Earlier this month, Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny introduced the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Bill 2025 to the Victorian Parliament. This represents the largest and most comprehensive revision of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 since its inception, following the State Government’s 2023 commitment to review and rewrite the Act. 

The National Trust has long advocated for reforms that strengthen Victoria’s planning system while safeguarding heritage. We believe this rewrite presents a significant opportunity to modernise the state’s planning framework and address longstanding challenges. However, after our initial review, the impact on local heritage protections remains unclear. 

While the Act creates the framework for planning decisions in Victoria, it can only outline process, strategy, and enforcement. The proposed changes amend the high-level planning framework, but implementation details, planned to be developed over the next two years, are not yet known. 

As the National Trust is a not-for-profit, peak body for heritage, we have focused our efforts on understanding the issues we believe will directly relate to our remit: protecting and conserving heritage buildings, significant trees, and landscapes. 

Key Changes 

The Bill focuses on making planning processes more consistent and streamlined, expanding ministerial authority, and giving planning authorities stronger enforcement tools. 

Heritage Overlays 

Local Heritage Overlay protections remain unchanged. Protecting heritage remains a planning objective, with expanded wording: 

Existing objective (Section 4(1)):

“(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value” 

Proposed objective:

“(h) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas and places that are historically, architecturally, culturally, aesthetically, scientifically or socially significant or otherwise of special significance” 

Planning Permit Assessment Streams 

The Act introduces three streams for planning permit assessments based on complexity: 

• Stream 1: Low complexity applications (no public notification, no third-party appeal rights)

• Stream 2: Medium complexity applications (public notification required, no third-party appeal rights)

• Stream 3: High complexity applications (public notification required, third-party appeal rights)

 The Bill establishes this framework but doesn’t define which applications fall into each category. These classifications will be determined through regulations developed after the Act passes. Streams 1 and 2 will likely be based on compliance with ResCode (state-wide performance standards for residential developments), with codification determined during implementation. Critically, there is no indication yet as to what stream/s would apply to Heritage Overlay planning permit applications. 

Planning Scheme Amendment Pathways 

A similar three-pathway structure will apply to Planning Scheme Amendments (such as applying new Heritage Overlays): 

• Pathway 1: Straightforward, low risk/complexity (no formal exhibition required)

• Pathway 2: Medium risk/complexity (formal exhibition required, no independent planning panel)

• Pathway 3: High risk/complexity (formal exhibition and independent planning panel review)

Independent planning panels will only be appointed for Pathway 3 amendments. 

What’s Not in This Bill 

State Heritage 

The Heritage Act 2017 remains independent of these changes, so the Victorian Heritage Register’s procedures and administration are unaffected. 

Implementation Details 

The real impact will emerge during implementation. Government officials estimate two years to develop the detailed instruments needed to operationalise these changes. This phase will be critical for clarifying how decisions are made and how heritage considerations are applied—for example, determining whether Heritage Overlays fall under high-complexity pathways. This will be the most crucial time for consultation and input. 

Potential Benefits 

Many people wrongly perceive local Heritage Overlays as barriers to development or unfair burdens on property owners, believing myths that they reduce property values or prevent upgrades and renovations. The National Trust has worked extensively to dispel these myths: https://www.trustadvocate.org.au/myth-busting-local-heritage-controls 

These perception problems stem from a planning system needing better support and resources, not from fundamental issues with heritage protection itself. Delays rarely come from heritage considerations but rather from understaffed councils, unclear guidelines, insufficient heritage expertise in decision-making, and conflicts arising when heritage is treated as an afterthought in planning. 

Addressing Heritage Overlay Misconceptions 

A reformed system could deliver improvements if there are dedicated local heritage experts in the Department of Transport and Planning, clear guidance on Heritage Overlays within new planning processes, funding for council heritage advisers, and faster pathways for heritage-respectful changes. This Bill offers an opportunity to build these elements into the state planning system. 

Streamlined Permit Processes 

The different permit streams could enable Heritage Overlay property owners to navigate less onerous application processes for simple, low-risk works, saving time and money. 

Simplified Application of the Heritage Overlay 

A more structured Planning Scheme Amendment process could reduce complexity and timeframes for applying Heritage Overlays, potentially delivering savings for residents and councils through greater certainty and predictability, avoiding lengthy Planning Panel Hearings. 

However, clarity is needed on where Heritage Overlay amendments would be categorised before we can fully understand the implications. 

Stronger Enforcement 

Increased fines and penalties, new orders banning repeat offenders, and court orders to stop violations offer powerful tools to punish deliberate planning violations and could discourage illegal demolition and tree removal. 

Our Concerns 

‘Sense of place’ must not be forgotten when streamlining planning for major housing developments. Incorporating heritage values into urban design creates liveable towns and cities, achievable only through meaningful local consultation. Considering holistic values of place and community will help address the housing crisis while creating places meeting Victorians’ liveability needs. 

Expanded Ministerial Powers 

We’re concerned about diminished local council decision-making when the Planning Minister becomes the authority. The Bill grants the Minister broader powers to skip public consultation, approve amendments directly, override local councils, and fast-track or continue abandoned amendments. This creates a centralised pathway that could bypass local processes. 

The National Trust believes good decisions for local communities are best kept with local councils as key planning authorities. The State Government’s role should be providing capacity-building resources for local planners and establishing a state-level support team offering strategic expert guidance for all councils. 

Third-Party Appeal Rights 

The proposed rewrite would remove community members’ and organisations’ ability to comment on planning permit and scheme amendment decisions deemed low or medium complexity. This could limit the National Trust’s and others’ ability to influence local heritage decisions, though we don’t yet know at what level of complexity Heritage Overlays will be considered under this framework. 

Conclusion 

The National Trust sees real potential in this reform to strengthen—not weaken—heritage protection while improving planning efficiency. These goals aren’t opposites; they work together in a well-designed system. 

The proposed changes will likely have an overall positive impact on Victorian planning processes, and certain aspects show promise for changing negative perceptions of Heritage Overlay protections. 

However, the impact depends entirely on implementation tools provided after the Act’s revision passes. We urge the State Government to conduct meaningful consultation during this crucial second phase and ensure appropriate expertise informs the drafting of implementation regulations. 

Critically, regulations must come with adequate resources and support for local government implementation. 

We continue to urge the State Government to provide dedicated implementation tools and guidelines ensuring Heritage Overlays remain effective, that consultation and heritage expertise informs decision-making, and that local government retains meaningful participation—particularly for heritage places. This must include establishing a dedicated local heritage planning unit within the Department of Transport and Planning and resourcing to support local councils in implementing these new laws.