Inquiry into Activity Centre Planning Provisions

2nd of April, 2025, 3:09pm
Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan):

I rise to make a contribution on Mr Davis’s motion calling for a select committee to look into Victoria’s planning provisions, which Legalise Cannabis Victoria will be supporting. I want to be very, very clear at the outset: housing matters. Housing should be available, should be affordable and should enjoy appropriate infrastructure to ensure a decent quality of life for all Victorians. We need appropriate, affordable and accessible housing in Victoria, and that does not exist now in adequate quantity. Everyone I think in this chamber would agree with this simple proposition. The question dividing this chamber is how to best achieve that goal.

This motion before the chamber is not about whether you agree or disagree with the government’s proposals on where new homes should be built or how quickly. I really implore my colleagues from the government side not to simply caricature this as nimbyism – it is not. In terms of this proposition, it is not about whether you agree with the government’s proposals on where and how to build, because I would say at the outset that the overarching settlement strategy in Plan for Victoria is pretty sound. It is a pretty good document.

This is about whether the new planning controls that the government has been introducing one at a time by regulation are appropriate and give effect to the objective of planning and the planning framework as described in the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Are these regulations consistent with the act under which they are auspiced as subordinate legislation? How can you argue against that proposition? Do they comply with the act or not? Are they consistent with the principles there? I think we would all want to be confident that the government is fulfilling the requirements of that act rather than frustrating it when it comes to new subordinate legislation.

Other speakers have talked about the three different planning provisions, so I will not go into that other than to note that if we actually start to delve into a few of those, we come to some interesting issues – some problematic issues that we would suggest warrant consideration. If we just breeze through some of this, the first thing that caught my eye is that via VC257 there will be a new housing choice and transport zone around activity centres and a new precinct zone for Suburban Rail Loop precincts, which are also activity centres, but that the existing activity centre zones will not be used for any of the new activity centres. I just need to percolate that one for a little while. So now there are three zones for activity centres instead of one, and there are a few other special-purpose zones that have been applied to activity centres in the past still kicking around in the system as well. We hear a lot from the government about reducing complexity in the planning system, yet at the same time having three to five different types of activity centre seems to be a pretty funny way to go about it.

The second point of interest perhaps is all of the exemptions that are contained in the new deemed-to-comply provisions for two or more dwellings on a lot in the residential zone known as the townhouse and low-rise code, which is part of VC267. I understand the government’s objective in removing those barriers in the planning system that prevent the speedy approval of new homes – it is an important objective. But I am not sure that that objective has been appropriately balanced with other objectives like protecting life and responding to local environmental risks.

Let us take a look at a few examples of that deemed-to-comply provision. The new provision literally switches off local policies and applies a 10 per cent tree canopy cover standard – Dr Mansfield referred to this before. This standard is lower than many councils are encouraging through their local policy. So will that help or hinder the government’s Plan for Victoria target for 30 per cent cover across the state? It would be good to see some modelling, but are we talking about 10 per cent? Are we talking about 30 per cent? Clearly the two are not the same and they are not readily reconcilable. This is exactly the sort of thing that an inquiry can and should be looking at.

The same provisions also switch off environmentally sustainable design policies for energy, waste and water. Again, think about that. They apply some standards, but where those standards are lower than those found in local policies, will that not reduce the quality of homes? Won’t lower standards of energy efficiency make homes more expensive to run and to own? They also switch off the EPA environment reference standards. So does this mean that planners will be prevented from helping developers to improve their proposals and reduce air, sound and water conflicts? Well, yes – the answer is yes, it will have that effect. And that is a terrible result.

They also switch off requirements to consider planning scheme amendments that have been adopted by council but not yet approved by the minister. This is very troubling. Let us say a council has adopted an amendment that changes the flood overlays requiring a higher ground floor level for a new building but the minister has not approved it yet. What then? Mr Batchelor and I sat on the Environment and Planning Committee talking about exactly this issue of how we respond in a timely manner with flood plains. We have talked about that. If we take this logic that is built into the code, does that mean that the applicant will fail to get a building permit and have to go to all the expense and effort of reapplying for one, because that is expensive and inefficient? Alternatively, will they get a building permit and go ahead and build something that the government’s own flood modelling says is a risk to human inhabitants? Make up your mind.

Given the need for timely advice to families who may be in the process of building their homes in an area potentially subject to inundation, it is utterly staggering that planners would be precluded – legislatively precluded – from the requirements to implement commonsense resilience measures. And some might say, ‘What’s the gap? It’s not going to be much.’ Well, talking about personal experience, in my community we spent almost two years negotiating with council and developers on a structure plan, and that structure plan when approved by council sat on the Minister for Planning’s desk for three years before it actually got permission to advertise – three years. So we are not talking about fantasies here. By all means let us talk about real shit, and this is what is happening out there.

The example I have just cited about flood and floor levels could easily be the sort of time gap we are talking about, and I believe it is something this inquiry should be talking about as well.

Sonya TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan):

On a point of order, Acting President, I think Mr Ettershank just used some unparliamentary language, and I ask that he withdraw that unparliamentary language and honour the –

[David Ettershank interjected.]

Sonya TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan):

Do you want me to repeat it?

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan):

No, I am perfectly happy. I withdraw the comment.

It is these incongruities that need to be teased out and explored by a select committee. I am reliably informed that the consultation on the three amendments we are discussing today was overwhelmingly poor, notwithstanding some very high level discussions about the principles, but the actual detail, especially all the exemptions from normal planning considerations that the townhouse and low-rise code makes, was not even known until the amendment was gazetted. So the consequences of all these new provisions have not been tested – not with councils, not with planners, not with developers and not with the public. We should not be sitting here being lectured to about nimbyism and extended consultation processes when the government has not done that, and it has used regulations specifically to obviate its obligations in that regard.

To pick up Mr Batchelor’s comment about the Environment and Planning Committee, yes, we could do this review in 12 months or 14 months time, when there is going to be a gap. Well, some of us do not want to wait until the dying days of this government to run into it. In terms of precluding community consultation, let us get real. This is the pot calling the kettle chartreuse. Let us get to the truth of these issues. This is a technical exercise; it is not a polemical exercise. Let us do a technical exercise on whether these planning scheme amendments are consistent with the act. Seriously, argue against that, please. This is just common sense. I know people will come with their own agendas – they always have, they always will – but it does not mean this should be opposed, because we are trying to get to the truth and the appropriateness of this matter. Accordingly, we are happy to support the motion.

[Council divided on motion]

[Motion passed 22-17]