title: Amendment VC267 - Townhouse and Low-Rise Code council: ballarat state: vic category: amendment classification: MAJOR status: approved last_compiled: 2026-05-31 source_docs:
- Victorian-Planning-Authority-Small-Lot-Housing-Code-November-2024.pdf
- web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt
- web-research-L1-vc267-clause55-05-sustainability-vpp.txt
- web-research-L1-vc267-clause55-guidelines-dtp.txt
- web-research-L1-vc267-townhouse-code-faq-dtp.txt
- web-research-L1-vc267-townhouse-low-rise-code-dtp-page.txt
Amendment VC267 - Townhouse and Low-Rise Code
Amendment VC267 is a statewide change to the Victoria Planning Provisions that replaced the former Clause 55 ResCode framework with the Townhouse and Low-Rise Code for two-or-more-dwelling and low-rise residential development up to three storeys. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.25) Its planning effect is not simply a new checklist: it changes the decision mechanism by making compliant standards “deemed to comply”, narrowing the matters a responsible authority may consider and reducing third-party review rights when standards are met. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.25)
For Ballarat, the amendment matters because Clause 55 now sets a statewide assessment pathway for townhouse and low-rise housing in residential settings, while the local evidence base in the available corpus does not show how this statewide code interacts with Ballarat-specific constraints such as heritage, drainage capacity, flood risk, neighbourhood character, tree canopy, and climate-responsive design. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.43-48)
Background
VC267 sits within the Victorian Government’s broader housing reform program, which also included VC257 and VC274. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.21) The parliamentary committee described the three amendments as statewide planning provision changes intended to enable denser housing in activity centres and to make major changes to ResCode by moving townhouse and low-rise approvals to a stricter deemed-to-comply framework. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.9)
The former Clause 55 was known as ResCode, and VC267 replaced it with the Townhouse and Low-Rise Code for residential buildings up to three storeys. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.25) The new Clause 55 applies to applications for two or more dwellings on a lot, up to and including three storeys, in the Mixed Use Zone, Township Zone, Residential Growth Zone, General Residential Zone, and Neighbourhood Residential Zone, and it also applies within the Housing Choice and Transport Zone introduced through VC257. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.25)
VC267 was gazetted on 6 March 2025, and the Department of Transport and Planning described the transition period for the new Clause 55 as 6 March 2025 to 31 March 2025. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.34) The parliamentary committee found that councils were expected to implement the full detail of the new provisions without enough advance notice before commencement. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.35)
Analysis
Assessment Mechanism: From Performance Judgement to Deemed Compliance
The core architectural change is that Clause 55 now creates a “deemed to comply” decision process: if a proposal meets the relevant standards corresponding to Clause 55 objectives, the objective is deemed to be met. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.25) This means the responsible authority’s assessment turns first on whether numerical or prescriptive standards are met, rather than on a broader balancing exercise across objectives, policy, local context, and Clause 65 decision guidelines. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.25,43-45)
The practical mechanism is binary. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.25) If a development meets a standard, the corresponding requirement is treated as satisfied and third-party review rights are removed for that compliant pathway. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.25) If a development does not meet a standard, the responsible authority can consider the applicable decision guidelines to determine whether the objective is nevertheless met, and third-party review rights resume. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.25)
This moves risk from the merits-assessment stage to the standard-interpretation stage. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.48) The committee heard evidence that disputes may shift to whether each numerical standard has been met, and that VCAT may have a significant short-term role in resolving compliance disputes. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.48)
Clause 65 and Section 60: What Gets Narrowed
Under the former framework, responsible authorities could use Clause 65 and section 60 considerations to assess whether a proposal produced acceptable planning outcomes. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.25-26) Clause 65 includes matters such as the Municipal Planning Strategy, Planning Policy Framework, zone and overlay purposes, orderly planning, environmental effects, human health, amenity, stormwater quality, native vegetation, flood risk, erosion risk, fire hazard, traffic flow, and transport system impacts. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.26,44-45)
VC267 narrows this broader assessment because, where the deemed-to-comply pathway is engaged, planning authorities are exempt from considering other decision guidelines or policies, including other planning scheme guidelines and matters under section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.25) The committee found that this exemption is a substantial change to how residential development assessments are conducted where planning permits are required. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.44)
