Development Facilitation Program: Victoria Fast Track

The Development Facilitation Program is the pathway that takes a qualifying Victorian project out of the council permit system and puts the decision in the hands of the Minister for Planning, with no third-party appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) at the end of it. For a metropolitan residential project that means a construction cost of at least $50 million and at least 10 per cent of the dwellings delivered as affordable housing. In regional Victoria the construction cost threshold drops to $15 million and the affordable housing requirement stays at 10 per cent. Other sectors have their own thresholds, and a separate Great Design Fast Track pathway opens the program to much smaller projects of two to eight storeys.

The inputs that decide whether a project qualifies sit with three people. The town planner works out whether the site, the use and any rezoning component fit the eligibility tests. The quantity surveyor produces the development cost report that the threshold is measured against, and the Department of Transport and Planning will not take that figure on trust. The lawyer drafts and registers the section 173 agreement that locks in the affordable housing obligation, at the developer’s cost. This guide is written so those three conversations start from a shared set of facts rather than from the department’s landing page.

Every figure, threshold and requirement below was current at the date of writing and the Victorian planning system is moving quickly. The linked government sources are where to confirm the position on the day a project is actually being assessed, and the Department of Transport and Planning’s expedited planning pathways guidance is the operative document.

What is the Development Facilitation Program?

The Development Facilitation Program is a set of expedited planning pathways run by the Department of Transport and Planning under which planning permit applications for eligible projects are made to the Minister for Planning rather than the local council. The department describes it as providing “expedited planning pathways and facilitation services for eligible projects that inject investment into the Victorian economy, keep people in jobs, and create homes for people”.

Three clauses of the Victoria Planning Provisions carry the program. According to the department’s guidance, Clause 53.22 covers significant economic development, Clause 53.23 covers significant residential development with affordable housing, and Clause 53.25 carries the Great Design Fast Track. Between them they enable applications to be made to the Minister for five categories of project: projects making a significant contribution to Victoria’s economy with substantial public benefit, significant residential development including affordable housing, redevelopment and renewal of public housing stock, residential development carried out by the State of Victoria or in partnership with the private sector, and residential development of high quality design, liveability and sustainability.

The program also runs beyond permits. In “exceptional cases”, the department states, the Minister for Planning may assume responsibility for amending a planning scheme to facilitate an eligible project. A separate Unlocking Strategic Sites pathway handles rezonings of larger surplus sites, and a case management service exists for applications that have stalled with a council.

The program is not new. It has been operating since 2020 for major commercial, employment and infrastructure projects. What changed in September 2023 was the addition of the residential pathway with an affordable housing contribution attached, and that is the version most developers are asking about. The program continues to receive funding through the Victorian Budget, which is a reasonable indicator that it is not being wound back in the near term.

Who decides a Development Facilitation Program application?

The Minister for Planning is the decision maker. That is the single most consequential feature of the pathway and everything else follows from it.

A council within whose municipal area the land sits is given notice of the application and its advice, comment or objection is considered as part of the assessment, but the council does not decide. The Department of Transport and Planning carries out the planning assessment on the Minister’s behalf, consults referral authorities, and puts a recommendation forward.

The practical consequence is that the usual political dynamic at a council planning meeting does not apply. A project whose planning merits are sound but whose politics are difficult in a particular council area is in a different position under this pathway than under the standard one. The department is explicit that this is not a softer assessment: “All projects will be considered under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 including probity and confidentiality and will be subject to the same level of rigorous assessment and opportunity for consultation as per the standard assessment process.”

Which projects are eligible for the Development Facilitation Program?

Eligibility turns on sector and threshold. The department publishes a table of development cost thresholds by sector, split between regional Victoria and metropolitan Melbourne. The thresholds below are the department’s published figures.

Three sectors sit outside the metropolitan and regional split. Earth and energy resources industry is set at $30 million development cost. Extractive industry requires the estimated value of the resource to be extracted to be at least $30 million. Mining and mineral exploration is set at $10 million. A renewable energy facility qualifies at 1 megawatt installed capacity, as does a utility installation used to transmit or distribute electricity, or to store it, at 1 megawatt or greater.

