submission on smart planning - reforming the victorian ... · web viewsubmission on smart...

SMART PlanningReforming the Victoria Planning Provisions

Submission

1 December, 2017

MAV submission: Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions

© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2017.

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is the owner of the copyright in the publication Submission on SMART Planning - Reforming the Victorian Planning Provisions - Dec 2017MAV submission: Reforming the Victoria Planning Provision.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria.

All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be addressed to MAV Reception on 9667 5555.

The MAV does not guarantee the accuracy of this document's contents if retrieved from sources other than its official websites or directly from a MAV employee.

The MAV can provide this publication in an alternative format upon request, including large print, Braille and audio.

Submission on SMART Planning - Reforming the Victorian Planning Provisions - Dec 2017MAV submission: Reforming the Victoria Planning Provision has been prepared by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) for discussion with member councils.

While this paper aims to broadly reflect the views of local government in Victoria, it does not purport to reflect the exact views of individual councils.


Table of contents

1 Executive summary................................................................................................................5

2 Introduction............................................................................................................................7

3 Principles of a modernised VPP.............................................................................................8

4 Core VPP improvement suggestions.....................................................................................9

4.1. Proposed structure of the VPP........................................................................................9

4.1.1..........................................................................Municipal context/vision10

4.1.2.....................................................................................................Local policy10

4.1.3.................................................................................................................Zones11

4.1.4...........................................................................................................Overlays12

4.1.5......................................................................................General Provisions12

4.2. Management structures – gatekeeper role...................................................................12

5 Response to discussion paper proposals............................................................................14

5.1. A simpler VPP structure with VicSmart assessment built in.........................................14

5.2. An integrated planning policy framework......................................................................14

5.3. Assessment pathways for simple proposals.................................................................16

5.4. Smarter planning scheme drafting................................................................................17

5.5. Improve specific provisions...........................................................................................18

6 Implementation suggestions................................................................................................20

6.1 Scale and pace of reform..............................................................................................20

6.2 Best combination of discussion paper proposals..........................................................20

6.3 Critical implementation considerations..........................................................................21

7 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................22

ATTACHMENT 1 – RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM MAV REFORM........................................23

ATTACHMENT 2 – PATHWAY MOCKUP..................................................................................29

ATTACHMENT 3 – SPECIFIC PROVISIONS.............................................................................32


1 Executive summary

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is appreciative of the opportunity to be involved in reform of the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and is committed to working with the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP) to achieve improved planning system outcomes.

The proposals put forward in the Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions Discussion Paper are thought provoking and challenging. The MAV makes a case in this submission for more transformative change to the VPP to make planning schemes simpler, transparent and user friendly. While some of this can be achieved through improved technology, the VPP structure needs substantial revision to improve its workability.

The MAV model consists of:

A refined municipal statement A stripped back ‘local’ policy framework – recognising that most State Policies are either

directives to planning authorities or should form State based controls Removal of the distinction between use and development Inclusion of assessment pathways in zones and overlays – with potential to consider

how codes could work (if some of the issues raised are worked through) Removal of the Particular Provisions by finding a home for them within zones and

overlays, codes or general provisions

The MAV is very supportive of many of the ‘management’ proposals outlined in the discussion paper including the VPP user manual, stronger rules and guidelines for writing policy and regular review of VPP requirements.

However, we do hold fundamental concerns about:

The integrated policy framework as it will result in loss of local policy that has been through a significant vetting process, including ministerial approval, at great cost to councils; fails to resolve the policy weight question; and would result in a substantial rewrite of policy for limited benefit.

The current proposals for simplification that seem to add additional layers to the VPP rather than remove them.

The proposed drafting service, which if mandatory, is perceived as ‘centralisation’ of planning scheme control with less ability for councils to adequately reflect local circumstances. Other measures can be used to improve the quality and consistency of planning scheme drafting without this proposal.

7 Submission on SMART Planning - Reforming the Victorian Planning Provisions - Dec 2017MAV submission: Reforming the Victoria Planning Provision

The insufficient detail contained in many of the proposals, and the very short implementation timetable. This will result poorly drafted provisions that have not been adequately tested or reviewed, perpetuating the very problem the reforms are intended to solve.

The lack of further consultation with councils. While we understand the Technical Advisory Group will be involved, it seems that this Group was not adequately engaged prior to the release of the discussion paper. It is difficult to see how engagement will improve given the ‘self-imposed’ unrealistic timeframes.

We believe that Government should seriously reconsider its approach to reform of the Victoria Planning Provisions, and planning reform in general, to ensure:

Extensive engagement with stakeholders including both the ability to comment on proposed changes and the ‘testing’ of new provisions against live applications

More significant reform possible within ‘business as usual’ parameters

The use of an Advisory Committee similar to that used during the introduction of the ‘new format planning schemes’.


2 Introduction

The MAV welcomes the opportunity to provide input to the Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions Discussion Paper.

The MAV was formed in 1879, and is the peak representative and advocacy body for Victoria’s 79 councils.

The MAV is supportive of the SMART Planning program and its efforts to address long standing concerns of councils, and other users, and create a planning system that is robust and flexible enough to respond to future challenges. The MAV has been involved in the SMART Planning Advisory Committee, hosted information briefings for councils and provided input into the key themes and ideas.

We understand the limited scope of the Discussion Paper and that the ideas put forward in the paper are focused on the structure and operation of the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP). The further ‘transformative’ phase of the SMART Planning program is expected to follow subject to the outcome of a budget bid.

However, we are concerned about the limited scope as it may result in a substantial rework or lost opportunities because significant change was not contemplated or provided for during this current reform stage.

The MAV has attempted in this submission to provide both an overview of transformative change we believe is required to the VPP as well as commentary on the proposals put forward. Given the amount of work that would be necessary to implement the initiatives in the Discussion Paper we have also sought to identify the combination of initiatives that would have the biggest positive impact.

The submission has been informed by the MAV’s previous submissions to planning reviews, the MAV Planning Committee and by council responses to our draft submission.


3 Principles of a modernised VPP

The MAV supports both the four founding principles of the VPP and the two new principles of ‘proportional’ and ‘digital first’. These two new principles appropriately reflect the evolution in technology and concerns about regulatory burden.

A further level of ‘criteria’ is necessary to help to filter the many improvement ideas and to remain focused on the core system effectiveness. To this end, we propose the following as a starting point:

Planning controls that impact on properties are transparent and readily identifiable through planning certificates/planning property reports online.

A planning scheme can be navigated by all that may need to interact with it without the need for professional assistance.

Single dwellings that comply with clear standards do not require planning approval unless specific consideration of a hazard(s) or special circumstances is required.

For straightforward matters applicants are given the opportunity of an easy pathway with objective standards and only if these can’t be met should a full merit assessment be required.

Users of the planning scheme are able to understand the assessment pathway and requirements for their property primarily through the zone and overlay controls.

Only policy that is relevant to planning permit decisions is located in planning schemes.

Planning schemes are generally stable so as to enable familiarity and efficiency in administration.


4 Core VPP improvement suggestions

4.1. Proposed structure of the VPP

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 is ‘enabling’ in relation to the structure of the VPP and includes no reference to required components of the VPP. Section 7 of the Act refers to requirements for planning schemes including State standard provisions (but not what type) and is only explicit about the inclusion of a Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). The rest of the requirements for planning schemes are set out in the Ministerial Direction – Form and Content of Planning Schemes that can be easily modified.

On this basis we suggest that more substantive change is possible to the VPP without legislative change. The overarching VPP structure (the MAV model) in Figure 1 is put forward for discussion.

Figure 1: Overarching VPP structure – the MAV model


Municipal context/vision

Local policy

Zones

Overlays

General Provisions

Reduced, concise version of MSS

Remove all State and Regional policy

Only local policy contained in planning scheme

Remove distinction between use and development

Restructure to include assessment pathways

If Codes exist, direct users to the Code from zone, no need for a Particular Provision

Review Clause 52.03 matters to fit within existing zone structure

Review and consolidate overlays where possible

Restructure to include assessment pathways, if necessary

Alter structure so that matters have to be scheduled in rather than scheduled out

Delete Particular Provisions, replace with Code (if necessary)

Consolidate administrative provisions

Remove VicSmart and integrate as a pathway within zones and overlays.

4.1.1. Municipal context/vision

A reduction in the size of the MSS is desirable so that it is a concise reflection of a municipality’s vision and supporting strategic guidance. It is anticipated that this would include:

Location Key attributes and challenges Regional context and framework plan Land use and development vision and framework plan Key issues and reference documents that generate the planning controls such as

Housing Study, Heritage Study

4.1.2. Local policy

The MAV would like to see the removal of State and regional policy from planning schemes. This was first proposed in the MAV’s submission to the Advisory Committee on Reform of the Planning System (see Attachment 1 for relevant extract).

