At CS Town Planning we are well known for assisting Project Managers, Architects, Draftspeople and businesses, with all manner of planning proposals – from pergolas in aged care residences to 10,000 sqm Arts Hubs. 

Most developments take time from concept to council decision due to the standard processes in place for planning applications at local councils. From first time developers 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 we have a number of corporate clients and one such client has been rolling out minor alterations to their bank branches over the past twelve months. Alterations to replace an outdated item with a new version, with no changes to the building footprint or use and no alterations to the facade of the building are often considered minor works that are exempt from planning. However, some planning controls, usually overlays such as the Heritage Overlay or Special Building Overlay require planning consent.

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 benefits of using VicSmart instead of a traditional planning application are three-fold: time, cost savings and no objectors. 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 assessment fees for the same process would cost $206.40 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. Due to the minor and prescribed nature of these works, the final benefit is that applications are 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:

In 2021-2022, there were a total of 45,225 new applications lodged across the state.

Regular planning permits are intended to have decisions made within 60 “statutory days”. Calculating “statutory days” is different from actual days that pass. Final outcomes for regular planning permits, in gross days, (between the receipt of the application and the final result) was 130 days on average. That is the average planning permit, in reality took in excess of 4 months.

Of those new applications in 2021-2022, 9790 were VicSmart applications. Of these 76.2% had permits issued within 10 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. 

Initially there was confusion over whether or not a permit was eligible for VicSmart. In 2018, the state government integrated Vicsmart into applicable zones, overlays and particular provisions, and relocated operational and related provisions, via Amendment VC148. They have since extended VicSmart to broaden the number of applications it applies to.

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’ allows for a smooth, more simplified planning process for appropriate applications.                      

To find out how we can improve planning efficiency for your company or project, contact us.  

The processes involved in obtaining a planning permit are often lengthy. Council planning departments face increasing scrutiny for delays in delivering permits to applicants. In following the question of “why does it take so long to obtain a permit?”, the question of “how do I amend my planning permit” is also quite common. In the development industry planning permit amendments come in all forms and scales. Amendments are often required to allow variations to residential and commercial development, whilst conditions relating to operating hours and patron numbers are varied from time to time also.

The Planning and Environment Act allows permits to be amended in three ways: by way of Secondary Consent, via the provisions of Section 72 of the Act or via Section 87A of the Act. This article will address the first two options, which are the two primary pathways to amend planning permits.

Secondary Consent

An application for secondary consent is commonly required when seeking a minor change to the plans that have been endorsed with the planning permit.

The Secondary Consent pathway is applicable in the instance where a permit condition enables amendments to be made to a permit or endorsed plans via the consent of the Responsible Authority. One such condition may read like this:

“The location and details of the signs as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority”.

This condition relates to a planning permit for the display of signage and allows amendments to occur to the signage endorsed by the permit with the consent of Council.

As signage is a fairly minor item respective to the wider approvals and developments occurring, it can be considered that Council’s consent warrants these changes.

Following this logic, in Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2005] VCAT 1049, the Tribunal concluded that the following requirements would need to be met for a permit to be amended under Secondary Consent:

• The changes do not result in a transformation of the proposal.
• The changes do not authorise something for which primary consent is required under the Planning Scheme.
• The changes are of no consequence having regard to the purpose of the planning control under which the permit was granted.
• The changes are not contrary to a specific requirement as distinct from an authorisation within the permit, which itself cannot be altered by consent.

This decision has been referenced countless times in justifying where the provisions of Secondary Consent apply in determining the pathway for a permit to be amended.

Section 72 Amendments

Section 72 Amendments are commonly required when changes to the conditions of a permit is sought, or the changes to plans are more significant.

Section 72 Amendments apply where the proposed amendment exceeds the scope as determined by the aforementioned decision, and generally take effect for more comprehensive amendments.

A Section 72 Amendment application follows a process typical to a standard planning application and generally involves RFI’s, public notification and is substantially longer than a Secondary Consent application. These applications also make third party review rights available.