A point worth flagging because the department’s own page is ambiguous about it: the threshold table sits under a heading dealing with planning scheme amendments, while the surrounding text says eligibility requirements “are based on the sector and threshold criteria below” without limiting that to amendments. Whether a given threshold is being applied to a permit application, an amendment or both is a question for the pre-application enquiry rather than something to assume from the table.

The residential pathway: $50 million metropolitan, $15 million regional

For residential development with affordable housing, the department’s published criteria are a development cost of $50 million in metropolitan Melbourne or $15 million in regional Victoria, and in both cases the project “must deliver at least 10 per cent of the total number of dwellings in the development as affordable housing”.

Note the 10 per cent is expressed as a proportion of dwellings, not of floor area or of value. The department also states that the affordable dwellings “should generally be representative of the approved dwelling mix, unless otherwise required by” a registered housing agency and agreed by the responsible authority, and gives its own worked example: on 100 dwellings comprising 50 one-bedroom and 50 two-bedroom units, the affordable housing provision would be five one-bedroom and five two-bedroom units. A strategy of satisfying the requirement entirely with the smallest product in the scheme does not sit comfortably with that.

The eligible use is “Accommodation (other than camping and caravan park, group accommodation and residential hotel)”, so the pathway reaches build to rent as well as build to sell. The Victorian Government’s own summary of the reform confirms this, stating that the expanded program “will include new build-to-rent projects”.

Where the application includes a rezoning component, additional tests apply. In metropolitan Melbourne the proposal must be “supported by state, regional and local policy” and the provision of civil infrastructure and services must be “demonstrated as being readily achievable and supported by servicing agencies”. In regional Victoria those tests apply and two more sit alongside them: the general locality must have “less than five years of residential supply”, and the land must be “within a defined settlement boundary”.

Projects below the threshold

The thresholds are not the only door. The Victorian Government’s published summary of the reforms states that where projects do not meet the criteria, “the Minister for Planning can still approve a project if it delivers more than 10 per cent affordable housing, or if it demonstrates best practice design and environmental standards”. That second limb is what the Great Design Fast Track formalises.

The Great Design Fast Track: two to eight storeys, eight or more homes

The Great Design Fast Track opens the program to a much smaller scale of project. Planning Victoria states it “is open to well-designed and highly sustainable developments of 2-8 storeys which include 8 or more homes”, that the homes “must be townhouses or apartments or a combination of the two”, and that “mixed-use buildings where housing is the primary use are also eligible”. There is no dollar threshold and no affordable housing requirement.

Proposals “cannot be altered to reduce the number of homes below 8 after entering the pathway”, which is a constraint worth understanding before lodging: a design change that trims the yield can put the project outside the pathway it was accepted into.

The sustainability test is specific. For apartments, Planning Victoria requires “an average Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) rating of at least 8.0 stars, and no less than 6.5 stars for an individual apartment”. Townhouses “must achieve a Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) rating of no less than 7.5 stars”. All dwellings must “provide effective natural ventilation, which includes cross ventilation, single sided ventilation or mechanically assisted ventilation”. Planning Victoria states applicants “must meet all of the above requirements”, so these operate as gates rather than as matters to be balanced.

Height is read against the zone. Planning Victoria publishes the following:

The pathway is not a general uplift mechanism. Planning Victoria states that “the existing height allowed by the zone and the proposal’s response to the surrounding context are central to the assessment process” and that proposals must demonstrate alignment with the Great Design Fast Track design principles “to be considered for any increases in height”. The Office of the Victorian Government Architect “leads the assessment of applications against the design principles”. That is a different kind of gatekeeper to a council planning officer, and the design cost of clearing it lands early in the programme rather than late.

What counts as “development cost” for the threshold?

This is where projects most often discover they are on the wrong side of a line, because the term does not mean total development cost in the sense a feasibility uses it.

The department’s general definition is narrow: “The estimated development cost is a calculation of the materials and labour costs. This estimate must be supported by a report prepared by a suitably qualified quantity surveyor.” Our guide on quantity surveyor reports covers what that report contains.

