Design Matters National (DMN) is Australia’s peak body representing building designers and energy efficiency assessors. We support both industries through professional development programs and work closely with federal, state and local governments to ensure the quality of building design is maintained at the highest professional and ethical standards. We are accepted among government agencies, universities, TAFEs and industry groups as a thought leader on building design issues and continue to push for improved efficiencies and outcomes for our members.
The town planning process is a critical component of the work our members undertake. In Victoria alone, more than 45,000 planning permit applications, with an estimated value of $32 billion, are lodged annually. Member surveys indicate almost 50% of all Victorian planning permit applications are lodged by DMN members, which highlights DMN as a significant stakeholder in the planning process.
We recently surveyed our members on the daily challenges they encounter within the Victorian Planning Scheme. Below is a summary of those responses, presented as a wish-list from permit applicants. This summary also offers some insights into how stakeholders in the planning process can help address the ongoing and growing housing crisis by streamlining the planning and decision-making processes.
Although it might be tempting to regard individual or small groups of issues as insignificant, their cumulative impact on the processing times and costs of statutory approvals pose a significant concern to our members. With over $32 billion in development projects (in the form of planning applications) present on councils’ collective desks across the state at any given time, reducing the processing times of planning permit applications by just five working days could equate to around $600 million in additional planning approvals/decisions. This means that for every week that processing times can be reduced, there’s a potential for $600 million worth of additional development.
Importantly, this list is not intended to criticise local or state planning departments. On the contrary, DMN and our members are optimistic that sharing this type of information will assist all parties involved in Victoria’s planning process to enhance the system’s efficiency.
Summary of responses from DMN members
|
|
Issue category
|
Analysis of systemic issues
|
|
1
|
Inappropriate requests to formally amend applications under Section 50, 50A and 57A, as part of RFIs.
|
Some Councils appear to be placing pro-forma requests for formal amendments to applications within Requests for Information (RFIs), often unjustifiably. This resets the statutory clock, significantly lengthens decision timeframes, and could undermine the integrity of the State’s Planning Permit Reporting Statistics by artificially reducing processing times of applications.
|
|
2
|
Christmas advertising requirements
|
Numerous councils require extended periods of advertising over December and January. More importantly, each council’s requirements differ,
adding unnecessary complexity for regular applicants. These prolonged advertising timeframes potentially delay decisions by 2-3 weeks.
|
|
3
|
Unnecessary RFI requests
|
RFIs often include irrelevant, previously provided, or unrequired information, or information that could be reasonably added as a condition on the permit. Copy and pasted or pro-forma requests are often to blame.
|
|
4
|
Multiple RFI requests
|
Applicants receiving multiple RFIs during the process, often from belated internal referrals, face unreasonable extensions to determination timeframes, sometimes by weeks or even months.
|
|
5
|
Internal referrals
|
Timeframes for internal referrals at some councils can be excessively lengthy. For example, Heritage, Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD), Traffic, Engineering, Arboriculture, and others. Referral staff are often inaccessible to applicants, prolonging correspondence and issue- resolution times. Additionally, referral information/conditions are often inappropriately copied into permit conditions without practical consideration of other issues.
|
|
6
|
External referrals
|
While there have been improvements in this space, some organisations, like the Department of Transport (DoT), do not provide contact details for assessing officers, thereby delaying issue-resolution and determinations by months.
|
|
7
|
Bushfire prone areas: Uncertainty in information requirements
|
The interpretation of Clause 13.02 varies between councils. Moreover, Fire Rescue Victoria and the Country Fire Authority’s (CFA’s) interpretation of the clause also varies. It is not uncommon for councils to require Bushfire Risk Assessments and Bushfire Management Plans (MBPs), only for the CFA to later state this information is not required. Such discrepancies can significantly increase the cost and time involved in application processing.
|
|
8
|
Flooding requirements via Council engineers where there are no planning flooding controls and information provided within the scheme.
|
Unexpected planning considerations (for flooding), not mapped or publicly known, can significantly delay applications. Councils know where these issues are, and they should be addressed in the planning scheme.
|
|
9
|
System for fast resolution at VCAT
|
The current timeframe and cost of VCAT reviews hinder the ability to contest time-critical issues like unnecessary information in RFIs, requests for s.50 amendments and definitions or interpretation of policy requirements. A more expedited system for resolving such disputes would be beneficial.
|
|
10
|
ESD Delays
|
Premature requirements for specific details, like white goods or light fittings before building envelope approval, can complicate the process. Overlap with Building Regulations and varying council acceptance of ESD/WSUD solutions also leads to unnecessary delays and expense at the
planning stage.