A common example of a Section 72 Amendment to a permit is whereby a change is proposed that would trigger a planning permit requirement. For instance, if a two-dwelling proposal in a General Residential Zone was granted approval by Council, and the applicant sought to amend the permit to allow a three-dwelling development, the permit would require an amendment under the Section 72 pathway.

If you are seeking to amend a planning permit, or require further advice on this topic, feel free to get in touch with one of our experts today at www.cstownplanning.com.au.

After a long absence due to Covid, VCAT will return to in-person hearings for a select array of Planning and Environment Division hearings on Monday of next week.

VCAT issued the following notice on the 10^th of November:

“From Monday 21^st November 2022, VCAT will convert the following fixtures from online to in-person: 

1. All compulsory conferences listed for one day (or more); 
2. All hearings of three of more days; 
3. All matters requiring an interpreter; 
4. All original jurisdiction applications but not section 87A PE Act matters unless they are captured by another criteria; 
5. All compulsory conferences for section 82 applications (regardless of length); 
6. All environment and resources fixtures (CC and hearings regardless of length); and 
7. All 1 day compulsory conferences in land valuation matters. 

From Monday 12 December 2022, any land valuation matters with three or more hearing days will become in person hearings.” 

There are few notes to be made of this. In short, hearings of two or less days, and all other hearing types, will continue to be conducted online.

In case of any confusion, the conduct, whether online or in person will appear on Initiating Orders.

VCAT will issue updated orders to convert all eligible hearings.

Masks are required to be worn for the time being, but check the VCAT On Hearing Day page for up to date information.

If you are seeking to amend a planning permit, or require further advice on this topic, feel free to get in touch with one of our experts today at www.cstownplanning.com.au.

Renewable energy systems are a large planning focus within the State of Victoria as they accelerate the reduction of emissions, create thousands of jobs, and put downward pressure on energy prices.

Solar energy facilities are a leading method of renewable energy within the State, with fifteen (15) independent facilities operating and outputting almost 700 megawatts of power. Seventy-eight (78) additional facilities have been approved with some already being constructed. These facilities will result in a net output of over 5100 megawatts and another thirty-one (31) facilities are currently undergoing planning assessment.

In total, solar energy facilities will provide the State with over 6000 megawatts of renewable energy, with targets setting to increase as the years progress.

The market for renewable energy will continue to gain importance as climate change continues to lead to greater impacts from a local and global perspective, meaning that the market for the construction and operating of solar energy facilities will allow for the creation of jobs and savings on energy costs.

Identifying Suitable Locations

The preliminary task involved in constructing a solar energy facility is to identify an appropriate location for the facility. The Solar Energy Facilities Design and Development Guideline (August 2019) found here, recommends that such facilities be located:

• On land with topographical conditions that avoids the need for unnecessary or excessive earthworks or changes to the natural landscape.
• To avoid the loss of native vegetation and biodiversity, with any losses to be offset.
• Close to the electricity grid network to minimise the need for additional infrastructure and associated impacts.
• A sufficient distance from existing or designated urban areas.
• To avoid cumulative impacts of built form concentration.
• Away from the floodplain of a major water course or wetland.
• Where it has access to nearby main roads.

The Process

The process as described in the Guideline prescribes four stages that outline the life cycle of a solar energy facility.

The first stage is community consultation, whereby the proponent is encouraged to consult with the community surrounding the area to be used for the facility. This involves communicating the idea with local farmers, residents, and Traditional Owner groups. An effective way to conduct this is through a well-designed community engagement plan which clearly identifies what is being done, the proposed timeframe and the impact the project will have on the surrounding community.

The second stage is the design phase, and this is where a formal application will be submitted to the local Council for assessment. At this stage, considerations must be given towards the scale of the project, it’s siting on the land, screening, landscape disturbance, glint and glare management, traffic and other potential impacts that may occur. Consultation with Council and a number of consultants will be required during this phase. Council’s planning department will assess the application based on their local planning schemes, which include energy outcomes, specifically at Clause 19.01 and 53.13.

The third stage is the construction and operation phase and commences once a planning permit is approved for the project. In order for the construction and operation of the project to be as efficient as possible in mitigating problems, planning should be undertaken to safely manage environmental risks, emergencies, site access, traffic, construction noise and dust.