It is considered that the main role of the majority of State Policy contained in the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) is to provide directions and advice to planning authorities about the preparation and maintenance of the planning scheme.

Fundamentally, the Planning and Environment Act sets up councils to act as planning authorities and responsible authorities and to make decisions on planning permit matters in their local area. The control point for Government is during the planning scheme amendment process and there is ample opportunity to influence what will be included in a local planning scheme and the application of provisions. In the majority of instances it is not necessary for State Policy to be reconsidered during the assessment of every planning permit application and this approach simply provides potential for conflict between State and local policy and a lengthy assessment process.

The current State Planning Policy Framework is a combination of:

Motherhood State policy statements that are difficult to implement and have no relationship with controls in planning schemes

Regional policy that has no policy owner or implementer Instructions to planning authorities Instructions to responsible authorities – usually in relation to projects of State

significance or very specific matters that would be better as actual controls.

This confused purpose leads to important content being ‘skimmed over’ or an inappropriate emphasis being given to one level of policy over another.


Policy should only be in planning schemes if it is relevant to local planning permit decisions where there is discretion to be excised.

For example, local activity centre policy might reference Plan Melbourne 2016 but its main purpose will be to set out particular activity centre locations within the municipality, any frameworks for the development of the centres and considerations to be had when determining an application in an activity centre.

Any ‘instructions’ given to planning authorities (e.g. Plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period and provide clear direction on locations where growth should occur) should be reflected in Ministerial Directions as envisaged by the Act and/or included in the VPP User Manual.

Where there are instructions for responsible authorities (e.g. Retain natural drainage corridors with vegetated buffer zones at least 30m wide along each side of a waterway) these should be reflected in actual State standard controls within planning schemes.

Restructuring in this way is worthwhile to provide much greater clarity in local decision making.

4.1.3. Zones

The Planning and Environment Act does not dictate how controls are structured in the VPP and there is nothing to prevent assessment pathways from being clearly identified in the zone controls. Taking this approach would necessitate a rationalisation of permit triggers in Particular Provisions and reconsideration of the distinction between use and development.

The pathways suggested are:

Prohibited Exempt – Exempt from need for a permit (unconditional where possible) Short merit – Minor matters with small number of considerations. Some discretion is

required. VicSmart currently fits the description of this pathway. Code – Identified standards that are clearly measurable. Compliance means permit. The

matters are more significant in nature than those dealt with in the short merit pathway but the standards are objective and should be easier to comply with than performance standards. If standards can’t be complied with default to merit assessment.

Merit – Discretion required in making decisions. Expected to be a complex matter or otherwise they should be dealt with by another pathway.

An example of a restructured General Residential zone setting out the pathways can be found in Attachment 2.


4.1.4. Overlays

Pathways are also of value in overlays. In the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO), for example, it should be possible to prepare prescriptive standards (possibly in a Code) against which applications can be easily assessed. Only more complex matters should require a full merit assessment.

The overlays do require rationalisation and the emphasis changed from ‘scheduling out’ to ‘scheduling in’ to focus their purpose and reduce the number of matters captured. Overlays are important for additional considerations, such as hazards, that cannot easily be built into the zone structure.

4.1.5. General Provisions

The proposed MAV VPP structure deletes the Particular Provisions. These provisions provide yet another location in which permit triggers and other various requirements are hidden. They are not mapped and require an experienced practitioner to ‘discover’ them. Instead of restructuring to a more complex sub-set of Particular Provisions, as proposed in the discussion paper, removing most matters could be achieved by:

Rezoning sites captured in 52.03 and applying the standard set of zones and overlays (through a simplified process)

Including some matters within zones or overlays (e.g. Residential provisions in the residential zones and the bushfire provisions within the BMO)

A direct reference from zones to the standards in Codes (rather than having to be directed through a Particular Provision)

Including matters such as advertising, parking and native vegetation in zones and Codes where more information is required.

Other administrative changes would be relatively minor such as the removal of the VicSmart provision, and consolidation of administrative clauses.

4.2. Management structures – gatekeeper role

The most fundamental changes that can be made to the planning system simply involve improved management and tighter ‘gatekeeping’. This is the cornerstone to the successful operation of the system. An ongoing commitment to resourcing and training are required.

The key elements of the management regime are:

User/practice manual Drafting assistance Review loop for VPP – outcomes and performance PSIMS Departmental resources


Planning authority support for implementation of State Government directives – reform fund

Joint State/local Standing Committee to prioritise improvements Process for determining the need for any State controls and an identified/agreed

consultation process during their development.


5 Response to discussion paper proposals

5.1.A simpler VPP structure with VicSmart assessment built in

Proposal 1.1: Restructure and reform the particular provisions

Not supported

The MAV is of the belief that the VPP could be restructured to remove the need for Particular Provisions. At present they provide yet another place in planning schemes that users need to look for permit triggers and requirements.

Specifically:

Where standards are set out consideration should be given to including these in codes referenced in the zone controls

Pathways should be contained in the zone and overlay controls not Particular Provisions

The specific sites clause is an anomaly that provides no transparency about requirements. It should be removed and standard scheme provisions applied.

Proposal 1.2: Integrate VicSmart into appropriate particular provisions and overlay schedules

Partly supported

The principle of embedding the VicSmart provisions into the rest of the planning scheme is supported. Having a standard alone clause is incongruous with the rest of the scheme. However, as suggested above we believe that pathways should be embedded in the zone and overlay controls not Particular Provisions (which ideally should be removed).

Proposal 1.3: Consolidate all administrative provisions

Supported

This change appears minor with no real consequences for councils. This is not considered an urgent change.

5.2.An integrated planning policy framework

Proposal 2.1: Integrate state, regional and local policy

Not supported


The MAV would like to see the removal of State and regional policy from planning schemes as discussed in the previous section 4.1.2.

The thinking behind the integration and improvement to transparency and usability is laudable as is the desire to give local policy equal effect. Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple.

We are concerned about the legal construct of the proposed PPF, the implications in will have for councils in maintaining their local policy and the implementation challenges versus perceived benefit.

The three levels of policy and a requirement to ‘give effect’ to them all creates a fundamental complexity in the system that will result in the need for greater legal interpretation. If this option is proceeded with it will be critical that:

There is legal clarity around whether it is possible to ‘give effect’ to all policy within the current legal constructs

How policy conflicts between levels of policy are resolved (there will always be some)

Whether regional policy has any force or effect as there are no ‘rules’ around what weight it has relative to state and local policy

Who gives effect to regional policy as there is no logical ‘owner’ or implementer.

A number of councils have expressed concern about the potential for some of their local policy to not find a home within the proposed new structure or for policies to be altered beyond recognition to fit the new framework. Councils have expended significant resources and funds on researching, preparing, exhibiting and going through the approval process for planning scheme amendments. To lose these policies, or for them to be substantially modified, is not an acceptable outcome. We understand some councils have been specifically advised in writing that they will ‘lose’ some of their policies that do not fit within the proposed themes.

It is not as simple as suggesting that new State policy themes will be developed as it is not appropriate to ‘make up’ state policy if none exists as planning scheme policy must have a strategic basis and have been through a strategic process. Nor is it appropriate to include headings under State policy for matters that are purely local.

Implementation concerns about the integrated policy framework include the lack of detail around the proposed timing, cost/funding of local translation and the amount of effort required to move to a new model when it is difficult to see the benefits. This work will be exhaustive for both the State and local government and to date no commitments have been made to assisting councils with transitioning their local policy component.

We believe the fundamental questions and concerns posed about the integrated planning policy framework must be responded to before there is any further work on this proposal.


Proposal 2.2: Simplify the Municipal Strategic StatementSupportedMoving to a more concise MSS will be beneficial. This could be achieved through the planning scheme review process (every four years). However, it is unlikely that this action will have a significant impact on the operation of the VPP.

Proposal 2.3 Expand policy themesPartly supportedIf this integrated policy framework goes ahead, it will be important to have a home for place based policy. However, as suggested earlier it is not appropriate to ‘make up’ State policy if none exists nor is it appropriate to include headings under State policy for matters that are purely local.

Proposal 2.4: Create a clearer and simpler structure for policy makingSupported

The proposed thematic structure has logic.

Proposal 2.5: Set new rules and guidelines for writing policy

Supported

This proposal is an important part of the necessary structures required to effectively manage the VPP. We suggest guidelines rather than ‘rules’ as there is the need for some flexibility in drafting. Translation guidelines will be an essential implementation tool.

