filled with a lot of drama. With a majority of the seasons builds taking place in Victoria, it would be interesting to know how far in advance they applied for planning permits to meet their schedule.

Included in the latest announcements for planning scheme amendments to get more houses built, create various formats of activity centres and facilitate medium density residential development, is an announcement that there will be a review of the Planning and Environment Act.

The current in force version of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is dated 5 June 2024 and the Victorian Legislation website indicates that there are 86 superseded versions. The State government recognises that the Planning Act has been criticised as complex, inconsistent and old-fashioned. It is the definition of the status quo.

It is viewed that the Planning Act is part of the problem and will be rewritten with clearer goals that support the development of more housing in line with the recent announcements and housing targets. There will be a focus on:

However, rewriting an Act is a major undertaking and included in the review will be consultation with all 79 councils. If the objectives are achieved and the Planning Act is rewritten so good homes aren’t blocked by bad process, maybe we can also look forward to more frequent episodes of The Block.

CS Town Planning is monitoring the changes to the planning scheme amendments to ensure the most up to date advice is provided to our clients.

#townplanning #planningpermit

The introduction of Amendment VC267 that will bring in new Townhouse and Low-Rise Code for medium density residential development is imminent. Revised standards will be applied to all planning schemes in Victoria. The objective is to aid the planning process in pulling its weight in the delivery of ambitious housing targets and distributing the development of medium density housing more evenly across local government areas.

With the average time for a planning permit stretching out to 145 days, the Townhouse and Low-Rise Code has been package-up with some revised provisions and a faster more certain permit process by implementing a “deemed to comply” approach. In a similar fashion to VicSmart, if a proposed development is in conformity with the planning standards, it is “deemed to comply” and will benefit from and expedited review. Although, at this time, there is no information available to indicate if a faster process means faster than the current average or faster than the prescribed 60 days.

The Townhouse and Low-Rise Code will have a mix of revised and existing standards. In a bold move and justified by the strength of current standards that protect liveability, sustainability and amenity, there will be no right of appeal for proposed developments that are deemed to comply.

These changes have the potential of unlocking new development sites, encouraging developers to blow the dust off of proposals that didn’t get the tick of approval in the past and to consider revising proposals weren’t quite stacking up. CS Town Planning will continue to advise clients as more details are made available.

#townplanning #planningpermit #mediumdensityhousing

The Victorian State government has finalized housing targets for every local government area in Victoria representing an additional 2.24 million homes to be built over the next 30 years. To achieve these targets, the State Government has started to make some significant planning announcements to facilitate an increase in housing supply and density.

Amendment VC257 which introduces a new Housing Choice and Transport Zone (HCTZ) and Built Form Overlay (BFO) to support increased housing density and infill development around activity centres and employment corridors. The HCTZ specifies mandatory maximum building heights for dwellings, small second dwellings and residential buildings. Under the Built Form Overlay “applications are exempt from all notice and review provisions in the planning scheme” provided that a proposed development meets outcomes and mandatory standards.

An additional 25 ‘Train and Tram Zone’ Activity Centre have also been identified in addition to 25 that were identifies in 2024. These zones are around train stations and busy tram stops throughout the inner-city.

Amendment VC267 is expected in March that will deliver a new Townhouse and Low Rise Code and 4 Storey Apartment Standards. The former will apply to townhouses and 3 storey apartment buildings and will provide a “faster and more certain permit process” provided they are ‘deemed to comply’ to the relevant provisions.

Clause 57 will be created for the 4 Storey Apartment Standards, which are not part of the deemed to comply assessment.

This link provides a summary of changes expected to be gazetted in early March under Amendment VC267. CS Town Planning will continue to monitor information as it is made available and advise clients accordingly.
 

#townplanning #planningpermit

It is an obvious and important first step to perform due diligence before committing to a project. It ensures that the appropriate steps are being taken to make informed decisions and reduce risk.

The obvious benefit of completing a planning due diligence is that it will confirm if you can get approval for your development.

However, the value of completing a town planning due diligence extends far beyond this obvious first question. There are five value add benefits of carrying out a due diligence:

  1. Provide an understanding of what can be done, what can’t be done and when a planning permit isn’t required.

It is possible to complete a wide range of site preparation works before planning approval is issued. This often includes demolition, construction of minor structures such as fences or earthworks. It is true that on some sites these things require planning approval, however, it is a misconception that no work can occur until after planning is approved. Completing a planning due diligence will allow you to identify what can be completed onsite without planning approval which allows you to begin the project earlier and finish sooner.

