Planning reform blocks appeals
Jason Dowling
A DRAMATIC overhaul to the state’s planning system will soon mean residents will not be notified of thousands of new development proposals or be able to object to them.
The government says the new planning system to be introduced in State Parliament by July will cut red tape, reduce waiting times and free up council resources for complex planning issues.
Under the changes – one of the biggest overhauls of the state’s planning laws in a decade – councils and communities will define what development is allowed in their area, including height and density, and then applications matching the definition will be fast-tracked through the planning system.
0pposition planning spokesman Brian Tee said the new system would reduce community consultation in planning decisions.
”Communities will be locked out and watch helplessly as historical buildings and tree-lined streets are attacked by [Planning Minister Matthew Guy’s] wrecking ball and replaced by high-rise skyscrapers,” he said.
The new planning system is expected to apply to more than one in five development applications and will require them to be processed within 10 working days with no notification or appeal rights for neighbours.
The system, called ”code assess”, will initially be used by local councils for processing low-level planning issues such as extensions and dual occupancy developments.
But the system is also intended for key development areas across Melbourne – Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Footscray, Frankston, and Ringwood – to process development applications that could include apartment towers of more than 20 storeys.
Mr Guy said the new system would add ”certainty and clarity” to planning.
He said guidelines for development set by councils and communities would be mandatory and developers would only be able to appeal a council’s decision if it was inconsistent with the area’s new planning code.
”It will determine what can be built and where,” he said.
Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, said the planning system needed improvement but warned, ”clear policy and objective criteria must be agreed with the community before removing public notice and third party appeal rights”.
”Until this happens, councils will remain concerned about including some single dwellings, extensions and multi-units in a fast-track process,” he said.
Mary Drost, from community group Planning Backlash, said councils and the community should set the rules for development in their areas and developers should not be able to appeal the decisions under the new accelerated planning process. ”If it’s out – it’s out,” she said.
Victoria’s building and development industry has long advocated for an accelerated planning application system. The Property Council’s Victorian executive director, Jennifer Cunich, said changes to planning laws would help economic growth.
Gil King, of the Housing Industry Association, said developments that met existing planning guidelines were chewing up council time and resources in a drawn-out approval process.
”This will actually make it clearer, if it meets the requirements it will be approved much more quickly, it will streamline the whole process.”
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/planning-reform-blocks-appeals-20120314-1v3li.html#ixzz1p87UvdML
Glen Eira Debates 
March 15, 2012 at 2:10 PM
The Libs and Labs show, dividing the city up between there mates to make a killing, same old faces same old games.
Want a change for this mob … Vote for The Greens
March 15, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Crap. What is happening is we are copying WA and SA planning schemes. The Greens wouldn’t know what is happening except they want gay marriage and they want all Victorian farmers to fail. The Greens were shown that door at the last State election. Most of the Greens supporters do not look like they are successful people. They hold no power in Victorian State politics and never will.
March 16, 2012 at 12:30 AM
“Greens don’t look like successful people” what kind of old world ignorant comment was that. It staggering what prejudice come out of the mouths of people whose names start with Z.
Judgements like that, could only come from a real loser, who would vote for a monkey if it were dressed in a expensive suit
March 15, 2012 at 2:57 PM
Right up Newton’s alley. Have a pretend consultation then claim that the state government has over-ridden all council’s suggestions and earmarked most of Bentleigh, Carnegie and South Caulfield. Perfect outcome. Developers get what they like and objectors can go jump in the lake.
March 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM
If you read the paper it talks about “code access”. Hopefuly you will be able to turn up at the town hall and get you plans passed in a few days. If the plans do not fit into the planning scheme they fail. Black and white. No grey. No discretion by the Council Officers. No VCAT to change things. Couldn’t be better. Residents should get more protection if the new scheme is designed properly.
March 17, 2012 at 7:37 AM
That’s a humungous IF. The Planning Scheme we have now ain’t properly defined so what will make it so in the future.
Take a walk around you block and the failures of the planning scheme will be crystal clear. The VCAT overturn argument is a furphy. Realistically, current VCAT rules will allow some overturning of Council decisions but if the Planning Scheme was rock solid the number of overturns would be less – as would VCAT criticism of Council’s policies, or should I say “suggested guidelines”.
Only if residents get off their collective and individual A’s will things stand a chance of changing.
March 18, 2012 at 8:30 AM
Yet another puff piece from The Age. So the Governement will at some point in the future introduce legislation to change the Planning System (maybe), but the public doesn’t get to the shape the legislation at the drafting stage. Its likely to be as flawed as every other piece of legislation that affects governance in local municipalities.
I have found myself advocating for more prescriptive rules at VCAT stakeholder sessions too, since the Standards are regarded as merely guidelines, able to be ignored at the whim of a Member. The issue is that complying with Standards should be a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. [In mathematics the expression “if and only if” is often abbreviated “iff”.] There still remains the “minor” issue of all the other concerns that the Planning System has, around infrastructure capacity, amenity of an area, provision of services, diversity of accomodation types, open space, traffic management, education, recreation, employment. Simply saying its ok to build what you want provided it fits within the specified building envelope is *not* good enough. That’s not planning, and very unlikely to lead to good outcomes over the long term.