The most important downstream effect is hazard and environmental risk. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.44-45) The committee identified Clause 65 matters relating to contamination, human health, amenity, land degradation, salinity, water quality, native vegetation, flood hazard, erosion hazard, and fire hazard as important safeguards for sound planning decisions. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.45) The committee recommended that Clause 65 decision guidelines should apply to all decisions made under Clause 55, especially where risks to human life, health, and the environment should be identified and managed. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.45)
For Ballarat, this is a material analytical gap because the supplied corpus does not include a Ballarat-specific overlay audit showing where flood, bushfire, contamination, heritage, or drainage constraints are already mapped in the planning scheme and where known risks may exist without an active overlay. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.44-45)
Sustainability Standards: Statewide Floor, Possible Local Ceiling Loss
The available Clause 55 sustainability extract shows that VC267 inserted or amended sustainability standards at Clause 55.05 from 31 March 2025. (Source: web-research-L1-vc267-clause55-05-sustainability-vpp.txt, p.1) The standards include permeability and stormwater management, overshadowing of domestic solar energy systems, rooftop solar energy generation areas, solar protection for new north-facing windows, waste and recycling, mechanical plant noise, and apartment cooling-load requirements. (Source: web-research-L1-vc267-clause55-05-sustainability-vpp.txt, pp.1-5)
The permeability and stormwater standard requires at least 20 percent of the site to be covered by pervious surfaces. (Source: web-research-L1-vc267-clause55-05-sustainability-vpp.txt, p.1) It also requires a stormwater management system to meet best-practice quantitative performance objectives from EPA Publication 1739.1: 80 percent mean annual suspended solids reduction, 45 percent mean annual total phosphorus and total nitrogen reduction, and 70 percent mean annual litter reduction. (Source: web-research-L1-vc267-clause55-05-sustainability-vpp.txt, p.1) The same standard directs stormwater flows into treatment areas, garden areas, tree pits, and permeable surfaces, with residual flows draining to the legal point of discharge. (Source: web-research-L1-vc267-clause55-05-sustainability-vpp.txt, p.1)
The rooftop solar standard requires each dwelling, other than apartments and residential buildings, to provide a solar-ready roof area with a minimum dimension of 1.7 metres and minimum area of 15 square metres for a one-bedroom dwelling, 26 square metres for a two- or three-bedroom dwelling, and 34 square metres for a dwelling with four or more bedrooms. (Source: web-research-L1-vc267-clause55-05-sustainability-vpp.txt, p.2) The apartment energy-efficiency standard identifies Ballarat as NatHERS climate zone 66 and sets a maximum annual cooling load of 23 MJ/m2 per annum for dwellings in or forming part of an apartment development in that climate zone. (Source: web-research-L1-vc267-clause55-05-sustainability-vpp.txt, p.5)
The committee found that the new ESD standards now apply consistently to residential developments under Clause 55 across Victoria where they did not apply before. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.47) The committee also found that the combination of Clause 55, the Clause 65 exemption, and the reduced ability to consider local planning policies lowered some ESD standards in 28 local government areas with stronger local ESD policies. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.47) The committee stated that whether the statewide uplift and the local lowering create a net benefit overall had not been proven. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.47)
The supplied corpus does not establish whether Ballarat is one of the 28 local government areas referred to in the committee’s ESD finding. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.47) The Ballarat-specific analytical question is therefore not whether Clause 55 contains ESD standards, but whether those standards sit above, below, or beside Ballarat’s existing local ESD policy expectations and whether local decision-makers can still apply any stronger local policy in deemed-to-comply cases. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.47)
Tree Canopy and Landscape: The Missing Local Consequence
The committee heard conflicting evidence about the likely effect of Clause 55 on tree retention in residential areas. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.45) It heard concern that sites already containing canopy above the new standard may still remove mature trees, and that the code may make it harder to achieve the Plan for Victoria target of 30 percent tree canopy cover in urban areas. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.46)
The Department of Transport and Planning told the committee it was considering a separate planning control requiring a permit to remove a canopy tree over 5 metres in height, but the timing, application, and relationship of that control to Clause 55 were not disclosed in the evidence available to the committee. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.46) The committee found that, without contrary evidence, it was concerned Clause 55 may lead to excessive removal of existing trees and reduced tree canopy. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.46)
