Tuesday, 12 August 2025

Planning policy

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (17:43): (1805) My adjournment is for the Minister for Planning, and the action I seek is for an urgent review of GC252 with respect to climate considerations, as required by the Planning and Environment Act 1987. In 2024 this Parliament passed the Climate Change and Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Energy and Storage Targets) Act 2024, requiring planning authorities to consider climate change when preparing planning schemes or amendments.

In essence, this created a climate trigger in planning decisions and was a move we strongly supported. It came into effect on 26 March 2025. The provisions require that climate hazards such as flooding projections and higher urban summer temperatures are considered before planning scheme amendments are made – so too must be the effects of a planning decision on Victoria’s ability to meet its emissions reduction targets. This is net zero, by the way, by 2045, and yet we have recently seen several planning scheme amendments gazetted by this government since 26 March that hardly acknowledge the immediacy of climate change or how they might increase the impact that climate hazards will have on local communities. Of note is that GC252, which covers the first 10 activity centres, contains almost no mention of climate considerations in its explanatory memorandum, let alone any clear indication that they have met the legislative requirements.

This is in contrast to drafts of the SRL East structure plans, which explicitly address climate resilience, suggesting that some parts of the planning department are aware of the new legislative obligations. Further, the renewable energy and storage targets act inserted a new section 12A into the Planning and Environment Act that allows for ministerial directions to be issued with respect to climate change; as yet, no ministerial directions have been issued under this section. Given the anticipated and significant growth in activity centres over the coming decades, ensuring that climate resilience and emissions reduction are embedded in planning from the outset is absolutely critical. It is unclear whether the failure to address this in GC252 was simply due to the rushed nature of the amendment, the proximity to March 26 – when the changes to the legislation came into effect – or was in fact deliberate. In any case, it would appear that GC252 has not met the legislative requirements of the act with respect to climate change.

This urgently needs to be remedied before developments commence. It is also essential that for the next 50 activity centres, the same thing does not happen for them. Putting aside the legal requirements, as a government responsible for the wellbeing of residents there is simply a moral obligation to ensure that climate resilience is a key consideration in all planning decisions. People rightly expect to be able to live in communities that avoid, or at least are able to withstand, extreme weather events due to climate change. Good planning, not at the level of individual sites or buildings but whole precincts, is what makes this possible.