As the State Government moves to accelerate housing supply through fast‑track planning decisions, local councils are warning that community input could be diminished on major developments with major local impacts.
This growing struggle over planning powers between state and local government is increasingly being framed by both sides as existential.
The State Government has identified responding to the “housing crisis” as a central pillar of its re‑election strategy, expanding the scope of the Big Build to include housing as well as infrastructure. Its transport‑related activity centre planning interventions represent what some argue is the most significant shift in planning authority since councils were established.
For many councils, the changes have fuelled frustration. Years of consultation and strategic planning in some municipalities have been swept aside by state‑led activity centre plans that allow higher‑density development than ever anticipated.
Local governments also point to broader pressures: rate capping and cost shifting on one side, and increasing state intervention in major planning decisions on the other – alongside the threat of government‑installed monitors or administrators.
Some councillors have expressed concern that councils may be left to decide on minor works such as home extensions while the State assumes control over multi‑million‑dollar, high‑density developments on the same streets.
In St Kilda, the State Government’s intention to assume planning control of the redevelopment of the Cosmopolitan Hotel on Carlisle Street has raised concerns among local councillors.
A motion that divided the chamber
Against this backdrop, St Kilda councillor Serge Thomann lodged a motion titled Advocacy for Local Planning Authority and Community‑Led Decision‑Making. In a council that often emphasises unity, the motion appeared likely to gain unanimous support.
Instead, it exposed differing priorities.
The motion expressed strong concern about changes that reduce Council’s role as the responsible authority for major developments, centralising decision‑making and diminishing local input.
Moving the motion, Cr Thomann said the state planning interventions “take decisions out of the hands of the people who live here, who understand the city and their neighbourhoods and their villages, and who are directly accountable to it and places them further way often behind closed doors.”
Deputy Mayor Bryan Mears seconded the motion, saying state planning changes risk sidelining both councillors and the local community, with decisions increasingly made “from a distance”.
Councillors Jay, Hardy, Consolo and Mayor Makin expressed similar views, emphasising the value of local knowledge and community input.
The motion was carried, with councillors Thomann, Mears, Hardy, Consolo, Jay and Makin voting in favour. Three councillors – Buckingham, Crawford and Halliday – abstained.
Abstentions explained
Rather than quoting directly from the council meeting transcript, TWiSK invited the three abstaining councillors to provide short statements outlining their positions.
Their responses are published in full, with shorter summaries presented first.
Cr Libby Buckingham (Balaclava Ward)
“I support some aspects of the motion but I abstained because its broad wording did not reflect the pressures of the housing crisis or the need for reforms that support more affordable housing close to services, jobs, and public transport.”
Cr Louise Crawford (Elwood Ward)
“The motion as drafted was too broad, and in the midst of a housing crisis, I don’t think we can default to business as usual. I value community input and believe it has an important role to play in shaping our neighbourhoods, but that cannot come at the expense of meaningful action. We need to embrace a more YIMBY approach rather than a NIMBY one — targeted changes to the planning scheme that increase housing supply and improve affordability are not just welcome, they are necessary. That is why I abstained from the vote.”
Cr Justin Halliday (Alma Ward)
“On Wednesday night I abstained from the vote on the Notice of Motion titled Advocacy for Local Planning Authority and Community Led Decision Making. While I support several elements of the motion, including rights of appeal and greater community involvement in planning decisions, I did not support enough of it overall to vote in favour.
“My concerns are largely based on my experience of heritage and neighbourhood character being used to oppose densification and new housing. These arguments are often applied as broad exemptions from change, which I do not consider fair or reasonable. This is evident in other councils such as Boroondara, and also within the City of Port Phillip.
“Within Port Phillip, not all suburbs are accommodating new housing. This creates an imbalance, with densification concentrated in certain suburbs. I would prefer to see densification distributed fairly across the municipality, with all suburbs contributing to meeting our housing targets.
“We also have strong public transport networks, and areas near tram, bus and train routes are well suited to higher density development.
“Ultimately, I have reservations about many aspects of the state government’s planning changes, and I also have concerns about unreasonable resistance to new housing and densification. On balance, this led me to abstain from the vote.”
The motion
Advocacy for Local Planning Authority and Community‑Led Decision‑Making
Moved: Crs Thomann / Mears
That Council:
- Expresses its strong concern regarding recent State Government planning reforms and interventions that remove or reduce Council’s role as the responsible authority for certain categories of development, centralising decision‑making and diminishing the capacity of locally elected representatives and the local community to assess proposals against neighbourhood character, infrastructure capacity, heritage values and community expectation.
- Affirms Council’s commitment to a planning system that is locally informed, evidence based and publicly accountable, including meaningful community consultation and clear pathways for residents to understand and participate in decisions that shape their neighbourhoods.
- Requests the Mayor write to the Minister for Planning conveying Council’s concerns about the impacts of these reforms on local democracy and planning integrity, and advocating for planning processes that maintain robust local involvement, transparency and accountability.
- Requests that the Mayor, in the letter to the Minister for Planning, also advocate for greater clarity and consistency in State and local planning provisions relating to visitor car parking and on‑site loading and service bays — particularly in high‑density and high‑rise residential developments — to ensure planning controls appropriately support residents, service providers, local traders and emergency vehicles, and minimise impacts on surrounding streets and public parking.
Outcome: Motion carried
For: Crs Makin, Jay, Thomann, Mears, Hardy and Consolo
Against: Nil
Abstained: Crs Crawford, Buckingham and Halliday