This issue is important for Ballarat because the supplied corpus does not include a Ballarat tree canopy baseline, residential canopy target, local tree protection control, or modelling of likely canopy effects under the new deemed-to-comply pathway. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.46) The analytical gap is therefore quantitative: the available documents identify the mechanism by which canopy risk may arise, but they do not quantify the number of Ballarat lots, neighbourhoods, or mapped canopy areas exposed to that mechanism. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.46)
Relationship to the Small Lot Housing Code
The Small Lot Housing Code is not VC267, but it is relevant because it shows a parallel Victorian planning mechanism that also uses prescriptive standards to remove or reduce the need for individual planning assessment in specific small-lot circumstances. (Source: Victorian-Planning-Authority-Small-Lot-Housing-Code-November-2024.pdf, p.3) The Small Lot Housing Code applies where it is incorporated into the planning scheme and where the lot is identified for assessment against the code through a title restriction. (Source: Victorian-Planning-Authority-Small-Lot-Housing-Code-November-2024.pdf, p.3)
The Small Lot Housing Code provides that a planning permit is not required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot under 300 square metres where the site is identified for assessment against the code and complies with the code. (Source: Victorian-Planning-Authority-Small-Lot-Housing-Code-November-2024.pdf, p.3) If one or more standards are not met, the proposal is deemed not to comply and a planning permit is required through the standard planning permit application process. (Source: Victorian-Planning-Authority-Small-Lot-Housing-Code-November-2024.pdf, p.3)
The comparison is useful because both systems shift assessment toward rule compliance, but their scopes differ. (Source: Victorian-Planning-Authority-Small-Lot-Housing-Code-November-2024.pdf, p.3; Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.25) The Small Lot Housing Code is tied to nominated lots, subdivision certification, title restrictions, and one dwelling on lots under 300 square metres, while VC267’s Clause 55 pathway applies to two-or-more-dwelling and low-rise residential applications in specified residential and mixed-use zones. (Source: Victorian-Planning-Authority-Small-Lot-Housing-Code-November-2024.pdf, p.3; Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.25)
The 2024 Small Lot Housing Code introduced Type C standards while retaining Type A and Type B standards. (Source: Victorian-Planning-Authority-Small-Lot-Housing-Code-November-2024.pdf, pp.2-3) Type C includes no maximum site coverage, requires at least 50 percent of unroofed ground-level private open space to be permeable, and requires each allotment to provide a deep soil planting area of at least 2.5 square metres with a minimum dimension of 1.5 metres. (Source: Victorian-Planning-Authority-Small-Lot-Housing-Code-November-2024.pdf, pp.23-25) This confirms that Victorian residential code reform is not limited to VC267; it is part of a broader shift toward codified built-form pathways for smaller and denser housing forms. (Source: Victorian-Planning-Authority-Small-Lot-Housing-Code-November-2024.pdf, pp.2-3; Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.9)
Governance, Consultation, and Implementation Risk
The committee found that the Victorian Government did not properly consult on VC257, VC267, and VC274, and that the Minister inappropriately exempted herself from expected consultation. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.34) The committee also found that where councils are expected to implement new VPP provisions, they should receive the full detail of those provisions with enough time to prepare, and that this did not occur for VC267. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.35)
Implementation risk is not abstract. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.41-42) Councils raised concerns about short timeframes, overlap with local elections, extinguishment of local policies, and new information being provided for the first time when VC267 was gazetted. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.41) DTP pointed to council workshops, guidelines issued on 28 March 2025, and corrective Amendment VC276 gazetted on 2 April 2025 as implementation support measures. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.42)
The committee characterised VC267 as the most fundamental change to residential development assessment in Victoria since ResCode commenced in August 2001. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.42) The committee concluded that the process before and after commencement should have been more accountable, orderly, transparent, and informative. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.42)
Housing Supply Evidence
The committee found that it was not provided with modelling about the expected effect of any of the amendments on housing supply generally or the effect of increased supply on house prices. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.32) It recommended that the Victorian Government publish modelling showing how the planning scheme amendments will affect housing supply and affordability. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.33)
