Anatomy of a DFP ( State Government’s Development Facilitation Program ) Planning Permit fast track

PLANNING PERMIT No: PA2604213 Kew Village (26-36 Princess Street & 11-15 Brougham Street, Kew Junction)

• 6000 sqm site
• 4 Towers :1 X 18 storeys, 1 X 14 storeys, 2 X 4 storeys
• 194 dwellings or 400 bedrooms
• 1 supermarket & 18 shops + commercial offices
• 419 car parks for residential & retail and green space

With all the unresolved and unanswered objections and concerns, why has the Planning Permit been issued ?

Who shall we hold responsible and accountable for the permanent outcomes to the neighbourhood and residents from the issuing of the DFP Planning Permit ?

1.     This Kew Village proposal and its fast tracking is a demonstration of the total Rejection of our Australian democratic rights, processes and values :

a.     Our Australian values are fundamental in maintaining our democratic rights. Everyone plays an important role in supporting the freedoms we share – the rule of law is for both citizens and the government.

b.     Our human rights are essential in a democratic and inclusive society that respects the rule of law, human dignity, equality and freedom;

c.     We must protect our natural justice or procedural fairness.

We detailed this in our Letter of Objection to the State Government on April 5th. We detailed this in our Letter of Objection to Boroondara Council on April 5th and asked our Council in person at Council Meeting on April 20th,to support us the residents and protect us from this mega development and mega government overreach –to protect our rights and keep us safe and well.

2.     We did not receive sufficient notice to read / review / understand the details and extent to which this proposal would totally impact us and our quality of life.

A demonstration of the total Rejection of our Australian democratic rights, processes and values :

a.     This is such a denial of our natural justice, where clearly the owners / developers of the site / Transport and Planning Team have had months if not years to prepare / plan / submit their application.

b.     It was acknowledged and noted that the developer was asked to provide more notice / community consultation, but had refused (Council Meeting, April 20th).

c.     From receiving the Notice of an Application for a Planning Permit in the mail and the Public Advertising of the Planning Permit on the subject site, and the dead date for objections – it was just over a week.

This proposal would be of interest to the broader community and    everyone who comes through the major transport node that is Kew Junction. Where are the notices to the broader community, public meetings, letterbox drops, newspaper / online articles, media reports ?

This is such a significant proposal in size and impact and complexity and with such permanent outcomes. We have been given an appalling short period of time to prepare and submit objections.

How did we get to this in Victoria, Australia ? = The Victorian Development Facilitation Program (DFP).

The Victorian Development Facilitation Program was not introduced by a standalone "Development Facilitation Act," but rather implemented under the authority of Victoria’s existing Planning and Environment Act 1987 - via ministerial planning scheme amendments (such as Amendment VC242 & VC243).

The Minister – Sonia Kilkenny – made the planning scheme amendment as a direct change to the state's planning rules and maps without following the standard local council amendment process.

Bypassed the normal public consultation or council-led panels using special powers under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

How the Program Works

• Eligible applications skip the standard local council process and go directly to the Minister for Planning- Sonia Kilkenny- for assessment.
•   It gives the Minister for Planning the authority to act as the primary decision-maker.
• Faster Timeframes: The program aims to deliver a planning decision within four months instead of 12 months or more. 
• No VCAT Appeals: Decisions made by the Minister through this pathway cannot be appealed through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)

Why is the amendment required? Sonia Kilkenny says :

• to facilitate delivery of new development that supports economic activity, provision of services and improve housing choice and affordability. 
• to reduce unnecessary delays and costs without compromising the intent of the systems to deliver quality outcomes. Reducing the average approval time for planning permits.. 
  create new jobs, including in the construction sector.
• To support the Victorian Housing Statement for The Decade Ahead (2024-2034) (the Statement). The Statement aims to facilitate an extra 250,000 homes in Victoria over the next decade.

Assessment process

All projects are assessed on planning merit having regard to:

• the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the objectives of planning in Victoria)
• State and local provisions of the planning scheme
• Site context, including potential amenity and environmental impacts
• All projects considered by the DFP are subject to a design review process to ensure proposals deliver high-quality built form outcomes for Victoria. Design review processes are outlined within the Design Review Terms of Reference.

DFP planning permit applications are subject to the same referral and public notice requirements as any other permit application. DTP will consult referral authorities and local governments and notify adjoining property owners and potentially affected parties if required by the planning scheme. Authority and community views will be considered as part of DTP’s planning assessment.