5.3.Assessment pathways for simple proposals

Proposal 3.1: Embed a VicSmart assessment pathway in appropriate particular provisions and overlay schedules

Partly supported

The principle of embedding the VicSmart provisions into the rest of the planning scheme is supported. Having a stand-alone clause is incongruous with the rest of the scheme. However, as suggested above we believe that in should be embedded in the zone and overlay controls not Particular Provisions (which ideally should be removed).

Proposal 3.2: Introduce new code-based assessment provisions for simple proposals to support small business, industry and homeowners


Not currently supportedThere is significant confusion about use of the term ‘code’ in the Victorian context. We have a number already such as timber production, cattle feedlots, small quarries and telecommunications. They do a variety of things such as set out exemptions from the planning process or identify particular standards to be complied with. Sometimes they include application requirements and decision guidelines.

The ‘code approach’ as outlined appears to be a different construct and more about setting clear standards for which compliance means the guaranteed issuing of a permit. Some councils question why a new type of ‘code’ might be required when we already have exemptions (subject to conditions), particular provisions (subject to requirements) and existing codes. Codes as described do not currently have a logical home in the VPP and it is difficult to see how they would be transparent.

However, the MAV believes the new ‘code’ idea has some merit as it could mean that there is the opportunity for some types of application to have either an ‘easy’ pathway or a more complicated merit assessment if compliance with the Code (or prescriptive standards) cannot be achieved. It also provides the opportunity for many of the Particular Provisions to become ‘codes’.

The idea of putting all requirements in the one place is also attractive and much easier for users. A Café Code is a logical place to start. For cafes that also have a liquor licence, this will increase the level of complexity and discretion beyond what is reasonable for a code.

For codes, as described, to work in the Victorian context it is suggested that:

It must be clear why a code (& permit) are needed rather than being exempt development

Existing codes be redrafted in the proposed new style. This is particularly relevant to a code being currently drafted for intensive animal industries

Any new codes try to capture as many permit triggers as possible so that other parts of planning schemes don’t also need to be accessed. The Particular Provisions really need to be disaggregated to achieve this.

For a change of this magnitude it is strongly suggested that councils be involved in scoping and testing the Café Code across a range of different circumstances.

5.4.Smarter planning scheme drafting

Proposal 4.1: Create a new VPP user manual

Supported


There is a need to prepare guidelines about the use of the suite of VPP controls and for a review of Planning Practice Notes. Practice Notes may well need to be reformatted to form part of the new manual. This activity should be part of basic management activities.

Proposal 4.2: Establish a business unit dedicated to VPP and planning scheme amendment drafting

Not currently supported

As planning schemes are quasi legislation it is important that there is access to the appropriate skills for drafting of amendments. However, if the suggestion is that the service will be mandatory for councils to use then the proposal is not supported.

Councils are charged with preparing and administering their planning schemes. Removing this role undermines a council’s control of its planning scheme. Adding another step/layer also adds the potential for further time delay and dispute. Increased accuracy and consistency of provisions will be achieved by some of the other proposals outlined as well as by the new PSIMS.

We also do not believe that DELWP can or will have the resources for this service to function appropriately, particularly in regional areas.

We recommend that the service commence operation as voluntary as there will be some councils that will appreciate advice and support that they feel is currently not available.

Other improvements could be made through a commitment to training of strategic planning staff in councils by both State Government and the local government sector.

Proposal 4.3: Create an online Victorian planning library

Supported

Transparency in incorporated documents, including approved development plans is a critical issue. In 2013, MAV State Council resolved to ask Government that incorporated documents be made available for viewing on its Planning Schemes Online website, in the interests of ensuring that developers, the public and councils all have direct access to a complete set of transparent planning requirements for all parts of Victoria.

The documents contained in the library must be maintained regularly so that they are up-to-date and relevant.

5.5. Improve specific provisions

Proposal 5.1: Improvements to specific provisions

Supported in principle


There is a significant amount of work proposed in the 50 ideas outlined in Appendix 2 of the discussion paper and probably represents a 10 year period of reform. It is suggested that the focus be on:

Definitions Zone fixups Consolidation of overlays

If more significant reform is contemplated, for example to remove Particular Provisions, it would be a false economy to make any changes to those provisions. Care must be taken to ensure that unintended consequences do not arise from any changes and there should be a process of legal review and testing with local government prior to gazettal. The MAV would be happy to help to coordinate testing with councils. See Attachment 3 for detailed comments on the 50 initiatives.

Proposal 5.2: Update the Definitions section of the VPP

Supported

Definitions are the most contested part of planning schemes and can have significant impacts on whether a use or development is permitted or prohibited. After 20 years it is appropriate for there to be a comprehensive review of definitions.

Proposal 5.3: Regularly review and monitor the VPP

Supported

Again, this action is part of a sensible suite of management structures for the VPP. Monitoring needs to include both ‘outcome’ and ‘workability’.


6 Implementation suggestions

6.1 Scale and pace of reformThe scale of reform proposed is significant and well beyond the capacity of Government over the next few years, and certainty cannot be achieved in the overly ambitious timeframe of June 2018 without major compromises.

Councils are already suffering from change fatigue. The provisions are in a constant state of flux. DELWP must be cognisant of this and seek to manage the reform process in way that does not overwhelm councils or users of the system.

Even with the best intentions it will not be possible to fully scope, design and test and rollout many of the proposals in the Discussion Paper. DELWP will need to have a ‘backup’ plan. It is critical that there is some logical basis for filtering the important matters to pursue. The MAV and councils would prefer to see well resolved and tested provisions than those drafted to meet a notional deadline.

6.2Best combination of discussion paper proposalsIf DELWP is to limit reforms to only those matters in the Discussion Paper, we suggest the following combination of matters would give the greatest flexibility for the transform phase, ensure tighter management and provide some relief in addressing some problems in the VPP.


ASSESSMENT PATHWAYS

Embed VicSmart (1.2 & 3.1) but modified to be within zones & overlays)Café Code (3.2) – test run for other codes

TIGHTER MANAGEMENT

Rules for policy (2.5)Manual (4.1)Dedicated business unit (4.2) but modified to be advice onlyRegular review and monitoring (5.3)

TIDY UP ZONES & OVERLAYS

Consider Appendix 2 items 1-9 (excluding 3)Consider 12Consolidate 10, 17, 20, 21, and 22Definitions (5.2) & items 43-46

6.3Critical implementation considerationsCritical implementation elements will be:

Any changes to proceed in the ‘reform’ stage, as far as possible, are limited to matters that won’t subsequently be changed in the ‘transform’ stage.

If councils are asked to ‘implement’ any components then the impact on resources and other commitments must be considered and appropriate funding made available to assist.

Any proposed changes are released for feedback and tested with real planning applications to identify any unintended consequences.

Any proposed changes go through a process of legal review.

Clear guidance is made available at the time of any change and DELWP resources are available to clarify any matters of interpretation.

Communication with all users of the system to advise of changes and resources available.

We understand that the Department intends to use only the Technical Advisory Group as its engagement strategy. We believe that consultation with the group has not been comprehensive and a lot more effort will be required to engage in detail with the group and test new provisions against existing applications.

The MAV would be happy to assist in engagement and consultation to the greatest extent possible.


7 Conclusion

The MAV appreciates the difficult task that DELWP has set itself in attempting to narrow down the reform possibilities for the VPP and sifting through range of differing views that will be presented during the feedback process.

We have attempted to provide in this submission both a wider view of more significant reform that would transform the operation of planning schemes and a narrow view of what might be possible in a short timeframe. The wider view is put forward in the hope opportunities are not lost in the ‘reform’ phase and, in the event that funding is not available for the ‘transform’ phase, a plan of attack is available. The narrower view is based on time and resource constraints but does ensure that future opportunities are not limited.

We are extremely concerned about the lack of future consultation proposed with the broader local government sector during the preparation of changes to provisions. The level of engagement with the Technical Working Group to date has not been thorough and we believe it is critical that all councils get the chance to comment and there is a regime of actual ‘testing’ of provision against live applications.

The MAV is willing to assist in any way, whether that is by convening workshops, small group testing or providing advice during the process. We look forward to further productive discussions about how we can help.


ATTACHMENT 1 – RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM MAV REFORM SUBMISSION - Submission to the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Planning Reform – August 2011

A ‘next generation’ planning system

IntroductionThe MAV does not believe that there are major systemic issues with the planning system, but that operationally it is overly complex to administer and not effective in delivering outcomes that councils seek.

Significant shifts are required in the oversight and governance of the planning system, its operation and the procedures used to administer the system for good planning outcomes to be achieved. For this to occur there needs to be a cultural shift within DPCD and allocation of clear accountability for the performance of the planning system.

This section outlines a vision for a modified system that addresses the concerns raised about the current system. The MAV is keen to explore this vision further with the Advisory Committee and Government.

