State Reforms Delay Melbourne Planning Decision

Planning reforms mooted by the state have prompted the City of Melbourne to defer moving ahead with a key planning scheme amendment.

As part of its decision, the city’s Future Melbourne Committee has also opted to defer considering 37 submissions regarding Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment c432.

That amendment incorporates the Municipal Planning Strategy and was exhibited from September to November 2024.

However, the Victorian Government announced several planning and policy measures and reforms in November. 

The City of Melbourne is also undertaking public consultation through Participate Melbourne for its draft Melbourne 2050 Vision and Council Plan 2025-2029. 

The deferment 

The vision and the council plan are scheduled to be brought before the council in October. 

Planning officers told the council at its meeting on April 15 that the latest draft vision and council plan would take state policy and planning reforms into account and that once they were finalised, the information could be incorporated into the amendment. 

They also told the council that moving ahead with the amendment would mean having to restart the amendment process after a year to ensure the Municipal Planning Strategy was updated with the relevant information from the final endorsed versions of the vision and council plan. 

The cost to council of running two amendment processes from scratch would be greater than any cost incurred if the current amendment were deferred and then needed to be re-exhibited, planning officers said.

The officers suggested a deferral to report back to the council in November 2026 with a revised City Spatial Plan and Melbourne Planning Strategy that considered the 37 submissions made, any planning and policy reforms and the information in the finalised vision and council plan. 

▲ The Port of Melbourne’s submission asked for future rail and freight routes to be included in the Municipal Planning Strategy.

What developers want

Developers who made submissions regarding the amendment included Salta, ISPT, Perri Projects, Banco Group, Cedar Woods and Belize Nominees. 

ISPT said it was concerned that the Melbourne Showgrounds, and Flemington Racecourse and surrounding land were referred to as Special Areas where no change could occur. It said it wanted changes made to the amendment to allow for possible development on land within the precinct surrounding the two venues. 

Similarly, Banco Group wanted the height limits and other controls for the Lygon Street Precinct widened to support development around the Lygon Street Shopping Centre.

Crown Melbourne proposed increased height limits within Southbank, claiming it would support the objective of increasing housing density in the area. 

Several sites along the riverfront at Southbank are owned by Crown. 

Cedar Woods was concerned about a potential provision and subsidising of creative art spaces within projects being enforced through the strategy.

The Port of Melbourne wanted to add references including the Moonee Pond Creek sites that interfaced with the port’s land, the preferred route for the proposed future rail corridor through Fishermans Bend and the proposed Webb Dock Freight Link.

Belize Nominees wanted open space requirements in Southbank to apply only to publicly owned land and not privately owned land.

Salta wanted to change what it called a “rigorous overshadowing policy” for Docklands where the strategy called for public spaces to not be overshadowed between 10am and 3pm. It wanted the amendment to define public spaces as being places not usually overshadowed during that time frame.