For the residential pathway the department goes further and the detail matters:

“‘Development cost’ refers to the estimated cost of development for the residential component of the proposal. The development cost should be verified by a quantity surveyor report prepared by an appropriately qualified person. The estimated development cost should be based on industry recognised prices for materials and labour costs and using an industry recognised calculation method and include GST. The report must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and be dated no earlier than 60 days prior to the application’s submission.”

Four things fall out of that. Land is not in the figure, and neither is finance, professional fees, marketing or contingency, so a project whose total development cost is comfortably above $50 million may still sit below the threshold on the measure that counts. GST is included, which moves a borderline project by roughly a tenth. On a mixed-use scheme, “only the residential component of a mixed-use development is used for the purposes of calculating the development cost”, so retail or commercial floor area in the podium does not help a marginal residential figure. And the report has a 60-day shelf life, which is a scheduling constraint on a lodgement that slips.

The trap is timing rather than arithmetic. A quantity surveyor report commissioned early to support a funding conversation is unlikely to still be inside 60 days when the application is finally ready, and the same report was probably scoped on a different basis anyway.

What does the 10 per cent affordable housing requirement actually cost?

The department sets out three ways the 10 per cent requirement under Clause 53.23 can be delivered, and states that “Government will seek that the 10% requirement for affordable housing under Clause 53.23 is delivered by one of the three options set out below”. The three are not economically identical on a given project, which is the point most worth understanding before the pathway is chosen.

“Affordable housing” here is not a loose term. Section 3AA of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) defines it as “housing, including social housing, that is appropriate for the housing needs of” very low income households, low income households and moderate income households. Each of those three terms is defined by reference to an income range “specified… by Order under section 3AB”, and that Order is remade periodically, so the household income bands that decide who is eligible are not fixed for the life of a project. Section 3AA(3) also provides that the matters the Minister may specify for determining housing needs “cannot include price ranges or prices for the purchase or rent of housing”.

Option one: discounted sale or gifting to a registered housing agency

The department’s published terms are “10% of all dwellings sold at a 30% discount to a Registered Housing Agency or Homes Victoria for operation as social and/or affordable housing”, or alternatively 3 per cent of dwellings gifted to a registered housing agency or Homes Victoria. An alternative percentage or discount rate “may be considered where the total value is equivalent to the 3% contribution in option 2”, and the applicant “should provide evidence of an agreement that confirms support of the” registered housing agency.

That last requirement is a dependency on a third party. A registered housing agency has to want the stock, in that location, in that mix, at that time, and has to be prepared to say so in writing before the application is decided. The agency’s own funding cycle and portfolio strategy are outside the developer’s control.

Option two: a cash contribution to the Social Housing Growth Fund

The simplest to model and the easiest to get wrong. The department’s terms are “a cash contribution equal to 3% of the development cost to the Social Housing Growth Fund”, with payment made to the Department of Treasury and Finance accounts receivable, and a note that “the current contribution amount will be subject to review periodically”.

Note that the 3 per cent is struck against development cost, the same narrow materials-and-labour figure used for the threshold, not against gross realisation and not against total development cost. That makes it a comparatively predictable number once the quantity surveyor report is settled, and it is the benchmark against which the department measures the other two options.

Option three: discounted rental in a build to rent project

For a build to rent scheme, the department’s terms are 10 per cent of dwellings “rented to eligible households in build to rent projects over a defined period, until the affordable housing contribution has been fully acquitted”, with the total value of the contribution over that period required to be “equivalent to the 3% contribution in option 2”. The discount “must result in an affordable rental price for the eligible household (no more than 30 per cent of their household income)”, and the proponent “must report annually to the Minister for Planning on the rental discount provided and accrued contribution until the obligation has been met”.

The cashflow shape is entirely different from the other two. Nothing is paid at approval or at settlement, and the obligation instead sits as a rental discount running against operating income for years, with an annual reporting duty attached. Where that lands in a hold model depends on the discount rate applied and on how long the acquittal period runs, both of which are project-specific.

The department also allows that “alternative options that provide a contribution equal to 3% of the development cost may be considered by the responsible authority on a case-by-case basis”.

The section 173 agreement and who pays for it

Whichever option applies, the obligation is secured on title. The department is direct about the cost: “The costs incurred in relation to the preparation, execution and registration of a s173 agreement for affordable housing will be met in full by the developer.” Three standard-form templates are published, one for each delivery option.