Principles

The following set of principles is proposed:

System responsibilities are clearly allocated State Government is responsible for the:

- planning system architecture including the outcomes, performance, monitoring and improvement of the planning system

- currency and utility of the State Policy, VPP and supporting tools and processes

- spatial resolution of matters of State interest (such as hazard, biodiversity, utility and transport infrastructure) which extend beyond municipal boundaries

Local government is responsible for the delivery of the planning system within the operational framework set by the State Government

There are equal review requirements for respective components of planning schemes for State and local government.

There is a strong policy basis for decision making at State, regional and local levels Policy at State, regional and local levels is spatially resolved as far as possible Planning schemes provide an obvious home for regional policy and a readily identifiable

implementer State, regional and local policy objectives for a municipal district are translated into

effective planning controls.


Business processes are aligned to risk, complexity and outcomes Straightforward matters are simply assessed with more complex matters receiving an

appropriate level of attention

Solid, evidence-based strategic planning at a local level is rewarded with more definitive and straight forward processes for the introduction of planning provisions

Site specific amendments are minimised

The system is monitored and accountable Better alignment of zone and overlay controls, including schedules, with policy objectives

A continuous improvement culture and program across State and local government, building on the MAV STEP program

A focus on outcomes more than process, with performance against agreed performance measures

Appropriate incentives for compliance and performance.

The key components of a ‘next generation’ planning system

Governance and accountability frameworkThe lack of ownership of the planning system creates extensive operational issues. The MAV proposes that:

A joint State/local government standing committee be established to prioritise and deliver ongoing improvements for policy development and statutory provisions, and provide for the testing of new provisions prior to implementation

A monitoring framework be established to monitor both the outcomes and performance of the planning system and that the results of monitoring are regularly reported to the new planning system standing committee

A reform fund be set up (similar to the NSW planning improvement fund) to assist in the work of the State/local standing committee and contribute to system-wide initiatives. This could help to fund the STEP planning process improvement fund.

DPCD review its organisational arrangements so that there is:

- Clear ownership of the planning scheme amendment process and its administration

- Integration between Policy and State Planning Services units to ensure policy issues raised by councils (such as housing, ESD, broadband) are addressed and that planning scheme amendments are not unreasonably delayed

- Cooperative effort with councils in coordinating and streamlining the input of referral agencies.

Operational framework


The operational elements of the system need to be modified to enable councils to effectively deliver their obligations. Suggested improvements concentrate on the ‘front end’ of the system – planning schemes and their amendment. This will mean that planning schemes have greater currency and decision making in the planning permit process will be easier.

The MAV proposes:

A stronger ‘State’ articulation of State Policy through spatially resolved maps and instructions for Planning Authorities that sits outside planning schemes. As well as a subsequent review of State Policy every four years.

Translation of relevant State Policy, by either Government or Planning Authorities, into planning schemes.

Removal of the State Planning Policy Framework from planning schemes as it will no longer be needed in the assessment of planning permit decisions.

Streaming of planning scheme amendments according to complexity.

Planning authorities are responsible for the translation of State Policy objectives into planning schemes, guided as necessary by specific directions and/or instructions

The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) be removed from planning schemes and act as a separate compendium of spatially resolved maps and instructions for planning authorities

That State Policy be reviewed every four years, prior to the councils’ statutory scheme review, to ensure it is updated and relevant for planning authorities

Planning scheme amendments are ‘triaged’ by DPCD into streams with different process steps dependent on complexity and level of strategic resolution

Responsible authorities need only consider the local translation of State Policy in their decisions not State Policy.

These elements are reflected diagrammatically below:


The five point planThrough engagement with member councils the MAV has identified a five point plan that details how the planning system can operate more transparently, effectively and efficiently.

Issue Solution

1. Establish a performance monitoring framework

The performance of the entire system and outcomes delivered are not monitored.

A monitoring framework should be agreed for the outcomes and performance of the system.

Referral authorities should be required to submit monthly data to the Planning Permit Activity Report.

DPCD should be required to submit monthly data to the Planning Permit Activity Report.

Amendment data should be reported.

There is no mechanism to consider implementation issues or to test new or modified provisions prior to their implementation.

A new joint State/local government standing committee should be established to consider review priorities, monitor outcomes and performance and trial potential new or modified provisions.

State components of planning systems are not subject to regular monitoring or review.

Apply a requirement for review of State components, and appropriate feedback loops.

2. Develop a State policy compendium (with spatial plans) that informs planning schemes

Much of State Policy is already translated into controls and its inclusion in Planning Schemes causes duplication and unnecessary complexity for permit assessment and users of the system.

All State Policy objectives are considered equal. If there is conflict between State and local objectives, State objectives have primacy.

Remove the State Planning Policy Framework from planning schemes and have a separate compendium to guide planning authorities, updated every four years.

State Policy will need to be resolved by planning authorities through planning schemes, rather than permits, meaning the potential for conflict between State and local objectives at a permit level will be removed.

Matters of State interest (hazard, values, utilities and services) and key infrastructure commitments are not included in the State Planning Policy Framework. This makes it difficult to identify policy conflicts and for councils to understand the implications of State policy

Introduce a legislative requirement for a 30+ year spatial plan(s) for Victoria (regionally and for metropolitan Melbourne) showing areas of State interest and key infrastructure commitments.

DPCD to facilitate Government Department input prior to the review of planning schemes to ensure relevant State matters are considered in a timely


and commitments for their local areas. way.

There is not a transparent process for the introduction of new State Policy and consideration of its implications.

A transparent process to introduce or modify the Spatial Plan(s) for Victoria and other State Policies.

3. Review State provisions to ensure desired outcomes can be achieved

Residential provisions Reduce the number of residential zones and establish clear purposes, including ‘go go’, ‘slow go’ and ‘no go’. Align the ‘as of right’ building envelope under Recode with the new zones. Consider ‘no permit required’ for the use of land for more than one dwelling in the ‘go go’ zone.

Rural provisions Provide for greater flexibility for economic development such as tourism, industrial and small business uses.

Consider a Ministerial amendment process for all rural planning schemes in Victoria to address the ‘obvious anomalies’ resulting from the direct translation to the new rural zones.

Ensure planning schemes in Victoria are more up to date as a core outcome of the Regional Growth Planning program.

Other provisions Ensure the new joint State/local government standing committees terms of reference include the ‘cleaning out and tightening up’ of the general and particular provisions of the VPP.

4. Improve the quality and effectiveness of planning schemes

Planning schemes are of variable quality and currency – this is a symptom of the time and cost to modify and the lack of ownership at a Departmental level.

Implement the key recommendations of the MAV/ DPCD planning scheme amendment review project to provide a clear process owner in DPCD; establish timelines and process streams for amendments and other improvements.

Introduce a process (or stream) to fix logical anomalies and improve the currency of schemes administratively.

Ensure proactive input to and tailoring of the planning scheme review process.

Develop an overview of all planning schemes and regional differences and a model (rural, regional, inner and outer metro) to work towards.


No one is responsible for the state of planning schemes in Victoria.

Review DPCD’s role and ensure: Consistent advice Provision of data and State policy spatially Proactive drafting support from DPCD.

Significant effort is required to develop local policies and amend planning schemes to include. This is still the case even if a policy has been strategically justified and could have broader applications

Support the introduction of proven local policies regionally through a simple collaborative process. For example the broadband local policy.

5. Support ongoing review of planning processes

Planning scheme amendment processes in DPCD are complex for all amendments. There is little recognition of ‘fix up’ amendments, local amendments, amendments where there is well resolved policy and when the amendment is a follow through, or where an existing proven policy or concept (Activity Centre Zone)

Stream amendments according to which process steps are required.

Align the level of strategic justification and timelines with each stream (based on existing strategic context).

Review how Panels role may be more effective and the role of other agencies in the panel process.

Permit processes are overly complex, applications are pushed through rather than pulled through and there is a high level of failure demand.

Support councils to fully participate in the STEP planning program as the results are compelling.

There are no incentives to improve performance in the planning system.

Introduce incentives for “AAA” councils and “AAA” referral authorities – insurance risk assessment; authorisation thresholds; business planner concept.

There are a range of issues associated with enforcement of planning schemes including limited resources, cost of taking action.

Increased penalties available for fines issued by councils.

VCAT Limit scope of consideration to the application (& plans) at the time of council decision and only the issues that are in dispute.


