ResCode Variations That Kill Townhouse Projects: Common VCAT Triggers and How Melbourne Developers Can Avoid Them

Townhouse developments in Melbourne can fail at VCAT even when they meet basic ResCode requirements. Local planning scheme variations and council-specific overlays create compliance gaps that trigger third-party appeals, causing delays of 6-12 months and cost blowouts exceeding $50,000 per project. Understanding which ResCode modifications kill project viability before lodging a planning permit application saves developers significant time and money.

The new Townhouse and Low-Rise Code introduced through Amendment VC267 in March 2025 has reshaped medium-density housing assessment across Victoria. However, councils retain the ability to impose local variations that override deemed-to-comply standards. These variations frequently target setbacks, site coverage, and neighbourhood character provisions that differ substantially from the standard Clause 55 requirements.

Developers working across multiple Melbourne councils face inconsistent requirements that make common triggers of building disputes at VCAT difficult to anticipate. This article identifies which ResCode variations most frequently derail townhouse projects, how different councils apply these standards, and practical strategies to address compliance issues before they reach VCAT. The focus remains on multi-dwelling developments of one to three storeys in residential zones where planning permit applications are most vulnerable to objector appeals.

Understanding ResCode and its Role in Townhouse Development

ResCode operates as Victoria’s primary regulatory framework for medium-density residential development, establishing measurable standards that determine whether townhouse projects receive planning approval. Amendment VC267 fundamentally restructured these requirements in March 2025, introducing deemed-to-comply pathways that shifted how developments are assessed.

Origins and Purpose of Clause 55

Clause 55 emerged from the Planning and Environment Act as Victoria’s response to inconsistent residential development assessments across different councils. The clause established objective standards for developments ranging from two dwellings to three-storey residential buildings.

ResCode’s core function centred on balancing development density with neighbourhood character protection. The standards addressed specific design elements including building height, site coverage, permeability, and overlooking provisions. Councils applied these standards to evaluate whether proposed townhouse developments respected existing streetscapes whilst accommodating urban consolidation.

The framework provided both objective and discretionary assessment pathways. Developers could demonstrate compliance through meeting specified measurements or by justifying alternative design solutions that achieved equivalent outcomes. This dual approach allowed flexibility whilst maintaining baseline standards across Victoria’s diverse residential zones.

Definition and Scope of ResCode Standards

The Townhouse and Low-Rise Code applies to two or more dwellings on a single lot and residential buildings up to three storeys. ResCode encompasses approximately 20 distinct standards covering site layout, building design, amenity impacts, and on-site infrastructure.

Key Standard Categories:

• Site responsiveness: neighbourhood character, setbacks, site coverage
• Building design: building height, walls on boundaries, daylight access
• Amenity protection: overlooking, overshadowing, visual bulk
• Access and services: car parking, permeability, storage, waste management

Each standard contains both an objective measure and a decision guideline. The objective typically specifies numeric thresholds such as maximum building heights or minimum setback distances. Decision guidelines provide assessment criteria when developments vary from these numeric targets.

Key Changes Under Amendment VC267

Amendment VC267 introduced the deemed-to-comply assessment pathway effective 31 March 2025, representing the most substantial change to residential planning controls in over two decades. Developments meeting all objective standards may now receive automatic approval without discretionary assessment.

The amendment streamlined Clause 55 by removing redundant provisions and clarifying ambiguous measurements. Standards for side setbacks, private open space dimensions, and overlooking protection received specific numeric thresholds that eliminate interpretation variations between councils.

VC267 also introduced Clause 57 specifically for four-storey residential buildings, separating these developments from the three-storey townhouse provisions. The changes aim to reduce planning permit processing times from typical 60-90 day periods to approximately 30 days for compliant applications. Developments that vary from deemed-to-comply standards continue following traditional assessment processes where decision guidelines apply.

Critical ResCode Variations That Kill Townhouse Projects

Local councils frequently modify standard ResCode requirements through their planning schemes, creating stricter thresholds that can render sites undevelopable. Garden area requirements, tree canopy mandates, and site coverage limits represent the most common variations that force developers to abandon otherwise viable townhouse projects.

Garden Area Requirement Constraints

Many Melbourne councils impose garden area requirements beyond the standard ResCode provisions. Councils typically mandate between 25% and 35% of site area as garden space, with some inner-city municipalities requiring up to 40% for dual occupancy and multi-dwelling projects.