This means the available source base supports a mechanism claim but not an outcome claim. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.32-33) The mechanism claim is that VC267 may reduce assessment uncertainty for compliant applications by narrowing assessment to coded standards. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.25) The unsupported outcome claim would be that VC267 will deliver a quantified number of additional dwellings in Ballarat or Victoria, because the committee expressly found that modelling was not provided. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.32)
Current Status
VC267 was gazetted on 6 March 2025, with the new Clause 55 transition period described as 6 March 2025 to 31 March 2025. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.34) Clause 55.05 sustainability provisions in the available VPP extract are marked 31 March 2025 for VC267, with a later 4 February 2026 VC265 marker also appearing in the extract. (Source: web-research-L1-vc267-clause55-05-sustainability-vpp.txt, p.1)
The parliamentary committee adopted its report on 8 May 2025. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.50) The report recommended reinstating Clause 65 decision guidelines for all Clause 55 decisions, publishing modelling on housing supply and tree canopy impacts, improving Clause 55 landscaping and tree canopy standards, reviewing ESD standards, and creating a performance and continuous improvement mechanism for the VPP. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.45-50)
Dependencies
- Blocks: VC267 does not block Ballarat residential planning applications, because it is the operative statewide assessment pathway for relevant Clause 55 applications after gazettal and commencement. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.25,34)
- Blocked by: The available corpus does not show VC267 being blocked by any further approval step after gazettal, but the committee recommended further policy changes and modelling that may affect future operation of Clause 55. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.45-50)
- Informed by: The available corpus includes the parliamentary inquiry report, the Clause 55.05 sustainability extract, and the 2024 Small Lot Housing Code as an adjacent codified housing pathway. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt; Source: web-research-L1-vc267-clause55-05-sustainability-vpp.txt; Source: Victorian-Planning-Authority-Small-Lot-Housing-Code-November-2024.pdf)
- Implements: VC267 forms part of the Victorian Government’s broader housing reform context associated with the Housing Statement and Plan for Victoria. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.21-22)
- Conflicts with: The committee identified tension between the deemed-to-comply mechanism and broader consideration of Clause 65 matters, local policies, tree canopy retention, ESD standards in some councils, and third-party review rights. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.43-48)
Cross-Jurisdictional Links
VC267 is a statewide VPP amendment rather than a Ballarat-only amendment. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, p.21) Its immediate cross-jurisdictional effect is administrative consistency across councils for Clause 55 applications, while its contested effects vary by local context because councils differ in local ESD policies, hazard overlays, tree controls, heritage settings, and residential development pressure. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.43-48)
The inquiry evidence shows statewide organisations and councils participated in the debate, including the Municipal Association of Victoria, Planning Institute of Australia, Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment, Bayside City Council, Boroondara City Council, Whitehorse City Council, Knox City Council, Kingston City Council, Moonee Valley City Council, and others. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.41-48,51-57) The source set does not include a Ballarat submission or Ballarat-specific implementation report, so Ballarat’s local administrative position cannot be stated from the supplied documents. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.51-57)
Gaps in This Analysis
The DTP guideline, DTP FAQ, and DTP Townhouse and Low-Rise Code page extractions in the manifest are Cloudflare challenge pages rather than substantive extracted planning content, so they confirm intended source targets but do not provide usable policy text for analysis. (Source: web-research-L1-vc267-clause55-guidelines-dtp.txt; Source: web-research-L1-vc267-townhouse-code-faq-dtp.txt; Source: web-research-L1-vc267-townhouse-low-rise-code-dtp-page.txt)
The corpus does not include the full VC267 explanatory report, instruction sheet, gazettal notice, complete Clause 55 text, Clause 57 text, Clause 65 text as an independent current VPP extract, Ballarat Planning Scheme local policies, Ballarat overlay mapping, Ballarat permit data, Ballarat tree canopy data, Ballarat ESD policy settings, or Ballarat officer implementation guidance. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.25,43-48) Because those documents are missing, this page can identify the statewide mechanism and the committee-identified risks, but it cannot quantify the number of Ballarat applications, lots, neighbourhoods, overlays, heritage places, canopy areas, or drainage-constrained sites affected by the new Clause 55 pathway. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.32,43-48)
The key corpus gap is therefore a Ballarat-specific VC267 implementation evidence pack: current Ballarat Planning Scheme Clause 55 application settings, local policy interactions, residential development application counts, overlay intersection mapping, tree canopy baseline, local ESD policy comparison, and any council officer reports or submissions responding to VC267. (Source: web-research-L1-vc257-vc267-vc274-parliament-inquiry-report.txt, pp.41-48)