ATTACHMENT 2 – PATHWAY MOCKUP

GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE

Prohibited Exempt VicSmart

(Exempt from notice and review)

Code/Prescriptive standards

(Exempt from notice and review)

Merit

Amusement parlour Single dwelling and any outbuildings or any extension, modification

Except where:

there is an overlay in place; or

site is less than 300m

Single dwelling and any outbuildings or any extension or modification on a lot less than 300m

Secondary dwelling

Comply with dwelling standards

Multi-dwellings


Apartments


Animal boarding Home occupation Subdivision into two lots or of an existing building

Residential aged care

Comply with dwelling standards (where appropriate)

Subdivision

Animal training Bed & breakfast

No more than 10 persons

One carspace per 2 persons

Animal keeping

No more than 5 animals

Brothel Medical centre

No greater than 250m2

Must adjoin a Road Zone

Service station

Adjoin a Commercial or Industrial zone or adjoin a Road Zone

Not exceed 3000m2.

Cinema Place of worship

No greater than 250m2

Car park



Horse stables Minor utility installation

Convenience restaurant/take-away food premises


Industry Informal outdoor recreation

Convenience shop

Animal husbandry Crisis accommodation

Rooming house

Motor racing track Railway Subdivision into lots containing an existing dwelling

Nightclub Tramway

Office Animal keeping

No more than 2 animals

Retail premises

Saleyard

Stone extraction

Transport terminal

Warehouse

If can’t comply with conditions planning permit required. Pathway will depend on whether VicSmart or Code standards are available

If can’t comply with standards default to merit assessment

If can’t comply with standards default to merit assessment

Reconsider whether some of the uses should be prohibited rather than permit required.

Dwelling standards (may vary for dwelling type)

A Application requirements


B Site layout

C Building massing

D Amenity impacts

E On-site amenity

E Neighbourhood character

Subdivision standards

M Application requirements

N Lot design

O Urban landscape

P Access & mobility

Q Integrated water management

R Site management

S Utilities

Maintenance and repairs

Consent is not required for any maintenance or repairs provided they reinstate the current condition of the building.


ATTACHMENT 3 – SPECIFIC PROVISIONS

ID. No.Zones

Clause No.

Name Modification MAV comment

ID. No.Zones1

Clause No.30

NameAll zone schedules

ModificationReview all zone schedules having regard to the following:

a) Enhance the Ministerial Direction – The Form and Content of Planning Schemes to limit structural modifications (such as to headings and order, etc) and ensure consistency across the VPP

b) Ensure the distinction between the state and local clauses remains clear.

Migration of planning schemes to a new electronic system provides DELWP with the opportunity to address consistency problems.

(a) In principle support

Consistency in application of the framework of the VPPs is supported. However, sufficient opportunity needs to exist for councils to articulate the ‘local’ nature of the controls in their zone schedules. Artificial restriction will reduce the effectiveness of the outcomes and potentially result in numerous controls needing to be applied to achieve the same outcome.

(b) Support

This idea doesn’t appear to require any action.

ID. No.Zones2

Clause No.30

NameAll zones

ModificationReview zones having regard to the following:

a) Rename zones from being numerical (for example, ‘Industrial 1 Zone’) to being descriptive and adopting everyday words, such as used for the residential zones

b) Examine the role and function of the following zones to establish whether they can be replaced with other VPP tools (such as the Mixed Use Zone or the Commercial 1 Zone and an Incorporated Plan Overlay or Development Plan Overlay), or amalgamate the following zones into a single zone

Support

The initiatives presented in this idea are common sense initiatives. However, it is necessary to continue to consult with local government during the development of any changes to:

Determine whether there might be any unintended consequences from changing the wording or amalgamating zone controls

Understand how the different zones have been applied – recognising that such zones provide a ‘one-stop-shop’ rather than having to utilise multiple controls

Work through a reasonable transition process that does not impact the resourcing of councils.


that can be tailored to reflect local circumstances:

i. Priority Development Zone

ii. Activity Centre Zone

c) Create consistency in use of phrasing where a common meaning applies (such as the phrases ‘generally in accordance with’, ‘generally consistent with’ and ‘in accordance with’).

ID. No.Zones3

Clause No.32

NameAll Residential Zones

ModificationReview residential zones having regard to the following:

a) Make single dwellings on lots greater than 300sqm exempt from a planning permit by lowering the threshold for a permit from 500 to 300sqm (they are already exempt on lots greater than 500sqm), relying on the building code to address siting and design issues

b) Make ‘Childcare Centre’ a Section 1 (as of right) land use within the Residential Growth Zone, subject to conditions, such as relating to size

c) Redraft the following phrase used uniquely in the residential zones as a permit trigger: 'construction and extension of ...’ and adopt the more commonly used 'to construct a building or construct and carry out works ...' to create consistency with other zones.

(a) Not supported

The default position is that a single dwelling on a lot less than 300m2 requires a permit. A council is required to strategically justify a change to the planning scheme to require a permit for lots less than 500m2. If this is achieved it should not be undermined by a blanket change. Nor should any change occur without factoring in the impact of the Building Regulations.

(b) Not supported

The purpose of all of the residential zones is primarily for residential development. Uses outside of this should always require a permit as a matter of principle. The potential considerations for a childcare centre are complex and it would be difficult to identity prescriptive conditions that could justify a Section 1 use.

(c) Unclear

The legal ramifications of this are unclear. Some councils believe that this would increase the range of matters captured by the planning permit trigger.


ID. No.Zones4

Clause No.32.04

NameMixed Use Zone

ModificationReview the Mixed Use Zone having regard to the following:

a) Make more commercial uses in the Mixed Use Zone Section 1 (as of right) land uses where they are low impact, subject to conditions

b) Make 'Manufacturing Sales' a Section 1 (as of right) land use with a condition relating to floor area size to support the establishment of small ‘makers’ and creative industries

c) Make ‘Childcare Centre’ a Section 1 (as of right) land use, subject to conditions, such as relating to size.

(a) In principle supportThe suggestion appears to have some merit but the new uses must be carefully identified with councils as the zone can act as a buffer between residential zones and more intensive commercial or industrial zones.(b) SupportAgain consultation will be important to ensure the manufacturing activities are not detrimental to residential uses within or abutting the Mixed Use Zone.(c) Not supportedWhile the need to increase the number of childcare centres is recognised, this should not mean that the use should be exempt from the need for permit.

ID. No.Zones5

Clause No.33.01

NameIndustrial 1 Zone

ModificationReview the Industrial 1 Zone having regard to the following:

a) Make ‘Motor Repairs’ a Section 1 (as of right) land use with the standard condition relating to distance to a residential zone

b) Make 'Convenience Shop' a Section 1 (as of right) land use.

Support

The proposed changes appear reasonable within the zone.

ID. No.Zones6

Clause No.33.03

NameIndustrial 3 Zone

ModificationReview the Industrial 3 Zone having regard to the following:

a) Make ‘Motor Repairs’ a Section 1 (as of right) land use with the standard condition relating to distance to a residential zone

b) Make ‘Office’ a Section 1 (as of right) land use subject to maximum floor area requirements


Provided an appropriate distance to residential zones can be identified with councils.

(b) Not supported

There may be some unintended consequences with this proposition. There is some concern that the change might shift office development to ‘cheaper’ industrial land and push out legitimate industrial uses. It depends on the ultimate use of the land. If land is being transitioned from industrial to commercial or residential this might be OK but if intended to remain industrial, office seems a strange as of right use.


c) Make ‘Indoor Recreation Facility’ and ‘Take Away Food Premises’ Section 1 (as of right) land uses

(c) Supported

The suggestion appears OK.

ID. No.Zones7

Clause No.34.02

NameCommercial 2 Zone

ModificationReview the Commercial 2 Zone having regard to the following:

a) Make 'Convenience Restaurant' a Section 1 (as of right) land use

b) Make 'Manufacturing Sales' a Section 1 (as of right) land use to support the establishment of ‘small makers’ and creative industries.

In principle supportThe suggestion appears OK but consideration should be given to controlling the use where there is an adjoining residential zones.

ID. No.Zones8

Clause No.35

NameAll rural zones

ModificationReview the rural zones having regard to the following:

a) Remove the need for a buildings and works permit for a dwelling extension or associated outbuilding if in relation to an existing dwelling, by removing the floor area size restriction if necessary.

In principle support

Seems OK provided any sensitive areas can be addressed by overlays such as SLO or EMO.

ID. No.Zones9

Clause No.35.07

NameFarming Zone

ModificationReview the Farming Zone having regard to the following:

a) Allow more primary produce sales as a Section 1 (as of right) use by increasing the floor area condition and allow a wider range of related goods to be sold.

SupportThe suggestions seem OK to assist with the diversification of farming enterprises.

ID. No.Zones10

Clause No.37.03

NameUrban Floodway Zone

ModificationReview the Urban Floodway Zone having regard to the following:

a) Assess the role and function of

Support

Combine this with ideas 17, 20, 21, 22.

