Prominent planner Stephen Rowley recently published diagrams on his website to illustrate the scale of buildings possible under the new townhouse and apartment code. He emphasized the importance of providing clarity to developers and the community through visualizations of the outcomes. However, the state government released a 90-page document with guidelines after questions were sent by The Age, which included diagrams for applying different aspects of the standards but did not include examples of the scale of buildings to be green-lit without appeal rights. Developers can still apply to exceed the new standards, but this will trigger a longer process and allow residents to object at the state planning tribunal.
Whitehorse Mayor Andrew Davenport raised concerns that the new code would erode suburb character and lead to bulkier buildings with less greenery. He criticized the removal of neighbourhood character assessments and appeal rights as the most significant of the government’s planning reforms, allowing for generic responses that do not reflect local characteristics. Boroondara Council director Scott Walker echoed these sentiments, stating that the new approach was a return to outdated planning methods that produced poor outcomes. Other council officials expressed disappointment at the lack of consideration for neighbourhood character and the undoing of previous planning efforts without consultation.
Municipal councils and planning organizations also expressed reservations about the new planning code. City of Manningham’s planning and liveability director Andrew McMaster highlighted the consequences of switching off local policies and schedules in planning decisions on neighbourhood character. City of Glen Eira’s director of planning Rosa Zouzoulas noted that the code did not encourage increased housing density and lacked a requirement to consider if an application was an under-development. Planning Institute of Australia state president Patrick Fensham warned that the permissive deemed-to-comply standards could lead to developments that appeared jarring in local contexts, with potential impacts on neighbors.
The government defended the new planning controls, stating that Rowley’s diagrams did not accurately represent what developments would look like. They emphasized that the townhouse code included features such as windows, balconies, and greenery, and provided clear rules for well-designed homes up to three storeys. The deemed-to-comply approach was said to cut approval times by 60% and prevent developments from being held up at the state planning tribunal. Urban Development Institute of Australia chief executive Linda Allison highlighted the importance of the changes in making certain types of homes more straightforward to approve and build, particularly townhouses and dual occupancies which are crucial for boosting supply in established areas.
While the government claimed the standards were developed in consultation with various stakeholders, critics argued that the consultation process was constrained and lacked efficiency. Municipal Association of Victoria president Jennifer Anderson criticized the limited detail provided to councils in early March, stating that it was not conducive to effective planning system reform. Planning Institute of Australia’s Fensham also raised concerns that the changes were “spatially blind” and could lead to ad hoc development outside well-located areas. Overall, there were mixed reactions to the new planning code, with supporters highlighting the potential benefits for boosting housing supply, while opponents raised concerns about the impact on neighborhood character and local planning considerations.
