Victoria’s planning reforms: what the new permit pathways mean for participation and review

Victoria's planning reforms are designed to make permit assessment faster and more proportionate to the scale and impact of development. But streamlining process necessarily raises another question: what procedural steps remain, and for whom?

The Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Act 2026 (Vic) introduces three new permit pathways, Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3, with different approaches to assessment, third-party participation and merits review.

The result is more than a new permit taxonomy. It represents a recalibration of the relationship between speed, participation and independent review. Lower-impact development may benefit from fewer procedural steps and greater certainty, while third-party participation and review rights become increasingly dependent on the pathway through which an application is assessed.

Classification becomes the gateway

Under the new framework, every permit application will be classified as Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3. That classification will determine not only how an application is assessed, but also the extent to which third parties can participate and seek merits review.

At a high level:

• Type 1 provides the most streamlined pathway. There is no third-party notice, objection or merits review.
• Type 2 occupies the middle ground. Some classes may involve targeted consultation, but there is no third-party merits review.
• Type 3 most closely resembles the existing permit process, although third-party review rights are narrowed through the new direct-notice gateway.

Classification therefore assumes significance beyond questions of processing time. It determines the procedural architecture surrounding the permit decision.

Type 2 illustrates the trade-off

The Type 2 pathway perhaps most clearly demonstrates the new approach.

For classes of Type 2 applications specified in the planning scheme, affected persons may be given an opportunity to comment. A responsible authority must consider those comments before deciding the application.

But a comment is expressly not an objection, and the person making it does not become an objector. Participation in the primary decision therefore does not carry a downstream right to third-party merits review.

That distinction is significant. Notice, participation and review, concepts that have traditionally operated closely together in the Victorian planning permit system, are no longer necessarily linked.

For proponents, the potential benefit is a more predictable assessment pathway without the prospect of third-party merits review. For third parties, there may still be an opportunity to influence the primary decision, but not necessarily an opportunity to independently challenge its planning merits.

The quality of the primary decision-making process may therefore assume greater importance for all participants.

The planning focus may move upstream

Streamlining individual permit decisions may also increase the significance of the rules that determine which applications qualify for streamlined treatment.

Where development can proceed through a Type 1 or Type 2 pathway without third-party merits review, greater attention may be directed to the planning controls, codes and classification criteria that allocate development to those pathways.

Some of the planning focus may therefore move upstream: from whether an individual proposal should receive a permit, to the rules and standards that determine how that proposal is assessed in the first place.

This does not mean that disputes about individual permits will simply be transferred to the planning scheme amendment process. The practical effect will depend substantially on implementation measures that have not yet been finalised.

However, as permit-level merits review becomes less available for some classes of development, participation in strategic planning processes and in the development of the controls and standards underpinning the new pathways may become increasingly consequential.

The parallel reforms to planning scheme amendment processes point to a similar distinction between consultation and independent review. Draft implementation material released to date contemplates differentiated amendment pathways, with more streamlined processes for lower-impact amendments and more formal scrutiny retained for higher-impact amendments.

Judicial review is different

The contraction of third-party merits review may also place greater practical significance on questions concerning the legal boundaries of the streamlined pathways.

Disputes may increasingly concern matters such as whether an application was lawfully classified, whether mandatory procedural requirements were followed and whether the decision-maker acted within the scope of its statutory authority.

Those are matters for judicial review, not merits review.

The distinction is important. A court does not reconsider whether a planning decision was preferable on its merits. Judicial review is concerned with whether the decision was lawfully made. It should therefore not be regarded as a substitute for the broader merits review traditionally available through VCAT.

Nevertheless, where merits review is unavailable, the lawful application of the rules determining access to streamlined pathways may become correspondingly more important.

The balance is still to be set

The architecture has been enacted, but much of its practical significance remains to be determined.

The detailed operation of the new framework, including the timeframes to which different pathways may be directed, remains dependent on further implementation measures.

Those implementation measures will do more than determine how applications are allocated between the new pathways and how quickly they may be assessed. While the Victorian Government has identified 10-day and 30-day assessment timeframes as policy targets for streamlined pathways, those timeframes are not yet legislated. They will help determine where the new system ultimately strikes the balance between streamlining, third-party participation and independent merits review.

That is why the boundaries between Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 will matter.

The reforms promise a faster and more differentiated planning system. The practical question will be not simply how much faster, but which developments receive the benefit of streamlining, what opportunities for participation remain, and where independent review continues to form part of the decision-making process.

If you would like to know more, or discuss a planning law matter, please contact Joanna Kenny, Tom White or another member of our Environment & Planning Law team.