The issue of who should undertake flood mapping and the planning scheme amendment process should also be resolved during this process. The MAV has


the zone, in the context of the suite of flooding overlays, and consider whether it can be replaced with a flood overlay only (see also Floodway Overlay proposal).

recommended in numerous submissions that a State wide approach needs to be taken, similar to bushfire mapping. There are known limitations including lack of consistency across Victoria.

ID. No.Zones11

Clause No.37.07

NameUrban Growth Zone

ModificationReview the Urban Growth Zone having regard to the following:

a) Upon gazettal of a precinct structure plan, land is rezoned to the applied zones specified within the zone, with the PSP implemented using existing VPP tools, and therefore eliminating the concept of applied zones and removing the need for a later planning scheme amendment

b) Reduce the complexity of future UGZ schedules through a more limited and rigid structure.


Agreed, a swift and easy transition to the underlying zones is required. This process currently takes too long and many residents are not afforded the protection of the planning zones. However, this task may be more complex than first appears as there is significant work required to be undertaken in the public realm that may be impeded by standard zones controls. Discussion is required with Growth Area councils about the most appropriate timing for transition to standard zones.

ID. No.Overlays12

Clause No.40

NameAll overlays

ModificationReview all overlays having regard to the following:

a) Review whether the distinction of overlays controlling development, as opposed consistency across the VPP, and to guide to use, remains valid, and provide updated guidance, acknowledging that some overlays already control use (AEO, SRO, DPO)

b) Review the approach of using overlays to identify buffers, such as the Environmental Significance Overlay, and examine how the


The distinction between overlays being only development controls has long been lost and a reconsideration of their purpose is appropriate.

(b) In principle support

The issue of buffers is one that has evaded resolution for at least 15 years. While there is some value is transparently indicating the existence of a buffer, it seems odd that the only purpose of such an overlay would be to provide notice to a landowner. Rigorous consideration of the landuse framework around uses requiring buffers is necessary to ensure appropriate zone controls are in place and there is no unintended encroachment. There is no easy solution for this issue particularly where the uses relate to legacy sites.

(c) Support

Ok.


VPP can transparently and consistently identify and protect significant sites requiring buffers (for example: landfills, treatment plants, water supply catchments and quarries)

c) Create consistency in use of terms where a common meaning applies (such as the phrases ‘generally in accordance with’, ‘generally consistent with’ and ‘in accordance with’) and in the use of common assessment techniques (e.g. Determining tree protection zones)

d) Clarify that if a permit is not required within the head provision, then the provisions of the schedule to that control do not apply. This may require holistic review of how the VPP reacts with local provisions.

(d) Support

Consider redrafting to enable uses to be ‘scheduled in’ rather than ‘scheduled out’.

ID. No.Overlays13

Clause No.42

NameEnvironmental and landscape overlays

ModificationReview all environmental and landscape overlays having regard to the following:

a) Amend the head provision to relocate the ‘Table of exemptions’ to Clause 62.02- 3 and insert the following words “No permit is required to remove, destroy or lop vegetation to the minimum extent necessary if any of the exemptions listed in the Table to Clause 62.02-3 apply”.

b) Increase opportunities for permit exemptions (such as associated with a single dwelling) by ensuring permit triggers are linked to the


We suggest that the structure of overlays be amended to ‘schedule in’ matters to be controlled. This would avoid the need to then check the exemptions.

Consideration of how the native vegetation provisions should be structured is required. Not sure that the suggestion is the best way.


purpose of the control

c) Ensure consistency across all schedules.

ID. No.Overlays14

Clause No.43.01

NameHeritage Overlay

ModificationReview the Heritage Overlay having regard to the following:

a) Review the proposed reforms to the overlay as proposed by the Heritage Provisions Advisory Committee, such as clarifying whether the overlay recognises precinct-wide or site specific values

b) Create consistency in use of words where a common meaning applies, such as ‘cultural significance’, ‘heritage value’, ‘heritage interest’ and so on

c) Create a new permit exemption for minor buildings and works, which do not affect heritage values, such as small verandas and pergolas and maintenance and the minor upgrade of railway infrastructure. Consider limiting exemptions to non-contributory buildings

d) Review the use of exemptions for certain minor buildings and works, such as those cited in Yarra and Moreland Council incorporated documents, to determine if these exemptions can be introduced more broadly across Victoria and made more transparent and accessible.


Generally seems OK. Consideration of Advisory Committee matters is long overdue. Consider changing the structure so matters are scheduled in rather than out. This will reduce the need to list every exemption. Again the workability of any changes will be enhanced by consultation with councils.

ID. No.Overlays

Clause No.

NameDevelopment Plan

ModificationReview the Development Plan

Support


15 43.04 Overlay Overlay having regard to the following:

a) Amend the exemption from notice and review provision to remove the ‘catch 22’ provision.

The suggestion seems OK.

ID. No.Overlays16

Clause No.43.05

NameNeighbourhood Character Overlay

ModificationReview the Neighbourhood Character Overlay having regard to the following:

a) Examine the role and function of the Overlay in the context of the new Neighbourhood Residential Zone, and other VPP tools.

Not supportedCouncils are extremely concerned by attempts to reduce the options available to them to protect neighbourhood character within their municipalities. Significant work has gone into neighbourhood character studies and there is a strong community expectation from this work (and subsequent application of the NCO) that the characteristics of their neighbourhood will be protected. There is no certainty about what the nature of modifications to the residential zones means, nor is any guidance available.

ID. No.Overlays17

Clause No.44

NameLand management overlays

ModificationReview all land management overlays having regard to the following:

a) Review the role and function of the three inundation related overlays (Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, Special Building Overlay, and Floodway Overlay, together with the Urban Floodway Zone) to understand if amalgamations are possible and the distinctions between the overlays and their objectives, are made clearer.

SupportCombine this with ideas 10, 20, 21, 22.The issue of who should undertake flood mapping and the planning scheme amendment process should also be resolved during this process. The MAV has recommended in numerous submissions that State wide approach needs to be taken, similar to bushfire mapping. There are known limitations including lack of consistency across Victoria.

ID. No.Overlays18

Clause No.44.01

NameErosion Management Overlay

ModificationReview the Erosion Management Overlay having regard to the following:

a) Ensure provisions reflect the level of risk and purpose of the


Idea (a) is appropriate.

Consider changing the structure so things are scheduled in rather than out. This will reduce the need to list every exemption.


overlay

b) Increase opportunities for permit exemptions and ensure permit triggers are linked to the purpose of the control

c) Modify the overlay to allow the waiver of a geotechnical risk assessment from minor matters, such as subdivision applications where each proposed lot contains an existing dwelling, and two lot subdivisions in a rural zone.

ID. No.Overlays19

Clause No.44.02

NameSalinity Management Overlay

ModificationReview the Salinity Management Overlay having regard to the following:

a) Amend the head provision to relocate the ‘Table of exemptions’ to Clause 62.02- 3 and insert the following words “No permit is required to remove, destroy or lop vegetation to the minimum extent necessary if any of the exemptions listed in the Table to Clause 62.02-3 apply”

b) Increase opportunities for permit exemptions and ensure permit triggers are linked to the purpose of the overlay

c) Review referral authority requirements.


Consideration of how the native vegetation provisions should be structured is required. Not sure that the suggestion is the best way.

Consider changing the structure so things are scheduled in rather than out. This will reduce the need to list every exemption.

ID. No.Overlays20

Clause No.44.03

NameFloodway Overlay

ModificationReview the Floodway Overlay having regard to the following:

a) Increase opportunities for permit exemptions and ensure permit triggers are linked to the purpose of

SupportCombine this with ideas 10, 17, 21, 22.The issue of who should undertake flood mapping and the planning scheme amendment process should also be resolved during this process. The MAV has recommended in numerous submissions that State wide approach needs to be taken,


the overlay

b) Improve access to flood levels required to ensure drawings are compliant prior to submitting a planning permit application.

similar to bushfire mapping. There are known limitations including lack of consistency across Victoria.

ID. No.Overlays21

Clause No.44.04

NameLand Subject to Inundation Overlay

ModificationReview the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay having regard to the following:

a) Update the purpose of the overlay from referring to a 1-in-100-year flood, to “flooding from a waterway in a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood event”

b) Update the purpose of the overlay to include the words “to provide for the protection of drainage assets”.

c) Ensure permit triggers are linked to the purpose of the overlay

d) Increase the opportunities for permit exemptions, such as developments not impeding water flow

e) Allow greater flexibility by expanding the floor space allowable for a building extension before a permit is triggered for buildings and works

f) Examine whether finished floor level height above flood level should be a planning scheme requirement or a self / code assess mechanism, or a matter for the Building Act.



