Victorian Planning Reforms: Community Advocacy Spurs Inquiry and Highlights Serious Concerns

This week, the final report from the Parliamentary Inquiry into Planning Amendments VC257, VC267, and VC274 was tabled in the Legislative Council, and it’s clear that our efforts were not in vain. The Inquiry found serious flaws in how these reforms were developed and rolled out—particularly around heritage, environmental impacts, and the erosion of community input.

While the motion to disallow (or revoke) VC257 and VC267 was ultimately defeated in the Legislative Council, the report itself marks an important shift. The recommendations and findings will have real influence on how planning reforms unfold in future—and it’s because of the noise made by the community that this happened at all.

A Quick Recap

In February 2025, the State Government introduced three major planning amendments designed to increase housing density in “Activity Centres” and streamline approvals. But the process sparked concern: there was no meaningful consultation, no modelling released to show how the changes would improve housing supply or affordability, and virtually no mention of how heritage or environmental values would be protected.  

Thanks to the advocacy of community members and groups—including many of you reading this – a Parliamentary Inquiry was triggered and a Select Committee reviewed the reforms. The National Trust joined that call to action and rallied our supporters, asking them to urge their MPs to meaningfully incorporate heritage and environmental protections into these reforms.  

What Did the Report Say?

The Inquiry’s 20 findings, included the following revelations: 

• Heritage advice was ignored. The Inquiry confirmed that the planning minister was advised to amend the reforms to better protect heritage—but chose not to.   
• Tree protection and environmental values were sidelined. The committee raised concerns that changes to residential development rules could lead to significant tree loss, with unclear environmental consequences.   
• Community voices were diminished. The reforms reduced the rights of third-party objectors and limited appeal mechanisms, all without proper consultation.   
• Lack of evidence. Most strikingly, the government failed to release any modelling to demonstrate whether the reforms would achieve their stated goals to address housing supply. 

The findings led to the following 11 recommendations: 

1. That all documents requested by the Select Committee be provided by DTP and other relevant parties. If documents are received after 13 May, they should be made available on the Select Committee’s website for two months. 
2. That the Minister for Planning provide all material relied upon to support the proposed amendments. 
3. That the State Government publish modelling to demonstrate the expected impact of the amendments on housing supply and affordability. 
4. That consultation with councils and communities be genuine and inclusive. 
5. That the Victorian Government introduce an informal notice period for statewide planning scheme amendments. Amendment documents should be published online prior to gazettal, and relevant authorities should be notified when these documents become available. 
6. That the State Government review its consultation approach for the first 10 Activity Centres and improve it for the next 50. 
7. That Decision Guidelines (Clause 65 of all planning schemes) apply to all residential planning applications. 
8. That the State Government work with councils to address flood, fire, and climate risks. 
9. That the State Government release modelling on the anticipated impact of the planning amendments on tree canopy and vegetation. 
10. That the State Government introduce stronger requirements for landscaping and tree canopy retention. 
11. That ESD requirements (Environmentally Sustainable Development) within Clause 55 of all planning schemes be reviewed to ensure they are sufficiently robust. 

These findings show the state government’s reforms have risked undermining both public trust and the character of the places we live. The results of the Parliamentary Inquiry didn’t just point out what was missing in these amendments—it revealed a much deeper problem with how planning decisions are being made in Victoria.  

Where To From Here?

Even though the vote to revoke the amendments altogether was unsuccessful, the report creates clear recommendations for improvement. Among its 11 recommendations are stronger consultation requirements, clearer heritage guidance, and calls for the Department to publish the modelling it relied on.  

A Final Thank You

This report—and the pressure it puts on government—would not have happened without the enormous effort of local communities, residents’ associations, and advocacy groups across Victoria. You raised the alarm. You insisted on a public conversation. And you made this inquiry happen.  

We know the fight isn’t over. But thanks to you, we now have a public record of what went wrong, and a foundation to build better planning reform that respects the places—and people—that make Victoria unique.  

Congratulations! Let’s keep going by continuing to demonstrate to government that heritage must be meaningfully integrated into planning and urban design decision making. It is what makes our cities and towns liveable and distinctive. 

For those interested in reading more, the full report was released on May 13, 2025, with detailed discussions of heritage considerations on page 20, tree canopy concerns on page 29, and climate impacts on page 30. 

READ THE REPORT