Views may vary on the acceptability of a building this size, and certainly, there are many circumstances where such a form will be appropriate. This massing resembles many classic “six-pack” flats from the 1960s and 1970s, for example. While those buildings remain divisive, the better examples – such as those with good landscaping, for instance – are models of gentle density that we should emulate.

What a deemed to comply provision asks us to accept, however, is not just that this form may be appropriate for a particular site. Instead, it effectively asks us to accept that any residential development within this envelope is acceptable, even as we reduce or remove other design controls, such as provisions related to design detail and landscaping.

The inconsistent application of zones in Victoria means that we lack an appropriate starting point for the application of the deemed to comply controls. Site coverage provisions, for example, now become more permissive as we progress from the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to the General Residential Zone, to the Residential Growth Zone. But how do we know this is appropriate in a given area when there is so little consistency in how zones have been applied?

Another key concern relates to tree cover. The code includes a new standard regarding tree canopy cover, with a minimum of 10% tree coverage required for each site. However, this standard seems a low bar, and in the absence of any published testing of expected canopy outcomes, it is difficult to reconcile with the recommitment to urban greening and cooling objectives in Plan for Victoria.

Will the controls actually result in efficiencies?

A key justification for the changes is an expectation of efficiency in council planning processes. Appeal processes do indeed add considerable delay to planning timelines, and such appeals will be drastically curtailed under the proposed code.

However, expectations of dramatic system efficiencies at councils may be misplaced. The change to deemed to comply changes the nature of the Standards in the provisions from discretionary decision guidance to black-letter law process rules. This has fundamentally changed how the rules are used. While it is common for decision guidance to be somewhat complex, process rules need to be far simpler if they are to be workable.

The conversion of the ResCode Standards into process rules means councils must now be certain whether or not the standards are met at every stage of the application process. Previously, councils applied ResCode standards when making a decision, using flexible guidance to inform their judgment. As long as councils were satisfied with the merit of an application, they did not strictly need to rule if standards were met at all.

Now, every minor point of the standards is procedurally critical because it affects the legal status of resident appeal rights. The provisions, on the face of it, appear far too complex to function in this manner, with 28 pages of standards that include multiple nested criteria to be met. Some, such as those requiring precise measurement of tree canopies, seem inherently unworkable.

This risks bogging councils down with disputes over the small details of controls and complex legal challenges from applicants and aggrieved objectors. It is far from certain that this will be more efficient than the current provisions.

What happens to councils’ strategic planning now?

Councils’ pursuit of neighbourhood character outcomes through planning schemes is sometimes portrayed as a rogue policy agenda that has sabotaged state government’s pursuit of housing supply. Yet every neighbourhood character policy was signed off by a Planning Minister, and councils followed state government guidance that endorsed neighbourhood character studies as a critical input into preparing residential development provisions.

A rebalancing of policy priorities was likely required – although, as noted above, there was also room for a much better implementation of the previous set of tools.

What is clear is that years of policy development now require reworking. Many council schedules will now be removed with little, if any, examination of how this affects previous strategic work. Council policies will now be referenced much less frequently, and many will be nonsensical in the new regime. The application of zones in many councils – for example, where the General Residential Zone has been maintained in areas where little change is expected – should now be revisited. Many councils will need to start over on strategic work, which is either recently completed or underway.

The dust will need to settle before these outcomes can be fully understood. However, there is a considerable risk that these changes not only reset current strategic work but also expose the system to unnecessary further rounds of adjustment as they are refined and moderated. This could extend the delay and uncertainty that has characterised the last 2 decades.

Dramatic changes, uncertain outcomes

With uncertain outcomes, the proposed controls dramatically change the residential development provisions and the community's rights.

If the result of these changes was greater clarity about housing outcomes, the government could point to the kind of housing the provisions support to justify those changes to the community. However, it is problematic to dismiss community opposition to housing intensification as ill-informed when the information about what is proposed is so opaque.

A new model for residential development provisions, based on modern housing typologies and distilled into a form-based code, would be an excellent and helpful product in encouraging desirable medium-density infill. If designed carefully, such a code could provide much clearer guidance about acceptable outcomes. In principle, such an exercise could justify reduced community appeal rights and lead to increased supply and improved housing outcomes.