These variations directly reduce the developable footprint. A 500-square-metre site with a 35% garden area requirement leaves only 325 square metres for buildings, driveways, and hardstand areas. When combined with mandatory setbacks, this constraint can eliminate third or fourth dwellings from a residential development.

Boroondara and Stonnington councils apply particularly stringent garden area variations. These requirements often specify minimum soil depths of 800mm to 1000mm, preventing the use of podium gardens or raised planting beds to meet the standard. Developers must carefully review the planning scheme for their specific zone before committing to site acquisition.

Tree Canopy Cover Limitations

Tree canopy cover requirements have emerged as a significant barrier since councils began incorporating them into local planning schemes. Melbourne municipalities now commonly require 15% to 25% tree canopy coverage at maturity, calculated across the entire site.

Achieving meaningful tree canopy cover on small lots proves mathematically challenging. A single canopy tree requires approximately 50 to 80 square metres of coverage at maturity. Sites under 600 square metres may struggle to accommodate the required number of trees while maintaining viable building envelopes for townhouse development.

These provisions specify particular tree sizes and species, often mandating trees with mature canopy spreads of 8 to 12 metres. Councils reject proposals relying on small ornamental species or clustered plantings that cannot achieve the coverage targets. The amendment VC267 introduced under the Townhouse and Low-Rise Code includes updated tree canopy provisions, though local variations may still apply more restrictive standards.

Site Coverage Pitfalls

Site coverage variations limit the building footprint to percentages below ResCode standards. While standard ResCode provisions may allow 60% site coverage in some zones, council variations frequently reduce this to 40% or 50% for multi-dwelling projects.

These restrictions compound when councils measure site coverage to include all impervious surfaces. Driveways, car parking areas, and pathways count toward the coverage limit, leaving minimal space for actual dwelling footprints. A 400-square-metre site with 45% coverage permits only 180 square metres total, which may accommodate just two modest townhouses after accounting for access requirements.

Different residential zones apply varying site coverage thresholds. The General Residential Zone typically permits higher coverage than Neighbourhood Residential Zone locations, where councils prioritise neighbourhood character retention over development yield. Developers must verify both the applicable zone and any specific overlays that may impose additional site coverage constraints beyond the base planning scheme provisions.

Setback and Height-Related VCAT Triggers

Setback and building height variations account for a significant portion of townhouse project refusals at VCAT, particularly where developments fail to meet codified standards introduced under Amendment VC243. Non-compliance with front setbacks, side and rear boundaries, and maximum height limits typically requires demonstrating achievement of underlying ResCode objectives.

Front and Street Setback Compliance

Street setback variations often fail at VCAT when developments cannot demonstrate adequate response to neighbourhood character. The codified standard typically requires matching the predominant setback of adjacent dwellings, with common measurements ranging from 6 to 9 metres in established residential areas.

VCAT considers whether reduced street setbacks maintain visual compatibility with the streetscape and protect front garden areas. Developments proposing setbacks less than 4 metres from the front boundary may face significant scrutiny unless accompanied by detailed built form analysis demonstrating no adverse impact on street presentation.

The tribunal examines site layout drawings to assess whether garages, upper-level elements, or building mass dominates the street frontage. Projects that incorporate landscaping zones of at least 3 to 4 metres between the building facade and property boundary typically achieve better outcomes when seeking variations.

Side and Rear Setback Challenges

Side and rear setback breaches generate substantial VCAT applications, particularly where walls on boundaries exceed permitted dimensions. Standard B17 establishes specific height and length requirements for boundary walls, with typical limits of 3.6 metres in height and 9 metres in length on side boundaries.

VCAT assesses whether reduced setbacks result in visual bulk impacts or overshadowing to neighbouring properties. Developments must demonstrate that non-compliant setbacks achieve adequate daylight access and visual privacy outcomes despite numeric breaches.

Common setback requirements include:

• Ground floor side setbacks: Minimum 1 metre, with increased requirements at upper levels
• Upper level side setbacks: Typically 2 to 3 metres depending on wall height
• Rear setbacks: Generally 6 metres at ground level, increasing to 8 metres for upper storeys

Projects incorporating angled walls, varied building forms, or articulation elements may justify reduced setbacks where they demonstrate responsive site layout.

