Why Ministerial Direction No. 15 Still Matters — And What’s Changing for Melbourne Developers
If you’re a property developer working across Melbourne’s eastern suburbs, the planning scheme amendment process is likely one of the most significant variables in your project programme. Delays at any stage — from authorisation through to Ministerial approval — can add months to your programme, erode holding cost buffers, and compress the window between approval and construction commencement. Understanding the statutory timeframes that govern this process is not a compliance exercise. It’s a commercial one.
Ministerial Direction No. 15 (MD15) has been the foundational document setting mandatory timeframes for each step in the planning scheme amendment process since it commenced on 28 October 2013. For developers pursuing rezonings, overlay changes, or site-specific amendments across councils including the City of Whitehorse, City of Boroondara, City of Manningham, City of Monash, City of Knox, and Maroondah City Council, MD15 remains the operative framework right now. However, the landscape is shifting materially. The Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Act 2026 — which received Royal Assent on 17 February 2026 — introduces a tiered amendment system that will substantially reshape how these processes work once the Act’s default commencement date of 29 October 2027 arrives. For a broader overview of how accelerated permit pathways interact with these reforms, see our guide to the Fast-Track Planning Bill: Melbourne Developer’s Guide to Accelerated Permit Pathways in 2026.
This guide outlines what MD15 requires today, how the incoming reforms will change the amendment process, and what practical steps developers can take to position their projects ahead of these changes. SQM Architects has worked across Melbourne’s eastern suburbs for over a decade, and the guidance below reflects practical experience navigating these processes across multiple councils and amendment types.
See How We Achieved Approval for This Complex Site
What Ministerial Direction No. 15 Actually Requires
MD15 applies to the Minister for Planning, the Secretary to the Department of Transport and Planning, all planning authorities in Victoria, and Panels appointed under Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Its purpose is straightforward: to set mandatory timeframes for completing each step in the planning scheme amendment process. These are not aspirational targets. They are binding directions, and a planning authority’s failure to comply can have real consequences for project programmes. For a comprehensive overview of how Victorian planning regulation operates, see our Victoria Planning Regulation: A Comprehensive Overview.
The key timeframes under MD15 are as follows:
- Exhibition and notice: A planning authority must give notice of an amendment within 40 business days of receiving authorisation to prepare it under sections 8A, 8B, or 9 of the Act. Where a council may proceed without Ministerial authorisation (because the Minister has not responded within 10 business days under section 8A(7)), the 40-business-day clock starts after that 10-business-day window closes.
- Panel appointment request: If submissions are received that must be referred to a Panel under section 23(1)(b) of the Act, the planning authority must request the appointment of a Panel within 40 business days of the closing date for submissions.
- Decision without a Panel: Where no submissions have been referred to a Panel, the planning authority must make its decision within 60 business days of the closing date for submissions.
- Decision after a Panel report: Where a Panel was appointed, the planning authority must make its decision within 40 business days of receiving the Panel’s report.
- Submission of adopted amendment to the Minister: An adopted amendment must be submitted to the Minister within 10 business days of adoption.
- Ministerial decision: Once a properly submitted adopted amendment is received, the Minister must make a decision within 40 business days.
It is worth noting that MD15 also requires a planning authority to set a date for both a Directions Hearing and a Panel Hearing — in agreement with Planning Panels Victoria — before notice of the amendment is given under section 19 of the Act. This pre-exhibition scheduling requirement is frequently overlooked by developers who assume Panel processes are only relevant once submissions close. In practice, failing to coordinate with Planning Panels Victoria early can compress available hearing dates and extend overall programme.
How the Amendment Process Translates to Real Project Timelines
Mapping MD15’s timeframes onto a realistic project programme is instructive. In business day terms, the minimum statutory pathway from authorisation to Ministerial approval — assuming no Panel is required — looks like this:
The 10-page PDF checklist Melbourne developers use to evaluate sites before committing capital.
- Zone, overlay & setback checks
- Dwelling capacity estimation
- Council-specific red flags
Something went wrong. Please try again.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Check your inbox — your checklist is on its way.