|
|
11
|
HO Inconsistencies
|
Councils interpret Heritage Overlay (HO) requirements differently, complicating the process for applicants. For instance, it seems illogical for councils to have varying policies that provide conflicting guidance on the criteria for situating an extension to a single dwelling within an 'appropriate' envelope. A consistent statewide approach to such issues would simplify and accelerate the process.
|
|
12
|
Impact of planning scheme amendments on Council
|
Most planning scheme amendments assert they won't impact council resources or costs, which often isn't the case. Hiring ESD officers and imposing additional applicant requirements, like Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) evaluations or arborist reports, demand more council time and expertise. This leads to extended application processing times.
|
|
13
|
Scheme amendments under Section 20(4) without public notification
|
Changes to schemes without public notification, such as rezoning from General Residential Zone (GRZ) to Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) within Heritage Overlays (HOs), are frequently justified as efforts to update old schemes or correct anomalies. However, these changes can significantly affect landowners, for example, by reducing maximum residential heights from three to two storeys. Landowners should have the opportunity to make submissions on such changes.
|
|
14
|
Arborist report requirements on all applications
|
The blanket requirement for arborist reports, even where no relevant overlays or laws exist, increases applicants’ costs and time. Such requirements may result in applicants exercising their right to clear vegetation on sites prior to making applications.
|
|
15
|
Online process variations
|
Councils’ movement towards online application processes is positive. However, a single statewide system for the lodgement, processing and management of permit applications would be significantly more efficient than developing and maintaining multiple systems across the state.
|
|
16
|
Councillor interference in
planning decisions for political gain
|
Reducing or removing local councillors’ ability to unreasonably influence planning decisions for political gain would increase confidence in the system and reduce VCAT appeals, thereby reducing the unnecessary consumption of public funds and delays in application processing.
|
|
17
|
Discretionary fees
|
Councils should not impose fees for the reconsideration of 'unsatisfactory condition 1 plans’. Any fees associated with amendments should be legislated to prevent inconsistency and discretionary charging by councils. Requests for further changes often stem from unclear wording of conditions or discretionary matters, leading to the unjust imposition of fees.
|
|
18
|
Expansion of VicSmart
|
Members endorse the expansion of the VicSmart process to streamline applications, particularly for matters requiring external referral advice, like inundation and bushfire risk. Similarly, Design and Development Overlay (DDO) permit triggers and similar issues should be eligible for the VicSmart pathway.
|
|
19
|
Standardise overlays
|
Streamline DDO and Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO) schedules by standardising outcomes, terminology, triggers, and requirements, eliminating outdated and complex controls no longer deemed acceptable today.
|
|
20
|
WSUD
|
Issues relating to drainage could be excluded from the planning process to address the current overlap with building regulations and streamline decision-making.
|
|
21
|
Mandatory garden area requirements
|
The Garden Area (GA) requirements in residential zoning provisions are widely considered a ‘blunt instrument’ that inhibits the development of residential properties, especially in well-serviced, existing residential areas. Notably, for lots smaller than 400 sqm, these requirements significantly discourage site amalgamation, resulting in the substantial loss of development opportunities.
|
|
22
|
Permit life
|
Varied application of the Benedetti principle by councils is a cause of confusion, unforeseen costs, and planning approval delays, especially in the
case of sites with historic planning approvals.
|
|
23
|
Unexpected site issues
|
Issues, such as landfill gas and potential site contamination should ideally be mapped and readily identifiable on property planning reports to avoid unpleasant and unexpected surprises.
|
|
24
|
Plan endorsement delays
|
Our members have reported that the endorsement-of-plans process can take months, with applicants expressing frustration with unnecessary requests for changes not otherwise required by the permit conditions. We suggest implementing a statutory timeframe for plan endorsement, ideally incorporating it within the 60-day statutory period. Delays in plan endorsement are known to postpone developments by 1-3months.
|
|
25
|
Council culture
|
There have been concerns about some councils’ reluctance to use the discretion allowed under the performance-based planning scheme, including, amongst other concerns, issues such as ResCode Standards and discretionary information requirements being treated as mandatory.
|
|
26
|
Simplification versus expansion
|
The planning process should not be unnecessarily expanded to cover issues, such as thermal performance and other considerations, that are already addressed by Building Regulations. This overlap only results in further stagnation in the application process.
|
|
27
|
Transitional provisions for Amendments
|
Planning scheme amendments such as VC243, which removed the permit trigger within the Residential Zone for lots over 300sqm, have caused significant delays and increased costs for ongoing projects. While VC245 received positive feedback from our members for its longer-term benefits, its immediate impact on existing projects was, and remains, profound. Consideration of transitional provisions to protect investments made in existing applications/projects should be paramount.
|
Design Matters National remains committed to improving the efficiency of the planning process, and we welcome any feedback on the aforementioned list.