A section 173 agreement runs with the land and binds successors in title, so it is a matter for any purchaser’s due diligence and for any financier’s security review, not a document that disappears once the affordable dwellings are handed over. Whether and how the agreement can be ended once the obligation is acquitted is a drafting question, and it is one to settle before signing rather than after.

A worked example: the three options on one metropolitan project

Take a 120-apartment scheme in metropolitan Melbourne, 60 one-bedroom and 60 two-bedroom, with an average sale price of $850,000. Gross realisation is $102 million. The quantity surveyor assesses the residential development cost, on the materials-and-labour basis and including GST, at $58 million. That clears the $50 million metropolitan threshold, so the project is within the residential pathway.

The affordable housing obligation under each option:

• Option two, cash contribution. 3 per cent of $58 million is $1.74 million.
• Option one, discounted sale. 10 per cent of 120 dwellings is 12 apartments, sold at a 30 per cent discount. At an $850,000 average, the discount is $255,000 per apartment, so $3.06 million of foregone revenue, and the dwelling mix requirement points to six of each bedroom type.
• Option one, gifting. 3 per cent of 120 dwellings is 3.6, so four apartments at $850,000 is $3.4 million of foregone revenue.

On this project the three are not equivalent, even though the department frames them as alternatives measured against the same 3 per cent benchmark. The reason is that the benchmark is struck against development cost while two of the three options are satisfied out of revenue, and the ratio between those two numbers varies with sale price, site and product. Which of them a given project can actually use is a separate question again, because option one depends on a registered housing agency agreeing to take the stock.

Change the location and the numbers move. The same 120 apartments in regional Victoria, with construction costs at $40 million and an average sale price of $520,000, clears the $15 million regional threshold. Gross realisation is $62.4 million. The cash contribution is 3 per cent of $40 million, or $1.2 million. The discounted sale option is 12 apartments at a $156,000 discount each, or $1.87 million.

The relationship between the two options is fixed by the arithmetic: the discounted sale option is always 3 per cent of gross realisation, because 10 per cent of the dwellings at a 30 per cent discount is the same thing, while the cash contribution is 3 per cent of development cost. Which is cheaper therefore turns entirely on the ratio of development cost to revenue, and the cash option pulls further ahead the wider that gap is.

None of these figures is the whole cost of the pathway. Design review, the Office of the Victorian Government Architect process where the Great Design Fast Track applies, a current quantity surveyor report, Invest Victoria’s assessment, and the legal cost of the section 173 agreement all sit on top. The offsetting side is time, and land holding costs during a shortened approval period are the line where that shows up.

Do neighbours still get notified, and can they appeal to the tribunal?

This is the most commonly misstated feature of the program, and the department’s position is unambiguous:

“Applications made under the provisions are not exempt from the public notice and referral requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (unless exempted elsewhere in the planning scheme). However, decisions made by the Minister for Planning under the provisions cannot be appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).”

So the notice stage survives and the review stage does not. The department “will consult referral authorities and local governments and notify adjoining property owners and potentially affected parties if required by the planning scheme”, and authority and community views “will be considered as part of” the department’s planning assessment. Planning Victoria puts the same position on the Great Design Fast Track: neighbours “can have their say when an application is advertised in the same way as they would for applications using a standard planning permit pathway”, and decisions made under the pathway “cannot be appealed by third parties, such as neighbours, at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)”.

For a feasibility, the removal of third-party review is a different kind of saving to a faster assessment. A standard Victorian permit carries a tail of uncertain length after the decision, during which an objector review at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) can add months and can change the approved envelope. Removing that tail removes a variable from the programme rather than shortening a known one, and that has consequences for when finance can be drawn and when presales can be launched with confidence in the approved product. Where and how that is reflected in a development cashflow is a judgement about probability, not a fixed input.

One qualification. The removal of third-party review does not remove judicial review. A decision of the Minister remains susceptible to challenge in the Supreme Court on administrative law grounds, which is a narrower and less frequently used avenue but not a closed one.

Which projects cannot use the Development Facilitation Program?

The department publishes an exclusion list, and several entries catch projects that would otherwise look like obvious candidates.