Delivery of affordable housing

Government will seek 10% requirement for affordable housing by :

Option 1 – Discounted sale (30% discount) or gifting of homes to a registered housing agency (RHA) or Homes Victoria delivery criteria

Option 2 – Contribution to the social housing growth fund delivery criteria

A cash contribution equal to 3% of the development cost to the Social Housing Growth Fund (SHGF). Payment to be made to the Department of Treasury (DTF) and Finance accounts receivable.

Option 3 – Discounted rental in Build to Rent developments

Alternative options -  Alternative options that provide a contribution equal to 3% of the development cost may be considered by the responsible authority on a case-by-case basis.

These mega tower projects, fast tracked under the DFP are a total Rejection of our Australian democratic rights, processes and values :

1.     The 18-storey Kew Village Planning Permit has been approved under an undemocratically established DFP - declared by Sonia Kilkenny & the State Government. The law may let you do this is in certain ’crucial’ circumstances, is that this? Just because you can, do you do this to our democratic freedoms like this to us?

2.     Our rights to participate in the lawfully & democratically established Planning process have been summarily removed by Sonia Kilkenny & the State Government. Where are our rights to have a say about where & how we live safely in our neighbourhoods?

3.     The DFP have not followed their own gazetted assessment process – in this update “ DTP will consult referral authorities and local governments and notify adjoining property owners and potentially affected parties if required by the planning scheme. Authority and community views will be considered as part of DTP’s planning assessment”. 

4.     Failed to deliver any of their housing declarations: as of March 2026, the Victorian Government has fast-tracked 64 projects representing 10,324 homes through the housing component of the Development Facilitation Program (DFP – set up in October 2020 and then expanded in September 2023.

Victoria completed 42,646 dwellings in FY2024–25, the lowest annual total in 15 years and well below the level needed to keep pace with population growth.

While approvals increased to 56,581 over the same period, not every approved project reached completion. Construction costs, longer build times, and a weaker apartment pipeline have slowed the flow of new housing into the market. “At the moment, new home building isn’t strong enough to fully meet demand, and in a situation like that housing affordability will deteriorate further,” Mr Garrett (Master Builders chief economist – June 29th).

New Master Builders analysis shows the state is expected to complete just 54,836 new homes for this financial year or the lowest number of completions since 2014-2015, when 54,817 were built.

Master Builders chief economist Shane Garrett “we have fallen even further behind where we need to be”.

The government cannot control global events, but it can control the policy settings that make building a new home achievable for ordinary Australians,” Dr Cathryn Williams( Urban Development Institute of Australia, June 29th).

5.     How long does it take to build a house in Victoria?

Victorian houses took an average of 4.8 quarters from approval to completion in 2024–25, up from 2.9 quarters in 2019–20.

Key Context

Net Additions: While gross completions are near 55,000–61,000 annually, thousands of older dwellings are demolished each year (e.g., over 8,000 in recent 12-month periods), meaning net new additions to the housing stock sit closer to 45,000–50,000 per year. 
Government Targets: The state and federal National Housing Accord have set goals aiming for Victoria to deliver roughly 61,200 to 80,000 homes annually, meaning current build rates are falling short of official projections. 

6.     The Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) was caught providing a false account of its council consultations regarding Victoria’s activity-centre program. 

What Happened

False FOI Claims: In an initial Freedom of Information (FOI) refusal from July 2025, DTP claimed it had distributed critical Community Infrastructure Needs Assessments and Transport Planning assessments to local councils for comment and review prior to public release. 
The Correction: During a subsequent review by the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC), the Department admitted that consultation with councils had actually not occurred. 
Council Impact: Council Watch - VIC highlighted that DTP used this false assertion of consultation to justify withholding documents, even though local councils are expected to deliver much of the infrastructure recommended in the final reports without having received the underlying data or modelling. 
OVIC Ruling: OVIC rejected DTP's secrecy claims over the 20 withheld documents and ordered their release. 

 Conclusion

We the residents will continue to amplify and move to hold responsible those involved in this DFP process.

They all need to go- we cannot leave people in decision making positions that are not standing up for and protecting us, the voting public – at the State Level and the Local Council Level.

For me - as  Premier, Jess Wilson will Reject Activity Centres, the DFP, & ‘tear up’ the current mega housing towers’ strategy and restore our democratic planning rights.