The final stage is decommissioning. It is expected that solar facilities will last at any one location for a period of 20 to 30 years, and so this phase requires the land to be returned to its natural condition upon closure of the site.

If you are planning to begin a solar energy facility project, feel free to get in touch with one of our experts today at www.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 look at some statistics relating to success at VCAT for applicants taking on Council.  Below are results as recorded on the Victorian State Government website for VCAT hearings so far this financial year.  We have limited our sample to the five Councils that we work in the most: Boroondara, Glen Eira, Knox, Monash and Stonnington.

Boroondara

Total number of cases heard: 63
Cases affirmed (won by Council): 30 (48%)
Cases varied (changes made to application but ultimately approved): 15 (24%)
Cases set aside (won by applicant):  11 (18%)
Cases withdrawn (withdrawn before hearing):  7 (10%)

Glen Eira

Total number of cases heard: 41
Cases affirmed: 7 (17%)
Cases varied: 17 (41%)
Cases set aside: 12 (29%)
Cases withdrawn: 5 (12%)

Knox

Total number of cases heard: 22
Cases affirmed: 6 (27%)
Cases varied: 6 (27%)
Cases set aside: 8 (37%)
Cases withdrawn: 2 (9%)

Monash

Total number of cases heard: 80
Cases affirmed: 53 (66%)
Cases varied: 25 (31%)
Cases set aside: 2 (3%)
Cases withdrawn: 0 (0%)

Stonnington

Total number of cases heard: 58
Cases affirmed: 10 (17%)
Cases varied: 21 (36%)
Cases set aside: 20 (34%)
Cases withdrawn: 7 (12%)

So what does this tell us?  Overall, applicants have won their cases against council outright 20% of the time. Permit applicants have had their applications varied but approved through VCAT 32% of the time.  This tells us that Councils have had their decisions changed 52% of the time.  So overall, the odds are encouraging.

This should be seen in the context of the rates in which councils have success in winning against appeals. Glen Eira has a success rate of only 17%, of winning against appeals, while Monash is successful 66% of the time against reviews of their decisions.  This tells us that Councils have very different success rates to each other and that it appears to be more challenging to take Monash to VCAT than the other councils listed.

What methods lead to successful VCAT cases for our clients? It starts with objective advice about your position. If you have a case we can support, as for any appeal, you will always need strong evidence to support your case.  We use both our experience at VCAT and thorough reviews of applications under the relevant planning scheme to do this. Other methods we employ include negotiating alterations to original applications, including amending plans.  We also encourage the use of employing expert witnesses to support your claims because they are highly regarded by VCAT members.

What do you need at VCAT? Most importantly, you need someone representing you with a track record of proven success.  And that’s where we can help you.

Click here to read more about what is involved in a VCAT case or, 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 on 9824 1902.

On September 9^th 2022, the Minister for Planning formally gazetted Amendment C387 into the Melbourne Planning Scheme. The amendment was made in response to the March 2022 iteration of the Hoddle Grid Heritage Review (2020) and formally recognises 121 additional buildings and five precincts as heritage listed.

Further to this, the amendment will result in several changes to the Local Planning Scheme, in particular, to Clauses referring to Heritage controls within the CBD.

Purpose

In their explanatory report (found here), Council contend “the amendment is required to apply or update the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis for the places in the Hoddle Grid study area to ensure that their heritage values are recognised and protected”.

Similarly, this Planning Scheme update will aim to ensure that any new development considers, conserves and enhances the newly listed buildings as significant assets to the City’s history and character.

Striking a balance

Controversy has sparked surrounding the classification of several newer buildings (built post WW2) under the same heritage principals as the many older buildings adorning Melbourne’s streets. Large multi-storey buildings along Collins Street, to name a few, consist of far more modern materials such as concrete, glass and steel framing, and present as contemporary places. Many industry leaders are troubled by Council’s decision as it is viewed that these buildings should not reflect the same heritage status as other historic buildings of significance (such as Flinders Street Station).