- Authorisation to exhibition: up to 40 business days (~8 weeks)
- Exhibition period: typically 28 days (4 weeks) under section 19 of the Act
- Submissions close to planning authority decision: up to 60 business days (~12 weeks)
- Adoption to submission to Minister: 10 business days (~2 weeks)
- Minister’s decision: up to 40 business days (~8 weeks)
That’s a minimum of approximately 34 weeks from authorisation to gazettal — and that assumes no Panel is required, no exemptions are sought, and the planning authority moves promptly at each stage. Where a Panel is required, the timeline extends considerably. Panel processes typically add several months to the programme, depending on the complexity of submissions, the availability of hearing dates, and the time taken to prepare the Panel report. For a council-by-council breakdown of planning permit timeframes more broadly, see our Planning Permit Timeline Melbourne by Council: A Complete Guide.
For developers working across the City of Whitehorse or City of Manningham — where heritage overlays, neighbourhood character policies, and vegetation controls can generate substantive objections — Panel referrals are a realistic planning assumption for many amendment types. Building this into your preliminary considerations from the outset, rather than treating it as a contingency, is a more commercially sound approach.
Council Variations Across Melbourne’s Eastern Suburbs
While MD15 sets mandatory minimum timeframes, the practical experience of navigating planning scheme amendments varies considerably across councils in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs. Understanding these variations may help developers calibrate their project programmes more accurately.
City of Whitehorse processes amendments under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, which includes significant Heritage Overlay coverage across Box Hill, Nunawading, and Mitcham precincts. Amendments affecting heritage-overlaid land or proposing increased residential density in established neighbourhoods tend to attract higher submission volumes, making Panel referrals more likely. Pre-application engagement with Council’s strategic planning team is particularly valuable here.
City of Boroondara is known for active community engagement in planning processes. Amendments proposing increased density in established residential areas — particularly in Camberwell, Hawthorn, and Kew — may generate substantial submissions. Developers should allow for Panel processes as a base-case assumption rather than a contingency when pursuing rezonings in this municipality.
City of Manningham administers a planning scheme with significant Significant Landscape Overlay and Vegetation Protection Overlay coverage. Amendments with environmental or landscape implications may require additional referrals and reporting, which can affect pre-exhibition preparation time even within MD15’s 40-business-day window.
City of Monash, City of Knox, and Maroondah City Council each have active residential growth corridors, particularly around activity centres and train station precincts. Amendments in these areas may benefit from alignment with state-led strategic frameworks, which can support faster authorisation and reduce the likelihood of contested Panel processes.
The Incoming Reforms: Three-Tier Planning Scheme Amendments
The Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Act 2026 introduces a fundamentally different framework for planning scheme amendments, replacing the current single-pathway process with a tiered system calibrated to the complexity, risk, and potential impact of each amendment. While the Act’s default commencement date is 29 October 2027, developers with projects in the pipeline should be planning for this framework now.
The three impact categories are:
- Low impact: Public notice and exhibition are required, but independent Panel review is not mandatory. The planning authority may adopt the amendment after considering submissions and publishing an engagement report. The Minister retains the power to refer the amendment to a Panel if considered necessary.
- Medium impact: Public notice and exhibition occur under the current framework, but there is no independent Panel review or public hearing unless the Minister determines this is needed. As with low-impact amendments, the planning authority may adopt after considering submissions and publishing an engagement report.
- High impact: Full exhibition and independent Panel review are required. This category is expected to capture rezonings of significant land areas, amendments with environmental implications, and proposals affecting large precincts. Notice must also be given to native title holders, traditional owner group entities, and registered Aboriginal parties in the affected area.
The specific criteria for categorising amendments into each tier will be set by regulations, which are yet to be finalised. Developers should monitor the Department of Transport and Planning’s guidance as these regulations are developed. The practical implication is significant: amendments that currently require Panel processes may, under the new framework, be capable of adoption without independent review — potentially compressing timelines by several months.
