Amendments to the Planning and Environment Act 1987
(Vic) have commenced, and change the game with respect to
'section 173 agreements'.
No longer is it necessary to have Ministerial approval and the
agreement of all persons bound to amend a section 173 agreement.
Nor does the responsible authority need approval from the Minister
for Planning to end an agreement.
Instead, section 173 agreements can be amended or ended through
a new process which has a number of similarities to the regular
permit application process.
In particular, a land owner can apply to the responsible
authority for 'in principle' agreement to amend or end the
agreement. If that is provided, notice of the proposal is given to
affected persons who have an opportunity to comment before a
decision can be made.
These changes are intended to "improve the operation and
administration" of section 173 agreements and, more generally,
to "refine, update and improve the general operation" of
But whether they will achieve this is questionable, as there are
a few quirks and risks in the new process which might cause
For example, responsible authorities have a greater role (and
administrative burden) in amending and ending agreements through
the new process. They must make both an initial 'in
principle' decision, as well as a final decision, with the
initial decision serving as a gateway to the rest of the process.
Whilst there is no statutory timeframe imposed for the gateway
decision, the general obligation to act expeditiously (subject to
what is reasonably practicable) will apply.
If the responsible authority refuses to provide its in principle
agreement, the matter ends there – as there is no right to
seek merits review of that decision.
In contrast, if in principle agreement is provided, wide ranging
rights to apply to VCAT for review arise regardless of the final
Two issues flow from this.
First of all, there is a question about what scale of inquiry
should be devoted to the initial decision. Technically, responsible
authorities must consider the factors listed in section 178B(1).
But this says little about the extent of the
consideration. In practice, it would be understandable for an
under-resourced Council (responsible authority) to assess the
proposal at a high level only for the purposes of providing its in
principle agreement, and leave the more detailed evaluation to
after submissions have been made.
The second (and related) issue is the prospect of proposals
slipping through the gateway when they ought to have been rejected
at the 'in principle' stage. If that occurs, and rights of
review are exercised, the already strained resources of both
Councils and VCAT could be put under even greater pressure.
In light of the above, it is foreseeable that parties may want
to 'contract out' of the new statutory process and/or
rights to review. For example, it may be desirable to include in a
section 173 agreement a timeframe within which the responsible
authority will make its initial in principle decision, and/or a
mechanism for dispute settlement as an alternative option to
Given the character of a section 173 agreement as both a
statutory and common law instrument, some challenging questions
arise. Could such provisions be enforced? Would a provision seeking
to oust statutory rights for review be seen as oppressive? Assuming
they could be enforced, how would this occur? In particular, would
Supreme Court action be necessary and how would this interact with
the statutory review or enforcement processes in VCAT?
There are no black and white answers to these questions, because
so much depends on the circumstances in each case. But these issues
should be borne in mind in drafting section 173 agreements, because
there is a chance that the new statutory provisions will cause a
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Most awarded firm and Australian deal of
Australasian Legal Business Awards
Employer of Choice for
Equal Opportunity for Women
in the Workplace (EOWA)
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Council announced planning policies to encourage more inner suburban retirement village and aged care development.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).