Council claim that heritage should not be defined under one architectural style from one era, rather, it should be preserved as a viewing of the way the city has evolved over time, from mid-19^th century settlement to a post-war economic boom. The amendment aims to capture this notion through the provision of heritage controls to some ‘newer’ buildings.

The amendment also considers the scenario where, in years to come, a lack of protection would result in a large disparity between one-hundred-plus-year-old buildings and brand-new developments. Council considers that a preferred future character outcome be one where select buildings from all eras are retained to provide insight into the historical architecture and use of prominent buildings and places within the CBD.

Amidst the current controversy, there is no doubt the retention of historic city fabric will play a role in shaping the character of the City as Melbourne moves further into the 21^st century. The key to balance, that despite of the heritage status of buildings, is to ensure that the planning system encourages the maintenance and upgrade of buildings in an appropriate manner to warrant technological innovation and the needs of residents, consumers and workers who utilise these buildings on a daily basis.

It is the role of professional town planners from both the public and private sectors to collaborate and focus on creating positive outcomes for not only the City, but to all whom call it home.

The number of planning applications councils have to assess varies from quarter to quarter and this has impacts for applicants.

So, we thought it would be interesting to look at the State government’s Planning Permit Activity Reporting System (PPARS) website to see how a selection of councils vary on key performance indicators over this period. Things that matter to applicants, like:

• “How long will my planning permit take?”
• “What are the chances I’ll get the permit on time?”
• “How likely is it that the council will approve/refuse my permit?”
• “What’s this council planning department like to deal with?”

These questions can be answered by reviewing the data on this site that is specific to your council.  For the purposes of this article, we have focused on five metropolitan councils that we regularly lodge applications in.

During the fourth quarter of the 2021/22 financial year (April – June 2022), the number of planning applications rose over the previous financial quarter for Stonnington (10.5%), Glen Eira (11.8%) and Monash (17.5%); and decreased for Knox (-15.6%) and Boroondara (-25.5%). Given the that planning permits usually take a few months, this tells us that Monash has the greatest additional workload, and Boroondara, the most reduced. So, next quarter, you can expect these councils to be more and less busy, respectively. And this will impact permit timeframes and what the council is like to deal with in the short term.

Here are some more statistics for further detail for the fourth quarter of the 2021/22 financial year (April – June 2022).

Stonnington

Total number of planning applications lodged: 273

Planning permits approved: 285 (82%)
Planning permits refused: 6 (1.8%)
Days to process an application: 138
Applications assessed within 60 days: 51%

Boroondara

Total number of planning applications lodged: 202

Planning permits approved: 236 (88%)
Planning permits refused: 10 (3.6%)
Days to process an application: 150
Applications assessed within 60 days: 51%

Glen Eira

Total number of planning applications lodged: 304

Planning permits approved: 281 (88%)
Planning permits refused: 4 (1.3%)
Days to process an application: 87
Applications assessed within 60 days: 82%

Knox

Total number of planning applications lodged: 217

Planning permits approved: 173 (77%)
Planning permits refused: 14 (6.2%)
Days to process an application: 117
Applications assessed within 60 days: 53%

Monash

Total number of planning applications lodged: 309

Planning permits approved: 226 (75%)
Planning permits refused: 30 (9%)
Days to process an application: 112
Applications assessed within 60 days: 71%

So what does that tell us?  

As you can see, overall, councils have varying amounts of permit applications to assess. Those with the largest workloads, Monash (309) and Glen Eira (304), actually process applications faster than other councils who have less applications to deal with such as Boroondara (202) and Knox (217).

The number of applications assessed within the 60 day statutory timeframe is high for Monash (71%) and Glen Eira (82%), and significantly lower for the councils who have less applications to deal with such as Boroondara (53%) and Knox (51%).

Stonnington, while having a high number of applications at 274, performs the same as the council’s with significantly lower applications, also at 51% of applications assessed within the 60 day statutory timeframe.

This means that we can’t draw a straight line relationship between busier councils and productivity. But it does demonstrate that we can discern between councils.  Simply, Stonnington, Boroondara and Knox are the least likely to assess an application in 60 days.

Many of clients start with the questions “How long will my planning permit take?” and “How likely is it that the council will approve/refuse my permit?”