Building Height Breaches

Building height variations face strict assessment at VCAT, particularly in zones with mandatory maximum heights. Developments exceeding 9 metres in General Residential Zones or 11 metres where townhouse provisions apply may require substantial justification regarding neighbourhood character impacts.

The tribunal examines whether excessive building height creates visual bulk or dominates the streetscape and neighbouring properties. Height breaches combined with inadequate setbacks typically compound refusal grounds, as the combined impact on amenity becomes more pronounced.

VCAT considers building envelope diagrams and shadow analysis when assessing height variations. Developments that incorporate varied roof forms, recessed upper levels, or articulated facades may demonstrate reduced perceived height despite numeric non-compliance with planning scheme standards.

Amenity, Overshadowing and Privacy Concerns

Amenity-related triggers remain the most frequent cause of VCAT appeals for townhouse developments, particularly where councils apply local variations to overshadowing and privacy standards. These standards typically involve quantifiable metrics around daylight access, overlooking distances, and internal room dimensions that can make or break a planning permit application.

Overshadowing Secluded Private Open Space

The standard ResCode requirement mandates that secluded private open space (SPOS) of 40 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres receives at least 5 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22 September. Many Melbourne councils apply variations that extend this requirement to 6 or even 7 hours, creating a significant hurdle for townhouse projects on constrained sites.

Overshadowing of secluded open space remains one of the deemed-to-comply standards introduced under the new Townhouse and Low-Rise Code. However, council variations can override these pathways, forcing applications into full assessment.

Developments that fail to meet these standards often trigger objections from neighbouring properties. VCAT may uphold refusals where shadow diagrams demonstrate non-compliance, particularly in councils like Boroondara and Port Phillip with strict solar access policies.

The new provisions under VC267 attempted to standardise these requirements, but transitional arrangements and existing local variations mean many projects still face stricter council-specific controls. Developers should review the specific planning scheme amendments applicable to their municipality before lodging applications.

Overlooking and Privacy Failures

Standard A15 requires that windows, balconies, and terraces above 1 metre avoid direct lines of sight into habitable room windows and secluded private open space of neighbouring properties within 9 metres. Screening measures must be at least 1.7 metres high with a maximum of 25% transparency.

The correct interpretation of Standard A15 has been clarified through VCAT decisions, confirming that screening requirements apply only to specified areas. However, councils frequently impose conditions that extend these protections beyond the standard requirements.

Many townhouse projects fail at VCAT because privacy screening is inadequate or impractical. Fixed louvres or obscured glazing may satisfy technical requirements but create poor internal amenity for future occupants. Balconies with 1.7-metre high screens feel enclosed and claustrophobic, reducing the development’s marketability.

Overlooking from upper-level windows in three-storey townhouse developments generates the most objections. Side setback reductions compound these issues, placing habitable room windows closer to boundaries where privacy impacts become more pronounced.

Internal Amenity and Design Quality Issues

Internal amenity standards under the Townhouse and Low-Rise Code require functional room layouts, adequate natural light, and appropriate room dimensions. Councils may refuse permits where floor plans demonstrate poor design quality, such as bedrooms without adequate daylight or living areas reliant solely on artificial lighting.

Design quality concerns have become more prominent under Clause 55 reforms introduced through VC267. VCAT considers whether townhouse layouts provide reasonable amenity for future occupants, not just compliance with minimum dimensional standards.

Common failures include:

• Habitable rooms with inadequate window sizes relative to floor area
• Single-aspect units without cross-ventilation opportunities
• Living areas positioned away from private open space connections
• Minimal daylight penetration to ground floor rooms in deep floor plates

Developers should ensure townhouse floor plans demonstrate genuine habitability. VCAT may uphold refusals where internal layouts prioritise site yield over occupant comfort, particularly in developments proposing variations to multiple standards.

Permeability Rules and Stormwater Management

The permeability rule requires at least 20% of site area to be permeable surfaces capable of infiltrating stormwater. This standard directly conflicts with maximising site coverage in townhouse developments, where driveways, hardstands, and paved areas consume significant ground-level space.

VC154 introduced new stormwater management requirements affecting urban development projects across Victoria. These provisions require stormwater quality treatment measures beyond simple permeability calculations, adding complexity to townhouse applications.

