The Property Council of Australia’s Victorian Division has put nine hard-nosed recommendations on the table to slash planning timelines and get more homes and jobs moving. Here is what it means for the builders waiting on the other side of the process.

Every builder who has worked near a greenfield estate in Victoria knows the feeling. The land is there. The demand is real. But the clock keeps ticking while the planning system grinds through another round of reports, referrals and committee processes that seem to have no end date.

The Property Council of Australia’s Victorian Division has now put a number on it. The average Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) in Victoria currently takes 4.2 years to move from start to gazettal. That is the industry’s own self-reported figure. The government’s stated target is 2.5 years. The gap between those two numbers is not a minor inefficiency. It is a structural problem costing developers capital, delaying housing supply and leaving builders sitting on the sidelines while the approvals machine churns.

In a new policy paper released in May 2026, the Property Council has put nine recommendations on the table. The paper, titled Unlocking Growth Corridors, sets out what the industry believes is needed to get Victoria’s greenfield planning system working properly again.

The industry is reporting that the PSP process has become almost impossible to navigate. New requirements continue to be piled on, increasing upfront costs that flow into the price of a new home.

The paper makes for sobering reading. Not because it is alarmist. Because it is methodical. Each recommendation identifies a specific failure point in the current system and proposes a fix grounded in how the process actually works rather than how it is supposed to work on paper.

The Nine-Step Argument for Reform

The Property Council’s nine principles cover the full lifecycle of a PSP, from the initial content and approval phase through to planning permits and construction sign-off.

The first recommendation is about who drives the process. The paper calls for greater use of proponent-led planning pathways, where landowners who have the capacity and commitment to prepare land for development are empowered to do so. The specific tool proposed is the Development Plan Overlay, a more flexible instrument than a full PSP that allows development plans to be prepared by the landowner rather than waiting for government-led frameworks.

The second recommendation targets duplication. Many PSPs are currently restating or re-regulating requirements that already exist under the Victorian Planning Provisions. The paper argues this is not only wasteful but counterproductive, restricting flexibility without adding planning quality. The fix is straightforward: state-level documents like the Housing Statement or Plan for Victoria should be the primary sources informing PSPs, not locally re-invented standards that often conflict with those frameworks.

The third principle addresses one of the most persistent frustrations in the system. Referral authorities, including state agencies outside the Department of Transport and Planning, regularly cause delays when they fail to respond or hold conflicting positions. The Property Council wants DTP equipped with a statutory power to make a binding decision when agencies are blocking progress. They are calling it a captain’s call. The recently passed Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Act 2026 provides some of the legislative foundation for this, and the paper wants that momentum extended.

Recommendations four and five deal with technical studies and the Standing Advisory Committee process. Technical reports have multiplied over recent PSP cycles to the point where the weight of studies has become a planning problem in itself. The paper calls for a consistent, slimmed-down set of baseline studies for every PSP, with additions only permitted where a precinct-specific circumstance genuinely justifies it. On the SAC process, the Property Council supports retaining an independent umpire function but wants the post-SAC period reduced. That phase currently accounts for roughly 40 per cent of DTP’s own target timeframe. Getting it under control should, according to the paper, be the first priority.

Hard staging is locking two thirds of Officer South’s net developable area. It is unfair for the government to claim to be currently delivering 22,000 jobs through the precinct.

Hard Staging: The Quiet Pipeline Killer

Of all the issues raised in the paper, hard staging is perhaps the most immediately consequential for builders watching regional Victoria’s pipeline.

Hard staging is a sequencing approach that restricts development to specific areas within a PSP until government-funded infrastructure is delivered. In theory, the intent is reasonable. Development should not race ahead of services. In practice, the paper argues the approach has become a serious constraint on housing and employment land supply.

The Property Council’s evidence is specific. Approximately 71 per cent of the Officer South PSP, around 760 hectares of net developable area, is currently incapable of being activated because of hard staging requirements combined with no clear government commitment on infrastructure delivery timelines. Two thirds of one of Victoria’s key growth precincts is effectively locked.

The paper argues past shortfalls in infrastructure delivery should not become a justification for hard staging gates. Instead, those shortfalls should be a prompt to accelerate the necessary investment. Where the government cannot commit to infrastructure on a reasonable timeline, the industry has made clear it is willing to step in and deliver it directly through works-in-kind arrangements.

The Infrastructure Delivery Question

This brings the paper to one of its more significant structural arguments. Given the constraints on government capital, the development industry wants the rules changed so it can invest directly in catalytic infrastructure in growth areas.

