The select committee’s report on its investigation into the recent planning provision amendments has now been released. In many respects, the report is a damning indictment of both process and the lack of transparency by this government. It is available via this link – https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-involved/inquiries/VPPamendments/reports
The report contains 12 recommendations and 20 findings most of which are highly critical of government. These findings/recommendations are significant in that they highlight many of the issues that Glen Eira’s submission basically ignored and which we commented upon in our previous post! What is disappointing is that there is no specific recommendation regarding the proposed removal of third party objection rights. The committee basically states that this element has a long and important role in the state’s planning history!
We’ve highlighted some of the major comments and conclusions below. They are quoted verbatim.
A major problem facing the Committee was the absence of requested modelling from the Government, to demonstrate that the amendments will achieve their objectives. Without that modelling, the Committee was reluctant to downplay the many unintended consequences arising from the new planning provisions that were identified by users of the planning system.
Of the many unintended consequences identified by stakeholders, the most concerning for me related to the new townhouse and low-rise code: the removal of consideration of flood risks from the planning process, the reduction of environmentally sustainable development standards in major local government areas, and the excessive removal of existing trees. Surely we can address Victoria’s housing challenges without also creating these new risks (from introduction by chair – David Ettershank)
Finding No. 5 – Little convincing evidence was advanced to the Inquiry that the State Government’s announced planning changes will guarantee additional housing and no substantive evidence was advanced that the Government’s plan would with certainty provide additional affordable housing.
FINDING 6: The Victorian Government did not properly consult on these three amendments and the Committee is of the view that the Minister has inappropriately exempted herself from expected consultation.
RECOMMENDATION 4: At a minimum, modification of planning scheme amendments should be undertaken after a round of genuine consultation with councils and communities.
FINDING 9: The Committee acknowledges that the concerns expressed by many submitters that heritage and heritage values are at serious risk of being compromised by these planning amendments are valid. Protections should be available to protect our city and its magnificent heritage buildings and zones.
RECOMMENDATION 7: The decision guidelines of clause 65 of the Victoria Planning Provisions should apply to all decisions made under clause 55. This is most important where risks to human life and health, and to the environment, should be identified and managed.
FINDING 15: Without being presented with any evidence to the contrary, the Committee is concerned that clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions may lead to the excessive removal of existing trees and reduce tree canopy.
RECOMMENDATION 9: That the Victorian Government publish and release modelling regarding the expected impact of the planning scheme amendments on tree canopy and vegetation in areas affected by the changes.
RECOMMENDATION 10: That the Victorian Government make improvements to clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions including the addition of a separate landscaping objective and standards, and changes to the tree canopy cover objective and standards. The introduction of any improvements should be undertaken as early as possible.
RECOMMENDATION 11: That the Victorian Government promptly review and improve the environmentally sustainable development standards in clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions with a view to ensuring the statewide standards meet the higher standards found in 28 local government areas.
FINDING 18: The planning amendments mark a reduction in long standing third party appeal rights in the planning system.
May 15, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Thanks for making it clear as to what is being done. Very disappointing indeed.
May 15, 2025 at 6:46 PM
Bad news for the trees, if these rec’s are ignored. Livability, sustainable living all just propaganda words. 2.4 billion cut for funding schools. whilst hundreds of millions for a pit stop-lane in parkland.
Is this what happens when you let your developer and bikie mates run the state.
I saw some one living in a tent against the fence in the car park at Murrumbeena Station. And another person in a tent at Mackie Reserve.
The cities livability is crashing through the floor.
May 17, 2025 at 6:43 AM
Not much good news here. The Allan government seems desperate. All their changes will just lead to more substandard buildings and degraded neighbourhoods.
What for, and who for?.
Is a good question.
May 17, 2025 at 10:18 AM
Not good news.
May 18, 2025 at 11:59 AM
I’m glad to see there’s been some pushback on the dictatorial State Government’s development plans–not that it’ll change much. The report is over 400 pages so I imagine few people will read it. The development industry will criticize any attempts to impose standards or constraints on its activities. The fact that the development industry “donates” so much money to influence planning decisions should be a concern to us all. We need standards and checklists to improve governance from its current woeful level. State Government under Allan (and previously Andrews) is utterly untrustworthy. The Member for East Bendigo seems very keen to impose on Melbourne what she doesn’t accept for her own electorate.