Thursday, 30 July 2026

 Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (17:11): (1750) My adjournment matter concerns the controversial local issue of the Merrilands single-dwelling covenant. I actually addressed this issue earlier this week, but I would like to take the opportunity this evening to make a formal adjournment action request of the Minister for Planning. I will come to the exact details of that action request shortly.

By way of background, the Merrilands covenant is a private legal agreement that has been in place since that area was subdivided, mostly following World War II. In essence it prevents most landowners north of Broadhurst Avenue in that part of Reservoir from subdividing their property into townhouses or apartments. I should say it is a very popular policy in that part of the world. Many people moved there specifically because of the existence of the covenant and of course made a very large financial decision, a very big life decision, to move into that part of the world. But clearly also it is an arrangement that is at odds with our government’s housing policy. We are not seeking to stop townhouses or apartments, and in fact, on the contrary, we are seeking to build more townhouses and more apartments, particularly close to transport hubs and train stations, in order to reduce emissions, to deal with congestion, to improve housing affordability but most importantly to give people, and particularly young people, the opportunity to live close to jobs, to education and to the cultural or social opportunities that they would like.

That is an important policy to us, so we have reformed the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to make it easier to remove the restrictive covenant. Previously the only realistic path that people took to remove that covenant was via the Supreme Court, but when our reforms come into effect next year there will be a path to remove the covenant via Darebin council’s normal planning system. I do imagine that that will result in successful removals of the covenant, particularly in areas that do align with our housing statement and with council’s housing strategy, notably those that are close to Keon Park station and close to Ruthven station.

However, there does remain a critical question in this particular policy area, and that is whether those applications to remove the covenant will be type 2 or type 3 applications. I would just like to put on the record my very strong support for the idea that they should be type 3 applications. In fact my adjournment action for the Minister for Planning is to make any application to remove or vary the covenant a type 3 application. I think that is consistent with the way we have approached our planning reforms generally. We are encouraging people to build homes and making it easier to build homes right across Victoria, but of course we are doing so in a way that reflects the existing planning structure that has been built up over a long time and has set planning expectations over a long time. I think it makes sense that in doing so we acknowledge that restrictive covenants, whilst an unusual part of the system, are nonetheless a legitimate part of the system and should be treated that way.

I note in closing that we have a clear position on this, but the Greens candidate and the Liberal candidate do not.