Applications to subdivide land are ineligible, with two exceptions: where the project includes a development component and is combined with a planning scheme amendment under section 96A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), and where the project includes a renewable energy facility or an associated utility installation. A pure subdivision does not qualify.

Also excluded are applications to which a range of specific clauses already apply, which the department lists as Clause 52.03 (Level Crossing Removal Project), Clause 52.20 (Victoria’s Big Housing Build), Clause 52.30 (State Projects), Clause 52.31 (Local Government Projects), Clause 52.35 (Major Road Projects), Clause 52.36 (Rail Projects), Clause 53.19 (Non-Government Schools), Clause 53.20 (Housing by or on behalf of Homes Victoria) and Clause 53.21 (State Transport Projects).

Three further exclusions relate to land:

• land where the Minister for Planning has authorised or directed the Victorian Planning Authority to prepare or implement a plan for an identified precinct
• proposals to subdivide green wedge land into more lots, or smaller lots, than the relevant planning scheme allows
• land in an Urban Growth Zone where a precinct structure plan has not been prepared

That last one is significant for greenfield. A site sitting inside the urban growth boundary but ahead of its precinct structure plan cannot use the program to jump the queue, which is a reasonably common misapprehension when a landowner is looking at highest and best use on the fringe.

How long does a Development Facilitation Program decision take?

The honest answer is that there is a stated policy commitment and no published service standard, and the two should not be confused.

The policy commitment came from the Victorian Government’s Good Decisions, Made Faster announcement of 21 September 2023, which stated that the changes to the program would “cut application timeframes for these types of projects from more than 12 months down to four”. That is the source of the four-month figure that circulates in planning commentary.

What the Department of Transport and Planning’s current published guidance does not contain is any assessment timeframe at all. No months, no business days, no statutory clock, no service standard. The same is true of the Great Design Fast Track page, which says only that the process “is designed to facilitate faster planning decisions” and is “considerably more streamlined than a standard planning approval pathway”.

The distinction matters for a programme. A statutory clock is something a developer can rely on and model against. A policy commitment made in a media release three years ago is an indication of intent, and any four-month assumption dropped into a feasibility is an assumption about a government’s continuing service delivery rather than a right. It is also worth noting that where a clock is described in commentary, it is typically described as running from formal lodgement rather than from first contact, with the pre-application stage sitting outside it and taking as long as it takes.

The lever available here is evidence rather than argument. The Department of Transport and Planning publishes a Ministerial permits register showing both current and determined applications under the program, including applications currently undergoing public notice. Lodgement and decision dates for projects of comparable scale in comparable municipalities are a better basis for a programme assumption than any published figure, and a town planner who has taken projects through the pathway will have the same information in a more usable form.

What does the application process look like?

The process starts before lodgement. The department directs applicants to submit a pre-application request so that eligibility can be confirmed, and that step is where the sector, threshold and development cost questions get settled rather than argued about later.

Invest Victoria’s written advice

An unusual requirement, and one that catches applicants out. The department states that “other than for projects carried out or funded by (or on behalf of) the State of Victoria or a public authority, or for renewable energy facilities (or related utility installations), all requests must be supported by written advice from the Chief Executive Officer of Invest Victoria, confirming the project has demonstrated investment certainty or capacity to secure funding”.

This is a financial capability test embedded in a planning pathway, and it has no equivalent in the standard permit process. The department states its officers “will assist applicants to obtain Invest Victoria’s written advice” during the pre-application enquiry process, so it is not a submission made cold, but the substance still has to be there. What “investment certainty or capacity to secure funding” requires in practice is a question for the pre-application enquiry, and it is a reason to have the capital structure settled earlier in the process than a standard permit application would demand.

The assessment and design review

The department states that all projects are assessed on planning merit having regard to the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) including the objectives of planning in Victoria, the state and local provisions of the planning scheme, and “site context, including potential amenity and environmental impacts”.

Separately, all projects considered by the program are “subject to a design review process to ensure proposals deliver high-quality built form outcomes for Victoria”, governed by a published Design Review Terms of Reference. Design review as a mandatory step, rather than as something that happens if a council requests it, moves architectural resolution earlier and increases the cost of a scheme that is not design-led. That shows up as a timing and fee question in early feasibility rather than as a line item at lodgement.