ID. No.Overlays22

Clause No.44.05

NameSpecial Building Overlay

ModificationReview the Special Building Overlay having regard to the following:

a) Revise the name of the overlay to better reflect its purpose

b) Update the purpose of the overlay to include “to provide for the protection of drainage assets”, and remove reference to Clauses 33 and 35 of the SEPP (Waters of Victoria) from the purpose of the overlay

c) Make buildings and works (including dwelling extensions and new dwellings) permit exempt where minimum flood levels are met and the Building Act applies

d) Increase opportunities for permit exemptions and ensure permit triggers are linked to the purpose of the overlay

e) Amend the wording of the overlay so that a planning permit application that is subject to flooding from councils’ overland flow paths (less than 60ha catchments) can be assessed solely by council and do not require a referral to Melbourne Water

f) Consider the greater use of VicSmart where the Special Building Overlay is the only trigger

g) Ensure schedules are uniform and consolidated across Victoria.


ID. No. Clause No.

Name ModificationReview the Airport Environs



Overlays23

45.02 Airport Environs Overlay having regard to the following:

a) Ensure the overlay reflects the new Federal standards and associated noise contours

b) Consider the amalgamation of the overlay with Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay

The suggestions seem OK but consultation should occur with those councils with an AEO in their planning schemes.

ID. No.Overlays24

Clause No.45.07

NameCity Link Project

ModificationReview the City Link Project Overlay having regard to the following:

a) Review the role and function of the overlay and consider deletion and replacement with Clause 52.03 Specific Site and Exclusions if a need for special provisions remains, noting the recommendation to map Clause 52.03 items

b) Amend the head provision to rename the document as ‘Melbourne City Link Project – Advertising Signs Location September 2014’ in the Purpose and in Clauses 45.07-2 and 45.07-3.

In principle supportThe suggestions seem sensible but consultation should occur with those councils with a CLPO in their planning schemes. An alternative to Clause 52.03 should be explored, as this is not a transparent provision.

ID. No. Particular Provisions25

Clause No.52.03

NameSpecific Sites and Exclusions

ModificationReview Specific Sites and Exclusions having regard to the following:

a) Remove outdated provisions

b) Establish clear rules around when it can be used to avoid overuse

c) Establish the practicality of

Support

A review of the provisions is supported however the MAV believes this could be taken further to remove the provision altogether. This would need to involve significant consultation with councils.


mapping all items within a new Specific Provisions Overlay to improve transparency and public awareness.


Clause No.52.06

NameCar Parking

ModificationReview Car Parking having regard to the following:

a) Review car parking rates in Table 1 in the context of transport mode shifts, lifestyle and technology changes and densification, and provide rates for those land uses not listed

b) Provide car parking exemption in selected zones (commercial zones, Mixed Use Zone, and industrial zones) for Section 1 uses in existing buildings where floor area is not increased (for example change of use applications)

c) Assess the recommendations not yet implemented from the Car Parking Provisions Advisory Committee Final Report (2011) including the recommendation to make a Clause 52.06 application exempt from notice and review in all circumstances.


This provision is outdated and extremely hard to keep modern. Residential standards deal with dwellings, commercial development in infill locations needs a strategic solution inclusive of public transport and other modes of transport rather than a ‘notional’ number of car parks.

Consideration needs to be given to an alternative approach to car parking.Parking rates and considerations vary considerably across municipalities and a statewide provision is clunky.


Clause No.52.08

NameEarth and Energy Resources Industry

ModificationReview Earth and Energy Resources Industry having regard to the following:

a) Review the role and function of the planning system in earth and energy resources and explore opportunities to minimise conflict and overlap with the Work Authority process under the

SupportRationalisation is required including looking at the State Resources Overlay and Extractive Industry Interest Areas.


Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990

b) Add a new sub-clause to Clause 52.08 to specify that permits cannot be issued with conditions that duplicate or conflict with an approved work plan

c) Combine the provision with Clause 52.09 Stone Extraction and Extractive Industry Interest Areas

d) Rationalise the permit triggers and permit exemptions.


Clause No.52.10

NameUses with Adverse Amenity Potential

ModificationReview Uses with Adverse Amenity Potential having regard to the following:

a) Review buffer distances taking into account the Environmental Protection Authority‘s Recommended Separation Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions – Guideline (2013)

b) Review and clarify the clause’s application in ‘reverse amenity’ matters.


This is an extremely outdated clause that has little relationship with the rest of the planning scheme.

It should refer specifically to ‘air emissions’ as the clause does not deal with any other matters.

There needs to be more information about Note 1 uses.

Boutique uses are not catered for.

Consider whether an industrial Code could deal with the range of matters routinely considered in Industrial zones.

Concepts such as buffers and reverse amenity cannot be dealt with in the current provision. Further information will be required to understand how reverse amenity can be considered in a planning application context.


Clause No.52.12

NameService Stations

ModificationReview Service Stations having regard to the following:

a) Ensure the provision is updated to reflect current practices and modern service station designs, including reviewing the site area and crossover dimensions.


Firstly consider whether this provision is necessary? Could it be amalgamated with other provisions (e.g. car wash)?

Ongoing contamination of these sites can be problem.

ID. No. Particular

Clause Name Modification In principle support


Provisions30

No.52.13

Car Wash Review Car Wash having regard to the following:

a) Ensure the provision is updated to reflect current practices and modern car wash design, including reviewing crossover dimensions.

Is this provision necessary?


Clause No.52.14

NameMotor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales

ModificationReview Motor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales having regard to the following:

a) Review the role and purpose of this provision, and the relevance of the dimensions, with a view to either removing or updating.

In principle supportIs this provision necessary?


Clause No.52.19

NameTelecommunications Facility

ModificationReview Telecommunications Facility having regard to the following:

a) Update the Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria (2004) (an incorporated document in the VPP) and the particular provisions to recognise advances in equipment technology.

b) Clarify permit triggers and exemptions without requiring cross-referencing to another document.

SupportInclude as a code linked directly from the zone. No provision necessary.


Clause No.52.27

NameLicensed Premises

ModificationReview Licensed Premises having regard to the following:

a) Review the role and function of the planning system in licensed premises and explore opportunities to minimise conflict and overlap with the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation

Not supportedThere should be no change in the planning system to the area of liquor without a concurrent review of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 and a focus on maintaining objectives around harm reduction. Councils believe there is current value in the planning permit requirement for licensed premises through influencing venue design, improving the interface with the public realm and sensitive uses, managing amenity impacts and cumulative impacts. Packaged liquor is an area that is poorly regulated by both the planning and liquor control systems and modification is needed to take into account the negative social outcomes from increased availability of packaged liquor.


licensing process

b) Make premises in commercial zones exempt from the need for a planning permit, subject to certain conditions, and relying on the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation licensing process

c) Include and clarify common application requirements, such as ‘cumulative impact statements’.


Clause No.52.28

NameGaming

ModificationReview Gaming having regard to the following:

a) Review the role and function of the planning system in gambling and explore opportunities to minimise conflict and overlap with the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation licensing process.

Not supportedSimilarly to Licensed Premises there should be no change in the planning system to the area of gambling without concurrent review of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 and a focus on maintaining objectives around harm reduction.


Clause No.52.29

NameLand Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1 or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road

ModificationReview Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1 or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road having regard to the following:

a) Clarify permit triggers and application requirements, in particular whether an alteration to access can refer to a change in use as well as a physical alteration

b) Include a definition for the term ‘create or alter access’

c) Amend the provision to provide additional permit exemptions

SupportThe suggestions seem sensible but not necessarily high priority.


d) Explore the possibility of using standard VicRoads conditions to avoid referral

e) Make access to a service road (other than an excluded service road) exempt from referral to VicRoads

f) Make applications under this clause exempt from normal notice and review provisions.


Clause No.52.34

NameBicycle Facilities

ModificationReview Bicycle Facilities having regard to the following:

a) Update bicycle rates to reflect environmental sustainability goals, the needs of modern businesses and increased popularity of cycling as a transport mode, particularly with respect to offices

b) Provide rates for more types of development.

Support

Consideration should be given to how this provision interrelates to the parking provision and the State policy relating to integrated transport planning.


Clause No.52.37

NamePost Boxes and Dry Stone Walls

ModificationReview Post Boxes and Dry Stone Walls having regard to the following:

a) Examine the feasibility of removing the provision, identifying historic post boxes and dry stone walls through mapping and protecting them through the Heritage Overlay.

Support


Clause No.54, 55, 56 and 58

NameResidential

ModificationReview Clause 54,55,56 and 58 having regard to the following:

a) Clarify the relationship between the standards and objectives, and

Support

This is a critical improvement idea. There should be no confusion about this matter.

Consideration of how the residential provisions (including subdivision) fit together and


particularly whether full compliance with the standard means that the objective is also met.

where they should sit is also necessary. This should be done with local government.