The current system works on developer contributions via mechanisms like the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution and Infrastructure Contributions Plans. The paper acknowledges these tools but points out that developers who step in to deliver infrastructure ahead of government timelines frequently end up out of pocket for extended periods while reimbursements are processed. The paper calls for timely reimbursement and offsets that leave developers no worse off, along with certainty on timelines before capital is deployed.

The Queensland model gets a mention as a reference point. Across at least one greenfield site there, a joint venture between landholders is delivering sewerage, bridge crossings and roads simultaneously, unlocking the equivalent of 60,000 homes. The paper is not suggesting that model can be transplanted wholesale. It is pointing to what coordinated co-investment looks like when the conditions are right.

What This Means for Builders

For builders, the practical implications of this paper are concentrated in three areas: pipeline visibility, project timing and product mix.

Pipeline visibility is the most immediate concern. When large portions of approved precincts are locked behind hard staging gates with no public timeline, builders cannot plan capacity. They cannot hold trades, negotiate supply agreements or commit to volume targets with any confidence. The paper’s push for transparency on staging timelines is not just a developer issue. It is a builder issue.

Project timing is affected by almost every recommendation in the paper. Faster PSP gazettal, earlier distribution of technical studies, statutory timeframes for agency responses and the integration of planning permit conditions into the gazettal process all point in the same direction. A system that currently takes 4.2 years on average, if it can be reduced meaningfully toward the 2.5-year target, begins to look like a pipeline that can actually respond to demand signals rather than lag behind them by half a decade.

The product mix question is more nuanced. The paper explicitly argues against overly prescriptive requirements for lot size and density in residential PSPs. Fixed numerical standards that constrain design responses are pushing projects toward homogenous outcomes that do not reflect market demand. Removing that rigidity creates more opportunity for builders who can work across different typologies, from smaller lots and narrow-frontage products to boundary-to-boundary configurations.

Without bold policy reform, PSP delivery will continue to lag, reducing the collective ability to efficiently deliver homes and jobs across Victoria.

Land Access Rights: The Overlooked Blocker

One section of the paper that deserves closer attention from anyone working in Victorian greenfield construction is the discussion of land access rights.

Network infrastructure, sewerage, power, water and transport connections, frequently needs to pass through or connect across land held by parties who are not participating in the development. When access cannot be secured, whole sections of a precinct can stall. The government’s Greenfield Subdivision Concierge was established to help resolve these disputes but without statutory authority, the service has limited power to force outcomes.

The Property Council is calling for critical infrastructure incorporated within a PSP to be given a formal legislative status that includes adjoining land access rights. It is a technical argument with direct practical consequences. Infrastructure connections that are currently blocked or delayed at significant cost to developers and ultimately to end consumers would have a clear legal pathway to resolution.

The Broader Picture

This paper is not the first to identify problems in Victoria’s greenfield planning system, and it almost certainly will not be the last. But the Property Council’s framing is worth noting. The argument is not simply that the system is too slow. It is that the current trajectory is damaging Victoria’s competitive position relative to other states. Capital and investment are mobile. If planning conditions in Victoria remain significantly harder to navigate than elsewhere, that investment will move.

For builders who are already working in this environment, that observation probably does not need much elaboration. The lead times are real. The costs are real. The uncertainty that flows through a business when pipeline visibility is poor is real.

What the Property Council is asking for is a planning system that respects the link between approvals and delivery. Rezoning land does not build homes. Gazetting a PSP does not put a shovel in the ground. What gets homes built is a clear, timely and predictable path from approved land to construction-ready lots, and a set of rules that lets the industry move at the speed the housing crisis actually requires.

The nine recommendations in this paper are specific, sourced and backed by data from within the current system. Whether the Victorian Government acts on them quickly, selectively or not at all remains to be seen. But the industry has now put a clear marker down on what reform would look like.

Builders watching Victoria’s growth corridors from the outside might be forgiven for thinking the wait is almost over. The harder truth is that without meaningful reform to the system behind those corridors, the wait may be longer than anyone wants to admit.

More home builder news: One in Six Businesses Hit by Supply Chain Disruption as Hormuz Closure Bites. What the Numbers Say for Construction.

General Information Disclaimer
This article is intended for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, financial, planning or professional advice. Readers should seek independent advice specific to their circumstances before making decisions based on the information provided.

Author: TGB Editorial