What is the Unlocking Strategic Sites pathway?

A separate arm of the program dealing with rezonings rather than permits. Planning Victoria describes it as designed “for projects that do not yet include a planning permit application for development but would be suitable for a planning scheme amendment pursuant to Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987”, targeting “the repurposing and redevelopment of land, including but not limited to former industrial or institutional sites, as well as golf courses, racing tracks, and surplus university-owned land”.

Entry has been by expression of interest rather than open application. Planning Victoria ran an expression of interest process on Engage Victoria, and an initial round of sites has been assessed with further sites to follow.

The published eligibility criteria are worth knowing even for developers who missed the round, because they signal what the department regards as a site worth intervening on. The land must be two hectares or greater, within a defined settlement boundary or adjacent to an urban zone, and the use and development must “raise a major issue of policy or have a substantial effect on the future planning of the area”. Residential expressions of interest “must include at least 10 per cent affordable housing as defined under section 3AA of the Planning and Environment Act 1987”.

Two of the delivery confidence criteria are unusual. The proposal must “demonstrate it has been unreasonably delayed by the planning system”, and must “demonstrate that a planning permit application will be submitted within 12 months of the rezoning of the land being finalised”. The first makes prior delay a qualification rather than a complaint. The second is a commitment to move, and it implies the permit-stage design work needs to be substantially advanced while the rezoning is still running.

The exclusions mirror the main program and add a few: land forming part of the Victorian Planning Authority’s industrial land program, land in the Green Wedge Zone, land with major outstanding contamination, flooding, bushfire, biodiversity, heritage or transport issues, land requiring assessment under the Environmental Effects Act 1978 (Vic), and anything contrary to the Melbourne Industrial and Commercial Land Use Plan.

Public consultation is not removed. Planning Victoria states the department “will engage with referral authorities, local government, and seek the views of adjoining property owners and potentially affected parties, as required by the planning scheme”, and that “public consultation will also be run before any rezoning of these sites is made”.

What does the case management service do for a delayed application?

The third arm, and the one most likely to be relevant to a project that never qualified for the fast track in the first place. It applies to applications already stuck with a council rather than to new lodgements.

The published criteria are specific. For planning permit applications, the department requires “residential development in excess of $10M development cost” that “can demonstrate it has been unreasonably delayed more than 6 months by the responsible authority or a referral agency”. For planning scheme amendments, an amendment proposing a rezoning or other statutory control that would facilitate a significant housing development, which “can demonstrate that it is being unreasonably delayed by the planning authority from seeking authorisation”, and which “must include residential development that will result in a residential development of greater than $10 million if approved”.

Note the $10 million threshold is an order of magnitude below the $50 million metropolitan fast-track threshold, so a project well short of the main pathway may still be within reach of this one.

What the service does is convene, mediate and coordinate. The department lists convening relevant parties, establishing an agreed mediation process, coordinating the steps required to finalise a determination, and liaising between the responsible authority and the applicant. It also, “when needed, and in a tightly defined set of circumstances”, may “recommend using the Minister for Planning legislative call-in powers to make a decision”.

The department is careful to set expectations: “The case management team is not responsible for the determination or approval of projects… Case management does not guarantee an approval.” Engagement can be requested by a council or another agency as well as by the developer, and the decision to case manage a project sits at the department’s discretion.

Two operational points. A response detailing the reasons for the delay must be submitted with any request, so the case for unreasonable delay has to be documented rather than asserted. And “unreasonably delayed” is doing real work in that criterion: an application sitting for seven months because further information requests are outstanding is a different proposition to one sitting for seven months with a complete file.

How the Development Facilitation Program changes a Victorian feasibility

The program changes four things in a model, and they do not all move in the same direction.

Approval duration. Whatever assumption is used, it is shorter, and the saving compounds through holding costs, finance costs and escalation on a construction cost that is being tendered later. The question is how much shortening to assume, and the answer is better derived from the Ministerial permits register than from a media release.

Post-decision certainty. No third-party review at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) means the approved envelope at decision is the envelope. In a standard-pathway model, the downside branch where an objector review delays commencement and trims yield carries real weight. Removing that branch changes the risk-adjusted position more than it changes the base case.