Well, the statistics for last financial quarter show that Glen Eira, despite being a busier planning department, are also the most efficient. Glen Eira turns applications around in an average of 87 days, weeks ahead of Monash (112) and Knox (117) and almost 2 months quicker than Stonnington (138) and Boroondara (150). This is a significant difference if you are planning for your project.

Finally, and possibly the most significant factor for some permit applicants, are the chances of a permit being granted.

The councils with the lowest permit refusal status are Stonnington (1.8%), Boroondara (3.6%) and Glen Eira (1.3%). On the flipside are the councils more likely to refuse a permit, being Knox (6.2%) and Monash (9%). Stonnington and Boroondara are two of the slowest councils to issue permits, but they have low refusal rates. Knox and Monash on the other hand, have refusal rates that warrant caution and careful preparation for planning applications.

The outstanding council, over the last quarter, is without a doubt, Glen Eira. They had the most applications of the sample, quicker turn around times and the lowest refusal rate. Click here to watch a video describing what town planners do and how they remove the risk of refusals for applicants.

A coalition of Australian building and energy ministers have agreed to a major change in the energy efficiency ratings for residential buildings that leads toward net zero emissions through an update to the National Construction Code (NCC).

The 2022 iteration proposes to overhaul the manner in which new residential buildings calculate energy performance and mandates an increase in the minimum ‘star grading’ as calculated by the Nationwide House Energy Ratings Scheme (NatHERS). NatHERS is a tool used by developers to grade energy ratings out of ten stars, and considers the design of a dwelling, as well as construction materials and the like when nominating a ‘rating’ to a new build.

The ministerial changes will require the NatHERS to consider the energy performance of major appliances such as heating, cooling, water, solar and battery storage to provide a second rating out of 100.

Purpose

The driving force behind these changes is to reduce emissions and transition to cleaner energies with the ultimate aim to decarbonise Victoria’s economy.

New provisions such as Planning Scheme Amendment VC221 (read more here) which removes the mandatory requirement for new dwellings to be connected to reticulated gas, show that the transition to more efficient energy systems is already occurring through the implementation of governmental change.

What does this mean?

The most significant change is that the major update to NatHERS proposes to increase the minimum energy rating from 6 to 7 stars. The increase in this demand will mean that the more-than 150,000 new homes built per year will provide Australian homeowners with up-to-date technologies and cost-effective living.

The difference between a six- or seven-star building can be calculated through a variety of factors, but often will be the result of which building materials, colours, and energy-saving appliances are used. This video provides insight into how this will be achieved from the conception stage of a house design.

It will be the role of town planners, architects, and engineers to collaborate on implementing smarter technologies into dwelling designs at their conceptual stage in order to meet the changing requirements as the NCC 2022 model is formally introduced over the next few months.

What’s next?

The NCC is to be formally published on 1^st October 2022, with the Code expected to be in full effect by May 2023. It is essential that stakeholders become pro-actively aware of these amendments over the coming months. The first set of requirements will be available at ncc.abcb.gov.au on October 1^st.

Project managers are notoriously time poor and often take responsibility for all tasks of a project being completed on time and within budget. Town planning approval usually represents an arduous but necessary aspect of their projects and here are three tips that can make this process more seamless:

1.      Know what you need town planning approval for.

Town planning approval may only be required for a very specific aspect of the project. Very often on smaller scale renovations or fit out projects it is only a very niche item that requires town planning approval, such as new business identification signs. Demolition and minor works such as erecting internal walls will not require planning approval and can be completed without the need to await planning approval. This can save time on a project and allow some works to be done while the planning approval is pending. You can self-assess whether or not the works you are doing requiring a planning permit by following this video on our LinkedIn page and you can contact our office if you would like to confirm what works can be done without needing a planning approval.

2.      Provide the correct planning information.

The type of information you lodge for planning approval is based on what triggers the planning approval. Council only want the information that is relevant to a town planning application. If you provide superfluous information to council about the project, it heightens the prospects of receiving a request for further information and a consequent delay in your application. Some typical examples of superfluous information include a floor finishes plan, an electrical plan and a reflected ceiling plan. The granular level of detail demonstrated on these plans is not what council require for a town planning application and receiving this unwanted information can have a negative impact on the timeframe of the application. We encourage you to provide a specific set of town planning drawings for planning approval to reduce the timeframe to receipt of approval.