2. What are the potential grounds of neighbor’s objection.

It is well known that objections can lead to an exceptionally protracted planning process, oftentimes rendering projects unviable. However, the opportunity to object does not translate into an objection that is valid. Very often objectors have a perception of how they will be impacted and lodge objections based on NIMBY concerns. A due diligence exercise will identify what can be considered valid grounds and what cannot based on what the triggers for planning approval are and what the planning scheme says can be considered.    

3. The timeline for preparation and assessment of an application.

Not all applications are the same and the level of preparation required varies depending on the complexity of the proposal. For example, if you require planning approval for a dual ‘use’ and ‘development’ application, you may need to submit reports from specialist consultants such as traffic engineers which take time to produce and even more time for the council to approve. A due diligence exercise can identify these potential delays early so they can be factored into your timeline for completion.  

4. The level of detail required for an application.

Sometimes applicants invest too much time and money in preparing applications and oftentimes they do not invest enough. The depth of information required is site and proposal specific. For example, a set of working drawings that show the full construction detail used by tradespersons on site to complete a development is never required for a town planning application. Likewise, details such as artwork for future business signs is required for applications where business signs require a permit. A due diligence exercise will outline the depth of information required so that time and money are not wasted.    

5. Identify potential fast tracks to approval.

It may be determined that a proposed development qualifies for a review under Vic Smart. If eligible this provides an expedited review process for straight forward applications that reduces council’s assessment time, does not require advertising and a delegated council officer makes a decision on the application.

Conducting planning due diligence is a critical step that provides a property owner, business owner or project manager with knowledge of the planning requirements for a proposed development. For assistance, contact CS Town Planning to discuss your development with a qualified town planner who can conduct planning due diligence and help to efficiently navigate through the planning process to secure the necessary planning permits.

#townplanner #planningpermit

It is a difficult position to be in when a planning application has been submitted to Council and is refused. There is a significant amount of time, effort and investment that has gone into the application and now more time, effort and investment is required to figure out the direction that should be taken. Despite the rejection of the application, there is an option to take that could prevent you from going back to the drawing board.

If a planning application has been submitted to Council and refused, changes can be made to the plans after an application for review has been submitted to VCAT. Oftentimes, only minor changes are required to turn a refusal into approval.

If you decide to amend an application, the objective is to address the specific issues that resulted in a refusal so that the tribunal can issue an approval.

VCAT’s Practice note – PNPE9 – Amendment of plans and applications states that As a guiding principle, amendments should not be used to materially increase the scale or intensity of a proposal or to introduce significant new aspects that have not already been considered by the original decision-maker.

This means that an amendment should not introduce something new, such as an additional land use, or storey to a building. As a rule of thumb, it is beneficial for a decrease rather than an increase in development intensity. For example, if a multi-unit development has been refused, an amendment could include a reduction in the number of units, which may also result in a lower density, reduction in traffic and an increase the permeable and landscaped area, all of which could be more favourable.

When VCAT members review a case, it is considered to be a fresh look at the application. There is an assessment of the proposed development against the information submitted to VCAT (which in this case is the amended application and plan), the planning scheme and relevant laws.

The permit applicant must give notice of the amendment to the Tribunal at least 35 to 30 days before the first day of the hearing.  It is at the discretion of VCAT to accept and amendment and, if accepted, the amendment will be replaced by the initial proposal submitted to and refused by council. If the amendment represents a gentler development, this could potentially have the benefit of reducing the concerns of any objections submitted by those who have registered as a party to the proceeding, potentially reducing the number of objectors attending the hearing. This may also demonstrate to the Tribunal that the permit applicant has made a genuine attempt to address comments from the responsible authority and objectors.

In our experience, 95% of applicants will avail of this opportunity to amend their plans or proposal before a hearing. This means a more favourable case and a better chance of obtaining a permit through your VCAT appeal.

If you have received a refusal of your recent planning application by council and you would like to understand the opportunity the VCAT process gives applicants to make changes to their proposal then reach out to our professional planning team for an initial consultation.

#townplanner #planningpermit #planningappeal