The announcement focuses on creating more certainty around cultural heritage matters and Melbourne Water – two potential blockers for development around Victoria.
The policy would: ✅ Establish clear timelines and costs for cultural heritage processes, with a Schedule of Fees to be released annually.
✅ Mandate approval timeframes for cultural heritage where undefined timeframes exist (except the initial 14-day timeframe for response to a notice of intent by a Registered Indigenous Party).
✅ Commit to an annual, published audit of cultural heritage approvals linked to housing development.
✅ Establish clear timelines, costs, and institute annual performance audits for Melbourne Water in its approval authority role.
The experience is mixed for landowners in Victoria who deal with cultural heritage approvals. Some Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) are well-resourced, organised and progress things in good time. And there are other groups which don't deal with applications and site processes in a timely fashion.
I disagree with those who rushed to call this a dog-whistle; those people have clearly never dealt with the Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) approval process. It's an honest conversation we need to have about an area which isn't working well to anyone's benefit – most are too afraid to discuss it for fear of retribution.
There are statutory timeframes for initial responses to a Notice of Intent, and for issuing the final approval of a resolved CHMPs. There are no specified timeframes for anything in between (such site works and attendance, receiving feedback to reports, negotiating and finalising the agree CHMP), nor any certainty on costs. The process can be a few months, or it can take years, and it can cost $thousands or in some cases $millions.
🤔Why is this so important? An approved CHMP is a prerequisite for any other planning approval on a mapped site. No CHMP = no permits.
I don't see this diminishing the role of cultural heritage assessments; it seems targeted on giving all stakeholders more certainty on timeframes and costs. ❓Do you read it differently?
As for Melbourne Water – yep, they absolutely need to be pulled into line. Industry needs reasonable and clear timeframes for enquiries, and for receiving offers from all servicing authorities.
❓Many other #authorities and processes need similar timeframe attention – what else should be considered?
❓Will the Victorian Government consider and adopt these or similar reforms as part of their "levers" to unlock #housingsupply?