The affordable housing contribution. A new cost line of roughly 3 per cent of construction cost, or its equivalent in foregone revenue, which lands differently depending on the option used and lands at different points in the cashflow. Because it is struck against construction cost rather than revenue, its effect on development margin measured on revenue and on cost is not the same, and a model that reports both should show both.

Front-loaded cost. Design review, a current quantity surveyor report, the Invest Victoria submission and the section 173 agreement all sit before approval. That is cost at risk, spent while the project is still conditional, which is a different quality of expenditure to the same dollars spent after approval.

A scenario comparison between the standard pathway and this one, with both the timing and the contribution varied, tends to be more informative than a single base case, because the two pathways differ on risk as much as on cost.

Where the program sits in Victoria’s wider planning reform

The program is one instrument among several. It sits alongside the deemed to comply Townhouse and Low-Rise Code and Mid-Rise Code, the expanded Future Homes program, the removal of permit requirements for small second homes up to 60 square metres, the Small Lot Housing Code, and the activity centres program, all of which the Victorian Government groups under the same objective of faster decisions. The broader policy frame, including municipal housing targets and the activity centre controls, is covered in the Plan for Victoria guide.

Two observations about durability. The program has survived a change of Premier and continues to receive budget funding, which points towards continuity. Against that, it has attracted sustained public criticism from both directions, and the 10 per cent affordable housing requirement in particular has been the subject of ongoing debate about what it actually delivers. A settings change to the contribution rate, the delivery options or the thresholds would not be a surprise, and the department’s own guidance builds that in by noting that the contribution amount “will be subject to review periodically”. A feasibility that depends heavily on the current settings surviving to lodgement carries that exposure.

What to ask your town planner, quantity surveyor and lawyer

The pathway turns on facts that sit with specialists. These are the questions that decide it on a specific site.

For the town planner:

• Which of the three clauses would this project be lodged under, and does the sector table apply to the permit application, an amendment, or both in our case?
• Does the proposed use fall within the eligible land use definition for our sector, and is there any part of the scheme that falls outside it?
• Does any of the exclusion list touch this site, and specifically: is there an Urban Growth Zone precinct structure plan issue, any Victorian Planning Authority precinct direction, or any of the listed clauses already applying?
• If we need a rezoning component, can we satisfy the additional tests, and in a regional location can we demonstrate less than five years of residential supply?
• What have lodgement-to-decision periods actually looked like on the Ministerial permits register for projects like ours in this council area, and what should we assume in the programme?
• What will the council’s position likely be, and how much weight does council objection carry in practice given the Minister decides?
• What does the design review process require of us, and at what stage of design resolution should we be entering it?
• If we do not qualify for the fast track, do we meet the case management criteria instead, and can we document unreasonable delay?

For the quantity surveyor:

• On the department’s materials-and-labour basis, including GST and excluding land, finance and professional fees, what is the residential development cost for this scheme, and where does it sit against the threshold?
• On a mixed-use scheme, how are you isolating the residential component, and what assumptions are you making about shared structure, basement and podium?
• How close to the threshold are we, and what design or procurement changes would move us across it?
• When should the report be dated so it is inside the 60-day window at lodgement, and what would trigger a re-issue?
• What is 3 per cent of that figure, and how does that compare to the foregone revenue under the discounted sale and gifting options at our current price points?

For the lawyer:

• What does the section 173 agreement require of us in practice, and what are the full preparation, execution and registration costs we are committing to?
• Which of the three delivery options does the relevant standard-form template support, and how much room is there to negotiate from it?
• How is the obligation discharged and can the agreement be ended once it is acquitted, and on whose application?
• How does the agreement affect a sale of the project or of individual lots, and what will a financier’s security review make of it?
• Under the build to rent option, what does the annual reporting obligation to the Minister commit us to, and for how long?
• What exposure remains to judicial review of a Ministerial decision, and what in the assessment process affects that?

For the registered housing agency conversation, before it starts:

• Would the agency take this product, in this location, in this mix, on this settlement timeline, and can it confirm that in writing in time for lodgement?
• If not, does that leave the cash contribution as the only workable option, and how does that change the numbers?