Victoria’s New Planning Enforcement Regime: Increased Penalties, Civil Proceedings And Court Powers

In 2016, the 160 year old Corkman Irish Pub in Carlton, Victoria was demolished without a planning permit, demolition permit or building permit, and despite being subject to a heritage overlay.

The two developers responsible were fined $1.1 million, jailed for 30 days for contempt of court and ordered to re-build the original pub façade.

Ten years later and not only is the façade rebuilt, but the Court and prosecuting authorities have received a suite of new and expanded powers to deal with similar planning offences.

On 3 August 2026, the legislative reforms made under Part 7 of the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Act 2026 (the Act) came into effect to “provide for more effective, consistent and coordinated compliance with planning rules” in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Principal Act).

Such amendments include the expanded inspection and entry powers for investigators, increased financial penalties, new civil penalties with a lower burden of proof, new offence provisions and increases in time to commence prosecution proceedings, and new powers of the Court to impose sanctions aimed at removing the commercial benefits of non-compliance with planning controls.

We consider these reforms below.

Increased power of the court to make orders

The Court can now make additional orders in the event of a contravention of planning offences, including adverse publicity orders, commercial benefits orders, supervisory intervention orders and industry exclusion orders. Such powers expand the toolkit of the Court where a financial penalty may be insufficient to deal with the offending.

Adverse publicity orders

The Court may make an adverse publicity order, which requires an offender to publicise and/or notify a ‘specified person’ or a ‘specified class of persons’ of the offence , its consequences, the penalty imposed and – conferring an additional discretion on the Court – any other related matter. The Court may make an adverse publicity order in addition to imposing other penalties on the offender.

Commercial benefits orders

The Court may now order that an offender pay a fine up to three times the amount estimated by the Court to be the gross commercial benefit that was obtained or is obtainable by the offender or an associate of the offender from the commission of the offence.

In the case of an offence that was interrupted or thwarted by the responsible authority, the commercial benefit is determined to be the amount that would have been obtained or obtainable by the offender or an associate of the offender, had the offence been committed without interruption. That is, the commercial benefit does not need have been received by the offender for the Court to make a commercial benefit order.

The Court will consider a range of factors in determining the gross commercial benefit, including non-monetary benefits, monetary savings or a reduction in any operating or capital expenditure of any kind achieved or achievable because of the commission of the offence. Any costs, expenses or liabilities incurred by the person or an associate of the period will be disregarded by the Court.

Supervisory intervention orders

Where an offender is a ‘systematic or persistent’ offender, the Court may now impose a supervisory intervention order requiring an offender, at their own expense and for a period up to a year, to take specified steps aimed at improving their compliance with Act.

Examples of the actions a Court can order an offender to carry out include appointing or removing staff to or from particular activities or positions, training and supervising staff, obtaining expert advice as to maintaining appropriate compliance, installing managerial or operations equipment, practices, systems or procedures for monitoring compliance with planning requirements, providing compliance reports to the Court or responsible authority and making such compliance reports publicly available.

The Court can also order the offender to appoint a person to assist them in improving their compliance with the Act, to monitor their ongoing compliance and to provide compliance reports to the responsible authority, the Court or both.

Where a supervisory intervention order is made, it will constitute an offence to contravene it, attracting 1,200 penalty units or imprisonment for 10 years or both for a natural person, or 6,000 penalty units for a body corporate. Such an offence is indictable.

Officers of a corporation that have failed to exercise due diligence may be personally liable for any contravention of a supervisory intervention order.

Industry exclusion orders

The Court may also now prohibit a systemic offender from providing or otherwise being involved in services relating to the commercial development of land, or being a director, secretary or officer of a body corporate providing or otherwise being involved in such services. Such an order may be used in circumstances where the court considers the offender to be a systemic or persistent offender against the Act, or where a supervisory intervention order would be inappropriate.