Councils may refuse permits where developments fail to demonstrate adequate stormwater management strategies. Engineered solutions such as rainwater tanks, permeable paving, and bioretention systems can address shortfalls in natural permeability, but these measures require careful integration into site layouts.

Developments proposing site coverage above 60% typically struggle to meet the 20% permeability threshold. Stacked car parking or basement garages may improve permeability outcomes but add construction costs that affect project feasibility.

Neighbourhood Character and Contextual Challenges

Neighbourhood character remains one of the most contested aspects in townhouse applications, particularly where Victorian planning schemes require new development to respect established streetscape patterns. The assessment framework relies heavily on subjective interpretation, making outcomes difficult to predict even when ResCode standards are met.

Interpretation of Neighbourhood Character

Designing and siting new dwellings to respect neighbourhood character sits as a fundamental objective in Victoria’s residential development provisions. The challenge emerges from what residents and councils define as “character” versus what the planning framework intends.

Amendment VC267 introduced deemed-to-comply pathways for townhouse developments, yet neighbourhood character considerations remain a discretionary assessment point. VCAT typically examines whether proposals reflect the pattern, scale, and built form of surrounding properties.

The assessment may focus on front setbacks, building heights relative to adjoining dwellings, fence treatments, and landscaping opportunities. A townhouse development meeting every ResCode standard could still face neighbourhood character objections at VCAT if the design differs substantially from the prevailing streetscape rhythm.

Impact of Heritage Overlay and Local Policies

Heritage overlay controls add another layer of complexity to neighbourhood character assessments. Properties within or adjacent to heritage precincts face stricter design requirements that extend beyond standard ResCode provisions.

Council planning schemes typically include decision guidelines that prioritise heritage considerations over standard development controls. A three-storey townhouse development may comply with height limits under VC282 provisions but still trigger refusal due to impacts on a heritage streetscape.

Local planning policies in inner Melbourne municipalities often reference specific neighbourhood character studies that predate recent planning amendments. These studies may describe preferred development outcomes that conflict with the density objectives of current state planning policy. Community resistance to increased urban density frequently centres on protecting established character, creating tension between state and local planning priorities.

Decision Guidelines and VCAT Judgements

Decision guidelines in Clause 54 and the new townhouse provisions require consideration of neighbourhood character alongside objective standards. VCAT’s application of codified ResCode standards varies depending on whether the location represents a minimal, incremental, or substantial change area.

Recent tribunal decisions demonstrate that meeting numerical standards does not guarantee approval where neighbourhood character concerns arise. The tribunal may weigh contextual factors more heavily than compliance with setback or height requirements.

Developers should anticipate expert evidence requirements for neighbourhood character disputes at VCAT. Town planning experts typically assess whether the proposal respects identified character elements while acknowledging the planning scheme’s growth objectives. The tribunal examines photographic evidence of streetscapes, existing dwelling types, and vegetation patterns when determining whether variations appropriately respond to context.

Zoning Implications and the Limits of Deemed-to-Comply

While the new deemed-to-comply standards introduced through Amendment VC267 provide streamlined pathways for certain developments, their application varies significantly across Victoria’s residential zones. Different zones maintain distinct objectives and standards that can override or modify deemed-to-comply provisions.

Residential Growth Zone, General Residential Zone, and Neighbourhood Residential Zone Impacts

The Residential Growth Zone typically supports the strongest application of deemed-to-comply standards for townhouse projects. This zone encourages diversity in housing types and higher densities, making it more receptive to developments that meet the technical standards under the Townhouse and Low-Rise Code.

The General Residential Zone represents the middle ground where deemed-to-comply provisions apply but may face additional scrutiny around neighbourhood character. Councils in this zone often maintain specific local character policies that can influence how standards are interpreted, even when technical compliance is achieved.

Neighbourhood Residential Zone presents the most restrictive environment for deemed-to-comply pathways. This zone prioritises preservation of existing neighbourhood character over development efficiency. Projects meeting technical standards may still face challenges where they appear inconsistent with the established pattern of development, particularly around building height, site coverage, and front setback variations.

The weight given to deemed-to-comply standards diminishes as the zone becomes more character-focused, with VCAT historically showing greater deference to council decisions in Neighbourhood Residential areas.

Navigating Housing Choice and Transport Zone and Mixed Use Zones

The Housing Choice and Transport Zone, established by the Victorian Planning Authority for areas near major transport corridors, typically provides the most favourable context for deemed-to-comply developments. This zone specifically supports diverse housing types and medium density, aligning closely with the objectives of the VC267 amendments.