It is also worth noting that the new framework introduces a formal mechanism for developers to request that a council prepare a planning scheme amendment. Under sections 16A to 16E of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (as amended by the Housing Statement Reform Act 2025), a council must consider the request and either seek Ministerial authorisation or refuse it with written reasons. Where a council does not respond within a specified timeframe, the Minister may direct the council to make a decision. This creates a more accessible and accountable pathway for site-specific amendment requests. For a broader overview of property development planning considerations and how to structure your preliminary assessment, see our Property Development Planning Considerations: Industry Framework and Best Practices.
Practical Steps for Developers: Positioning Your Project Now
Given the transitional period between the current MD15 framework and the incoming tiered system, developers with projects in the pipeline face a dual challenge: navigating the existing process efficiently while positioning their projects to benefit from the new framework once it commences. The following practical guidance may assist.
Engage Early with the Planning Authority
Pre-application meetings with the relevant council’s strategic planning team are not optional for complex amendments — they are a programme management tool. Understanding a council’s current workload, their position on the proposed amendment, and any strategic policy alignment issues before lodging an authorisation request can materially affect how quickly the process moves. Councils that are supportive of an amendment are more likely to move promptly within MD15’s timeframes.
Prepare a Complete Authorisation Request
The 40-business-day exhibition clock under MD15 does not start until authorisation is received. Delays in obtaining authorisation — often caused by incomplete supporting documentation — are not captured by MD15’s timeframes and can add significant untracked time to your programme. A well-prepared authorisation request, supported by a planning report, strategic justification, and any required technical assessments, may reduce the time between lodgement and authorisation. Ensuring your architectural planning drawings and supporting documentation meet the required standard before lodgement may help avoid unnecessary delays at this stage.
Coordinate with Planning Panels Victoria Early
MD15 requires that hearing dates be set before exhibition commences. Developers and their consultants should engage with Planning Panels Victoria early to understand available hearing windows, particularly for amendments likely to attract submissions. Hearing availability can vary significantly depending on the volume of amendments in the system at any given time.
Align with State Strategic Frameworks
Amendments that demonstrably align with Plan for Victoria, activity centre strategies, or the Victorian Government’s housing supply objectives are more likely to receive prompt authorisation and less likely to face sustained Panel opposition. Framing your amendment within the state’s strategic context — rather than purely as a site-specific proposal — may strengthen both the authorisation case and the Panel hearing position.
Monitor Regulatory Developments
The regulations that will define the three impact categories under the Better Decisions Made Faster Act 2026 are still being developed. Developers with amendments likely to be lodged after October 2027 should monitor the Department of Transport and Planning’s guidance closely. Understanding which category your proposed amendment is likely to fall into will be critical for programme planning and preliminary considerations.
ResCode and Amendment Interactions
For residential developers, planning scheme amendments often interact with ResCode (Clauses 54 and 55 of the Victorian Planning Provisions) in ways that affect both the amendment content and the subsequent permit assessment. Where an amendment proposes to vary ResCode standards — for example, through a Design and Development Overlay or a Schedule to a Residential Zone — the Panel process will scrutinise the justification for any departure from the standard provisions carefully. For a detailed reference on current ResCode requirements, see our ResCode Victoria 2026: Developer’s Reference for Compliant Residential Development in Australia.
Recent amendments to the Victorian Planning Provisions have updated standards under Clause 54 relating to small lot residential development. Developers should confirm the current provisions with the Department of Transport and Planning or a qualified planning consultant, as these standards may affect both amendment drafting and the subsequent permit assessment pathway.
SQM Architects has worked across Melbourne’s eastern suburbs on a wide range of residential projects. Careful alignment between amendment content, ResCode provisions, and council strategic policy may help avoid costly permit assessment complications later.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if a council does not meet the timeframes set by Ministerial Direction No. 15?
MD15 sets mandatory timeframes, but the Act does not provide an automatic remedy if a planning authority fails to comply. In practice, persistent delays may support a case for Ministerial intervention or, in some circumstances, a VCAT application. Developers experiencing significant delays should seek current guidance on available options, as the Housing Statement Reform Act 2025 has strengthened some of the accountability mechanisms around amendment processes.
Can the Minister grant an exemption from MD15’s timeframes?