It will also constitute an offence to contravene an industry exclusion order, attracting 1,200 penalty units or imprisonment for 10 years or both for a natural person, or 6,000 penalty units for a body corporate. Such an offence is indictable. Officers of a corporation that have failed to exercise due diligence may also be personally liable for any contravention of an industry exclusion order.

False or misleading information offence added

The Act also introduces a standalone ‘false or misleading information’ offence to the Principal Act, whereby a person that knowingly or recklessly makes a false or misleading statement to anyone exercising a function under the Act, or produces a knowingly misleading document without indicating how it is misleading, attracts a civil penalty of 240 units, two years imprisonment, or both.

Increases to penalty units and time limit for commencing prosecution

The Act increases general penalty units for a contravention of section 127 of the Principal Act (the offence provision for contravening a scheme, permit or agreement) to 1,200 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment in the case of a natural person, or 6,000 penalty units in the case of a corporation. Where the contravention or failure is of a continuing nature, a further penalty of 120 penalty units in the case of a natural person, or 600 penalty units in the case of a corporation will apply for each day the contravention or failure continues after the conviction.

The Act also establishes a new 24-month time limit for filing a charge sheet relating to a summary offence, which overrides the 12-month limit established by section 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.

New civil penalty regime

The Act has instituted a new civil penalty regime, aimed at simultaneously increasing and streamlining the civil penalties regime available for contraventions of the Principal Act. The Court may make a contravention order if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person has contravened a civil penalty provision.

An individual must not attempt to contravene a civil penalty provision, aid, abet, counsel or procure a person to contravene a civil penalty provision, induce, or attempt to induce a person to contravene a civil penalty provision, be in any way knowingly concerned in the contravention by a person of a civil penalty provision, or conspire with others to contravene a civil penalty provision.

Where the Court makes a contravention order it may order the payment of a civil penalty not exceeding 2,000 penalty units in the case of a natural person, or 10,000 penalty units in the case of a body corporate. In determining the amount of a civil penalty, the court may have regard to the nature and extent of the contravention and of any loss or damage suffered because of the contravention, the circumstances in which the contravention took place, and whether the person has previously contravened a civil penalty provision

Any breach of section 126(1) of the Principal Act (the offence provision for contravening a scheme, permit or agreement) is now also a civil penalty provision.

A civil penalty cannot be made against a person who has already been found guilty of a criminal offence constituted by conduct that is the same, or substantially the same, as the conduct alleged to constitute the contravention of the civil penalty provision. A criminal proceeding can be brought against an individual who has already been subject to a civil penalty order, however any evidence given in the civil penalty proceeding will be inadmissible in the subsequent criminal proceeding where the conduct is alleged is substantially the same as the conduct that was claimed to constitute the civil penalty contravention.

The Act has also removed the jurisdictional limit of the Magistrates’ Court for proceedings for a civil penalty order, allowing more efficient prosecution for contraventions of the Principal Act.

Where the Court orders payment of a civil penalty order, the amount is considered a debt due to the responsible authority that applied for the order, who may recover the amount in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Entry, inspection and investigation powers

Amendments made to the Principal Act increase the access, inspection and investigation powers of authorised officers.

An authorised officer may enter land without notice, consent or a warrant in circumstances where the authorised officer reasonably believes that permanent and/or irreversible damage is occurring, is imminent, or has occurred and immediate entry is required to obtain evidence. However, residential premises may still not be entered without notice unless occupier consent is obtained, and entry is limited to the purpose of confirming the presence of environmental damage.

An authorised officer may now be assisted by a relevant expert while inspecting land under the Act, however the expert may not enter or remain on the land unless accompanied by the authorised officer. The Act also creates an offence to obstruct both the authorised officer and the person assisting them, not just the officer themselves.

Takeaway

The combination of these legislative reforms to the enforcement regime are aimed at stopping the practice of developers ‘pricing in’ fines and court costs when seeking to profit from non-compliance with planning controls and misconduct.