Mixed Use Zone applications introduce complexity as residential standards must balance with commercial objectives. While deemed-to-comply pathways technically apply to residential components, the mixed-use nature often triggers additional considerations around amenity interfaces, parking provision, and ground floor activation that sit outside the standard ResCode framework.

Developers should note that meeting deemed-to-comply standards in Mixed Use Zones may not guarantee approval where the proposal conflicts with commercial or employment objectives. The residential component still needs to demonstrate compatibility with the zone’s primary purpose of supporting a mix of uses rather than purely residential outcomes.

Limitations in Township Zone and Special Overlays

Township Zone applications face significant limitations with deemed-to-comply standards due to the zone’s focus on small-town character and local context. Many township areas lack reticulated sewerage or have constrained infrastructure, making standard townhouse configurations impractical regardless of technical compliance.

Special overlays frequently override or modify deemed-to-comply provisions entirely. Heritage Overlays, Design and Development Overlays, and Environmental Significance Overlays each maintain specific assessment criteria that take precedence over standard residential provisions. A development might satisfy all deemed-to-comply standards yet still require discretionary assessment under overlay controls.

Significant Landscape Overlays and Vegetation Protection Overlays commonly conflict with deemed-to-comply site coverage and tree canopy standards. These overlays may impose stricter retention requirements or modified setbacks that prevent a proposal from achieving the density assumed under standard deemed-to-comply calculations. Developers need to identify applicable overlays early in feasibility assessment, as they can fundamentally alter project viability regardless of zone permissions.

Design Flexibility, Enforcement, and Project Viability

The new Clause 55 provisions introduced through VC267 create clear pathways for compliant developments while limiting design variations that previously offered flexibility. Projects meeting deemed-to-comply standards face reduced appeal risks, but variations from these standards expose developers to enforcement challenges and potential VCAT proceedings.

Adapting to Design Flexibility Constraints

VC267 fundamentally altered how townhouse development applications are assessed by establishing fixed standards for elements like setbacks, height, and site coverage. Developers working with sites that cannot accommodate these standards face increased scrutiny during permit assessment.

The deemed-to-comply pathway removes third-party appeal rights for applications meeting all standards. This creates a strong incentive to design within the prescribed parameters rather than seeking variations through performance-based assessments.

Projects requiring variations must demonstrate compliance through the objectives rather than the standards. Council planners typically require detailed documentation showing how the proposal achieves the intent despite not meeting numeric thresholds. This approach demands additional consultant input and extends assessment timeframes.

Sites with unusual dimensions or constrained access often cannot meet every standard. Developers on these lots need to prioritise which variations are essential and which elements can be redesigned to comply. Strategic compliance decisions made early in the design phase reduce exposure to objections and appeals.

Navigating VCAT Appeals and Enforcement Risks

Third-party appeals against compliant applications are no longer available under the reformed code. However, projects seeking variations remain vulnerable to objector appeals on the specific elements that do not meet deemed-to-comply standards.

VCAT considers whether variations achieve the relevant objectives when assessing appeals. Recent decisions show the tribunal applies strict interpretation to variations, particularly regarding overshadowing, overlooking, and setback requirements.

Developers should anticipate that any variation triggers potential appeal grounds. Budget contingencies for VCAT proceedings become necessary when variations form part of the permit application. Legal and expert witness costs can reach $30,000 to $80,000 for contested matters.

The enforcement risk extends beyond initial permit approval. Non-compliant construction discovered during building stages may result in enforcement notices requiring rectification work. This scenario proves particularly costly when structural elements need modification.

Practical Steps for Townhouse Developers

Developers should conduct deemed-to-comply assessments during feasibility stages before purchasing sites. This early analysis identifies whether the site can accommodate compliant designs or requires variations that increase risk.

Engaging architects experienced with planning and building requirements for residential development ensures designs maximise compliance. Experienced consultants understand which variations councils typically accept and which trigger consistent objections.

Pre-application meetings with council planners clarify acceptable variation approaches for specific sites. These discussions provide insight into council preferences and potential concerns before formal lodgement. Documentation from these meetings strengthens subsequent permit applications.

