Deemed to comply: the new rules developers use to throw objections out — and how to object so yours survives

The ground rules for objecting to townhouse and low-rise development in Victoria have quietly but fundamentally changed — and most objectors find out at the worst possible moment: when the developer's lawyers ask the Tribunal to throw their case out.

We are running exactly that fight now. In a current proceeding, the permit applicant's submission asks VCAT to confine an objector's review to just two ResCode standards — the only two the council found weren't met — and to summarily dismiss everything else the objector raised: daylight, overshadowing, overlooking, tree canopy. Their argument rests on the revised Clause 55 and its deemed-to-comply architecture. Understanding that architecture is now the difference between an objection with teeth and one that gets struck out at a practice day.

What actually changed

Two mechanisms in the reformed regime do the work:

Met standards close the argument. Under the revised Clause 55, where a development meets a deemed-to-comply standard, the corresponding objective is taken to be met and the decision guidelines don't get considered. There is no residual "but the amenity impact is still unreasonable" argument sitting behind a met standard. If the overshadowing standard is met, the overshadowing debate is over.

Meeting all the standards can extinguish review rights. In the General Residential Zone, the scheme now removes third-party review rights for developments of three storeys or less where all of the applicable deemed-to-comply standards are met. A neighbour's section 82 appeal right — the backbone of objector participation for decades — simply doesn't arise if the council finds full compliance.

Developers' consultants have understood this faster than objectors have. The new playbook: get the council to record that the standards are met, then move at the earliest Tribunal opportunity to strike out or confine any objector review. Loosely framed objections — the "bulk, dominance and neighbourhood character" variety — are precisely the ones swept away, because everything they complain about maps to a standard the council ticked.

How an objection survives the new regime

The counter-strategy, which we put to the Tribunal in the current matter, runs on a simple distinction: the scheme says review rights fall away when the standards are met — not when the council says they are met.

1. One unmet standard keeps the gate open. The exemption from review applies only where all applicable standards are met. In our matter the council itself found two weren't. That alone defeats the summary dismissal: the objector's review is validly on foot, and the Tribunal must consider whether the design satisfies the relevant objectives.

2. Compliance is a question of fact — and facts can be tested. A council's tick against a standard is an assessment, not an ouster. Whether a window is a habitable-room window; whether the shadow diagrams are accurate at the measured point; whether a sightline or screening detail actually achieves what the overlooking standard requires; whether the tree canopy arithmetic — 11% claimed against a 10% requirement — holds up: these are genuine factual and technical questions, and an objector is entitled to raise them. Notably, in our matter the developer's own further daylight assessment invites the Tribunal to examine whether a standard is met — while arguing the objector can't do the same. Tribunals notice that kind of asymmetry.

3. Frame amenity concerns as compliance questions. This is the craft change every objector needs to absorb. Under the old regime, "the overshadowing of our garden is unreasonable" was an arguable ground. Under the new one, the surviving version is: "the shadow diagrams, properly measured, show the overshadowing standard is not in fact met." Same concern, different jurisdiction — the first can be struck out, the second cannot, because it goes to whether the deemed-to-comply gate is even closed.

4. Overlays are separate gateways. The deemed-to-comply regime governs Clause 55. It doesn't erase permit triggers and review rights arising independently — a Design and Development Overlay, a heritage overlay, or another scheme provision with its own requirements. An objection should always identify every trigger, because each is its own door into the merits.

5. Concede what's genuinely closed. Credibility is a resource. Where a standard truly is met, we say so and redirect the effort — the Tribunal in our matter was told expressly that we don't seek to reopen met standards through broader amenity arguments. That concession is what makes the rest of the submission hard to dismiss.

What this means practically

For neighbours: the era of the free-form objection is ending. Whether your concerns survive now depends on technical framing from day one — measuring the plans, auditing the compliance table, and writing grounds that raise actual compliance questions rather than general amenity ones. That is work worth doing at objection stage, not discovering at a practice day.

For owners and developers, the mirror lesson: a compliance table is now a shield, but only as good as its arithmetic — and an objector with a consultant who checks it is the risk the new regime hasn't removed.

The companion article covers the broader anatomy of an objection made on proper planning grounds — and for the other side's playbook, see how developers design to the deemed-to-comply standards.

Perry Town Planning acts for objectors and applicants across Victoria — objection preparation, compliance audits of advertised plans, practice day submissions and full Tribunal advocacy. If a developer is trying to have your objection confined or struck out, contact us before the practice day, not after it.