Yes. Under clause 5 of MD15, the Minister may grant an exemption from one or more of the Direction’s requirements in relation to a particular amendment. Exemptions may be granted subject to conditions. This power is used in circumstances where the standard timeframes are not practicable — for example, where an amendment is particularly complex or where there are resourcing constraints affecting the planning authority.
How does the new three-tier amendment system affect developers pursuing rezonings in activity centres?
Activity centre rezonings are likely to be categorised as medium or high impact under the incoming framework, depending on the scale of the proposal and its strategic context. Medium-impact amendments may be capable of adoption without a Panel process, which could meaningfully compress timelines for well-supported proposals. However, the specific criteria for categorisation are yet to be set by regulations, and developers should seek current guidance as these details are finalised.
Does the 10-business-day rule under section 8A(7) mean a council can always proceed without Ministerial authorisation?
Section 8A(7) allows a council to prepare an amendment without authorisation if the Minister has not responded within 10 business days of receiving the authorisation application. However, this provision applies specifically to applications made by a municipal council as planning authority for its own municipal district. It does not apply to all amendment types, and the practical use of this provision varies across councils. Developers should not assume it will be exercised as a matter of course.
What is the difference between a “deemed refusal” under the current framework and the accelerated timeframes under the Better Decisions Made Faster Act 2026?
Under the current Victorian framework, a “deemed refusal” occurs when a responsible authority fails to make a decision within the statutory timeframe, allowing the applicant to appeal to VCAT as if the application had been refused. The Better Decisions Made Faster Act 2026 introduces accelerated assessment timeframes for Type 1 permit applications — low-impact, small-scale developments — with deemed refusal rights applying if the responsible authority does not determine the application within the prescribed period. Victoria does not use a “deemed approval” mechanism; the deemed refusal right is the operative remedy under Victorian planning law. This accelerated pathway applies to planning permit applications, not to planning scheme amendments.
How do the new planning scheme amendment timeframes interact with the Metropolitan Planning Levy?
The Metropolitan Planning Levy (MPL) applies to planning permit applications for development with an estimated cost above the prescribed threshold in metropolitan Melbourne. The Housing Statement Reform Act 2025 made changes to MPL exemptions, and developers should confirm current thresholds and exemption criteria with the Department of Transport and Planning. The MPL is a permit-stage obligation and does not directly affect planning scheme amendment timeframes under MD15.
Will the incoming reforms affect how councils in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs handle heritage overlay amendments?
Heritage overlay amendments — whether proposing to apply, extend, or remove heritage controls — are likely to be categorised as medium or high impact under the new tiered framework, given their potential community significance. The incoming reforms do not remove the ability for communities to make submissions on such amendments, but they may affect whether a Panel process is mandatory. Developers pursuing amendments that interact with heritage controls across councils such as the City of Boroondara or City of Whitehorse should seek current guidance on how the new framework may apply to their specific proposal.
Conclusion: Plan for the Transition, Act on What’s Operative Now
Ministerial Direction No. 15 remains the operative framework governing planning scheme amendment timeframes in Victoria today. For developers pursuing rezonings, overlay changes, or site-specific amendments across Melbourne’s eastern suburbs, understanding MD15’s mandatory timeframes — and how to work effectively within them — is a practical commercial skill, not just a compliance obligation. At the same time, the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Act 2026 represents one of the most significant reforms to Victoria’s planning legislation in recent years, and its default commencement date of 29 October 2027 is approaching faster than many project timelines might suggest. Developers with projects in the pipeline should be engaging with both frameworks now — navigating the current process efficiently while positioning their proposals to benefit from the incoming tiered system.
SQM Architects – ABN 32 600 928 390, ARBV Reg. No. 51498
SQM Architects has supported property developers across the City of Whitehorse, City of Boroondara, City of Manningham, City of Monash, City of Knox, and Maroondah City Council for over a decade, with experience across a range of residential and mixed-use amendment types across these municipalities. Whether you are at the preliminary considerations stage of a potential rezoning or already in the amendment process, early engagement with experienced planning and design professionals may support better-informed decisions at each stage of your project.
Book a Strategy Call — speak with SQM Architects about your project’s amendment pathway and how the incoming reforms may affect your programme.
This article provides general information only. For project-specific guidance, consult with qualified professionals.