Developers pursuing variations should commission detailed supporting reports addressing relevant objectives. Shadow diagrams, landscape plans, and design responses demonstrate how proposals achieve intended outcomes despite numeric non-compliance. Comprehensive documentation reduces assessment delays and improves approval prospects.

Frequently Asked Questions

Townhouse developers frequently encounter specific planning challenges that trigger VCAT reviews, with issues ranging from non-compliance with height limits to insufficient landscaping provisions. Understanding these common concerns helps developers anticipate potential objections and design projects that align with both planning permit requirements and neighbourhood expectations.

What planning issues trigger VCAT objections for townhouse developments?

Non-compliance with ResCode standards represents the most frequent trigger for VCAT applications. Variations to site coverage, permeability, and building height often prompt objections from neighbouring properties or responsible authorities.

Neighbourhood character conflicts emerge when proposed developments fail to respect established built form patterns. Clause 55 assessments require consideration of local context, and proposals that disregard existing streetscape rhythms typically face challenges.

Inadequate setbacks to boundaries commonly result in VCAT reviews. Variations to side and rear setback requirements may trigger concerns about visual bulk and amenity impacts on adjoining properties.

How do height and density regulations impact townhouse approvals?

Planning schemes typically specify maximum building heights measured in metres or storeys for residential zones. The Townhouse and Low-Rise Code introduced through VC267 provides deemed-to-comply pathways for developments up to three storeys when specific standards are met.

Proposals exceeding prescribed height limits require compelling justification against planning objectives. VCAT considers whether additional height delivers design benefits that offset potential neighbourhood character impacts.

Density controls operate through dwelling yield calculations and site area requirements. Many councils impose local variations that restrict the number of dwellings permitted on a site, regardless of whether other ResCode standards are satisfied.

What role does neighbourhood character play in VCAT decisions?

Neighbourhood character assessments examine how proposed developments respond to existing streetscape patterns and built form characteristics. VCAT evaluates whether alternative design solutions adequately address relevant neighbourhood character decision guidelines when standards are not met.

The tribunal considers prevailing building materials, roof forms, front setbacks, and garden settings when assessing character compatibility. Developments that introduce significantly different architectural styles or building masses may face objections in established residential areas.

Neighbourhood Character Overlays impose additional requirements beyond base zone provisions. These overlays typically mandate specific design responses that reflect valued character attributes identified in local character studies.

What parking and traffic considerations does VCAT assess?

Car parking requirements vary by location and dwelling size, with planning schemes typically requiring one to two spaces per dwelling. Variations below these rates require justification based on proximity to public transport, car-share availability, or demonstrated reduced demand.

Access arrangement safety represents a critical consideration, particularly for developments with frontage to main roads. VCAT assesses whether proposed crossovers create conflicts with pedestrian movements, street trees, or on-street parking.

Traffic generation impacts receive scrutiny in residential streets with limited capacity. The tribunal may require traffic impact assessments for larger developments that could affect local amenity through increased vehicle movements.

What overshadowing and overlooking issues trigger VCAT concerns?

Solar access protection standards require that developments avoid excessive overshadowing of neighbouring secluded private open space. ResCode specifies that at least 75 square metres of adjoining open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22 September.

Upper-level windows and balconies require adequate screening or setbacks to limit direct views into neighbouring habitable room windows and private open space. Standard requirements specify 1.7-metre sill heights or three-metre setbacks for unscreened openings.

Elevated decks and terraces create overlooking concerns even at ground level when sites have significant level differences. VCAT considers both actual and perceived privacy impacts when evaluating proposed screening solutions.

How do landscaping requirements influence VCAT rulings?

Garden area provisions mandate minimum percentages of site area devoted to landscaping, typically ranging from 20 to 35 per cent depending on zone and overlay controls. These requirements ensure sufficient space for canopy trees and vegetation that contributes to neighbourhood character.

Tree retention requirements protect existing vegetation, particularly large canopy trees that contribute to streetscape quality. Planning schemes may require arborist reports and design modifications to preserve significant trees.

Canopy tree planting obligations require developments to accommodate specified numbers of trees capable of reaching mature heights. Recent amendments including VC282 have strengthened tree canopy coverage standards to improve urban greening outcomes.

This article provides general information about ResCode variations and VCAT triggers for townhouse developments in Victoria. Project-specific advice should be obtained from registered planning professionals.

SQM Architects – ABN 32 600 928 390, ARBV Reg. No. 51498