3.      Consult with your Building Surveyor.

It is widely known that a building permit is required for construction. It is the responsibility of the licenced building surveyor to ensure they have sighted the necessary town planning approval and approved plans for a project if the approval is triggered. You may have all the necessary documentation for a building approval to issue but unless the building surveyor confirms that they are comfortable that a town planning permit is not required then you will incur delays getting started on the project. You should consult with your surveyor early to check if they believe town planning is required and if there is any ambiguity please contact our office to confirm.   

Getting proactive on town planning requirements in consultation with our team can help prevent downtime on a project by identifying those aspects that require planning approval early and allowing some of the onsite works to begin early.

On August 4^th 2022, the Minister for Planning formally gazetted Amendment VC221 into all eighty three Planning Schemes across Victoria. The amendment facilitates all-electric developments to support the implementation of Victoria’s Climate Change Strategy 2021 (Strategy) and Gas Substitution Roadmap 2022 (Roadmap).

The amendment changes the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) and all Planning Schemes by amending Clauses that require development to be connected to reticulated gas and amends the subsequent referral requirements.

All information and contributory documentation regarding the amendment can be found here.

Purpose

Policy contained within the Strategy and Roadmap seeks to reduce emissions and transition to cleaner energies with the ultimate aim to decarbonise Victoria’s economy.

In 2022 and beyond, developers and homeowners will, over time, inevitably switch to all-electric energy to implement more efficient systems and reduce their energy costs. Existing planning provisions that require or encourage reticulated gas to be connected where it is available, as well as the current requirements of determining referral authorities, invariably limits the opportunities for developers and homeowners to opt for all-electric development.

The amendment gives effect to this by removing barriers to all-electric development, as it changes the relevant planning provisions and referral requirements to facilitate the transition toward electrification and supports the achievement of emission reduction targets.

How is this achieved?

As aforementioned, VC221 changes the VPP and all Victorian Planning Schemes by amending Clauses that require developments to be connected to reticulated gas and amends the referral requirements of determining authorities.

The following changes to the relevant Clauses of the Planning Schemes have been made:

• Clause 52.20-6.1 and 52.20-6.3 (Victoria’s Big Housing Build / Housing by or on behalf of the Director of Housing): removes the requirement that development should be connected to reticulated gas, if available and to ensure new connections to a reticulated gas service are optional.
• Clause 55.02 (Rescode Standard B4 – Infrastructure Objectives): amends the Standard by removing the requirement that development should be connected to reticulated gas, if available and to ensure that new connections to a reticulated gas service are optional.
• Clause 56.09-2 (Residential Subdivision Standard C28 – Electricity, Telecommunications, and Gas Objectives): amends the Standard so that, where it is proposed to be connected, a reticulated gas supply system must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the relevant gas supply agency.
• Clause 58.02-4 (Apartment Buildings Standard D4 – Infrastructure Objectives): amends the Standard by removing the requirement that development should be connected to reticulated gas, if available, and to ensure new connections to a reticulated gas service are optional.
• Clause 66.01 (Subdivision Referrals): amends the referral requirement to specify that only subdivision applications that propose to connect a lot to reticulated gas be referred to the gas supply authority as a determining authority.

Does this benefit me?

The amendment will result in a number of positive environmental, social, and economic benefits as it will facilitate the transition to more sustainable energy systems in new development.

For consumers, the amendment will generate important economic benefits by removing the effective mandate to connect developments to reticulated gas. This provides consumers with a greater choice about how they choose to source their energy needs.

The switch from gas to electricity has the capacity to reduce household energy bills by an average of $840 per year, and this is an important cost-save given the increasing use of heating and cooling appliances.

The amendment will generate positive environmental benefits by removing the gas connection mandate for new subdivision developments. Consumers will be provided with the choice to live in all-electric developments and this assists in unlocking the capacity for energy efficient and renewable technologies to achieve the State’s emissions reduction targets.