In one of the biggest reforms 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. Building applications that comply with the  guidelines would then be fast-tracked through the planning system. Crucially,  once the system is in place residents will no longer be notified of new  development proposals and will not be able to object.

The government envisages this ”code assess” system applying to more than  one in five development applications and will require them to be processed  within 10 working days. While councils will initially use the system to develop  guidelines for low-level applications – extensions and dual occupancy  developments, for instance – the changes are also intended to govern more  significant proposals, including high-rise towers in key suburbs targeted for  urban growth, such as Box Hill, Frankston, Ringwood and Dandenong.

The case for a planning shake-up is a compelling one. Developers, councils  and indeed the wider community pay a heavy price for the excessive red tape,  uncertainty and litigiousness that characterise the current system. The problems  consume council resources, and pose a threat to both the short-term imperative  of economic growth and the longer-term goal of urban consolidation. But given  the emphatic changes to residents’ rights, and we’re potentially talking about  residents watching helplessly as a high-rise suddenly goes up next door, the  onus is on the Planning Minister to ensure the laws do not strike at local  democracy. Bill McArthur, president of the Municipal Association of Victoria, is  correct in warning, ”clear policy and objective criteria must be agreed with  the community” before basic rights be removed.

The legislation must enshrine the principle of genuine community consultation  in the development of guidelines. And developers too must be denied  wriggle-room, losing all right of appeal if planning applications fall foul of  the guidelines. Certainty in planning must cut both ways.