Rural and regional councils would like to see a reconsideration of the residential standards to create a ‘rural rescode’ that is more applicable to their circumstances. This was a MAV State Council resolution of October 2017.


Clause No.57

NameMetropolitan Green Wedge Land

ModificationReview Metropolitan Green Wedge Land having regard to the following:

a) Assess the practicality of making this provision more transparent by incorporating the requirements into existing VPP zones (such as the Green Wedge Zone) in a way that is policy neutral and does not weaken its controls.

Not supported

Some councils within Green Wedges perceive the proposed change as a weakening of the Green Wedge provisions. However, greater transparency is supported.

ID. No. General Provisions40

Clause No.60

NameGeneral Provisions

ModificationReview General Provisions having regard to the following:

a) Consolidate application requirements into a single clause similar to Clause 66 (Referrals and Notice), review all existing requirements, and add common application requirements (such as basic plans) to definitions to reduce duplication of description.

Not supported

The information requirements relevant to a matter should be included in the ‘head’ clause not found elsewhere in planning schemes. This idea does not enhance the usability of the system.

ID. No. General Provisions41

Clause No.65

ModificationDecision Guidelines Review Decision Guidelines having regard to the following:

a) Review all decision guidelines across the VPP and consolidate under Clause 65, similar to Clause 66 Referral and Notice provisions.

Not supported

The considerations relevant to a matter should be included in the ‘head’ clause not found elsewhere in planning schemes. This does not enhance the usability of the system.

ID. No. General

Clause Name Modification (a) Not supported


Provisions42

No.66

Referral and Notice Provisions

Review Referral and Notice Provisions having regard to the following:

a) Remove references to seeking the views and comments of referral authorities throughout the VPP and use formal processes of Clause 66 instead

b) Review the classification of referral agencies as ‘recommending’ authorities or ‘determining’ authorities

c) Encourage more standard agreements with agencies to reduce the need for referral for minor and low risk matters

d) Make the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources a referral authority for land near existing quarries.

Councils believe referral and notice requirements should be in the clause that they are attached to rather than consolidated, as this is easier for the infrequent user.

(b) Support

Reviewing the ‘determining’ and ‘recommending’ referral authorities is important and something councils would like to be involved in. Where matters are core responsibilities of agencies then they should be ‘determining’ and should be prepared to back up their decisions at VCAT.

(c) In principle support

While standard agreements can be useful, the first step should be considering the scope of all referrals and refining in the VPP rather than through individual agreements.(d) Support

ID. No. General Definitions43

Clause No.72

NameGeneral Terms

ModificationReview General Terms to investigate the inclusion of:

a) ‘outbuildings normal to a dwelling’

b) ‘sensitive uses’.

Support

Sensible suggestions to include the new terms


Clause No.74

NameLand Use Terms

ModificationReview all VPP land use terms and definitions, and associated treatment in the land use tables, having regard to the following objectives:

a) Reduce the number of terms

b) Remove obsolete uses


This is a key priority for councils that have been asking for changes for some time. Insufficient detail is provided however to respond in any more detail. Councils need to be heavily involved in any review of definitions.


c) Separate out common land uses only when necessary to be treated differently in zone tables

d) Be less prescriptive by removing overly specific terms

e) Broaden terms and definitions to account for rapidly shifting industries and lifestyles

f) Use every day and plain-English terms that the community readily understands aid understanding (bar), in other cases

g) Modernise definitions including consideration of emerging social, economic and technological trends

h) Provide definitions for undefined terms, excluding those where there is an appropriate ordinary dictionary meaning or definition in the Act.

Review Land Use Terms to investigate adding the following (only where necessary and in recognition of the objectives above):

‘Rural workers accommodation’, ‘Carbon sequestration’, ‘Contractor’s Depot’, ‘Holiday dwelling’, ‘Café’, ‘Music and arts festival’, ‘Maker’, ‘Community gardens’, ‘Storage facility’ and ‘Animal day care’.

Review Land Use Terms to investigate revising the following:

‘Tavern’, ‘Airport’ and ‘Airfield’, ‘Primary produce sales’, ‘Utility installation’, ‘Minor utility


installation’, ‘Place of worship’, ‘Anemometer’, ‘Winery’, ‘Shop’, ‘Food and drink premises’, ‘Leisure and recreation’, ‘Animal keeping’, ‘Brothel’, ‘Renewable energy facility’, ‘Heliport’, ‘Caretakers residence’, ‘Community market’, ‘Trash and treasure market’, ‘Dwelling’, ‘Cinema based entertainment facility’, ‘Warehouse’, ‘Store’, ‘Gambling premises’, ‘Gaming premises’, ‘Convenience restaurant’, ‘Art and craft centre’, ‘Art gallery’, ‘Amusement parlour’, ‘Pleasure park’, ‘Retirement village’ and ‘Residential village’, ‘Restricted retail facility’, ‘Group accommodation’, ‘Industry’, ‘Medical centre’, ‘Agriculture’, ‘Bed and breakfast’, ‘Night club’, ‘Hotel’, ‘Retail’, ‘Accommodation’, , ‘Place of assembly’, ‘Restaurant’, ‘Earth and energy resources’ and ‘Stone extraction’, ‘Materials recycling’, and ‘Transfer Stations’.

Review Land Use Terms to investigate removing terms within the land use table that do not have definitions as is consistent with Clause 71.


Clause No.74

NameLand Use Terms

ModificationReview Land Use Terms having regard to the following:

a) Investigate how the VPP treats commercial battery storage facilities both as stand-alone facilities and those collocated with energy generation projects, including whether new or revised

Support

This is required but it raises a broader issue about how to keep the definitions up to date and relevant.


definitions are required and in which zones they are appropriate.


Clause No.75

NameNesting Diagrams

ModificationReview Nesting Diagrams having regard to the following:

a) Shift ‘Cinema Based Entertainment Facility’ from un-nested to within the ‘Place of Assembly’ group.

Unclear

This appears to be a very minor change. Is it necessary?

ID. No. Incorporated Documents47

Clause No.81

NameIncorporated Documents

ModificationReview Incorporated Documents having regard to the following:

a) Examine whether a standard template can be adopted to ensure consistency across documents

b) Address the use of Australian Standards (fee payable for access), moving away from incorporating documents that are not free to access

c) Review the usefulness of each incorporated document including whether extracts should be taken from particularly large documents

d) Remove obsolete and outdated documents

e) Replace document references with updated versions where available.


Councils already undertake some of the activities listed and consultation is required before any work proceeds.

ID. No. Other48

Clause No.N/A

NamePractice Notes

ModificationReview Planning Practice Notes having regard to the following:

a) Repackaging the extent of practice notes to make them easier to navigate. This includes

Support

There is a need to review both the Practice Notes and Advisory Notes (for any ongoing implications) and consider how this might fit with a User Manual. Given the amount of upheaval likely in the planning provisions, the format will need to be such that it can be easily updated.


introducing a new VPP manual to support planning authorities (and repositioning appropriate practice notes focused on implementing and writing provisions into the manual)

b) Create a new Practice Note addressing advertising sign provisions, in particular outlining a mechanism by which councils can address concerns about the safety impact of signs on or near state-controlled roads where VicRoads is not a referral authority

c) Update Planning Practice Note 59 – The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes - to reflect the circumstances when mandatory provisions should be applied.

ID. No. Other49

Clause No.N/A

NameTechnology and the availability of documents

ModificationReview planning systems having regard to the following:

a) Review processes for accessing planning applications and update Planning Practice Note 74 - Availability of planning documents - to encourage councils to make documents relating to permit applications available freely online via their website

b) Provide a plain text version of planning schemes on ‘Planning Schemes Online’ to allow convenient ‘copy and paste’ into reports, or deliver through HTML using PSIMS.


The notion of transparency and user friendliness is worthwhile and many councils now have planning documents available online. However, there is a significant cost barrier to many who may not have the right platforms or would not be able to support the updating of material.

Plain text versions of provisions would be helpful.

ID. No. Other Clause Name Modification In principle support56 Submission on SMART Planning - Reforming the Victorian Planning Provisions - Dec 2017MAV submission: Reforming the Victoria Planning Provision

50 No.N/A

Section 173 agreements

Review Section 173 agreements having regard to the following:

a) Their role in the planning system and whether they are overused including in local schedules

b) The benefits of creating a standard agreement template that would only require minimal amendments for most purposes.

The Infrastructure Contributions work for regional growth areas may reduce the number of s173’s where the standard levy can be taken up rather than individual negotiation at the subdivision stage.

A template would be useful but may be difficult to achieve given the range of circumstances in which a s173 might be used. A model agreement is being developed for affordable housing as a result of the recent changes to the Planning and Environment Act.
