Design by Code or Design by Review?
Urban Design Guidelines 2.0 came out last week for Victoria. They link more closely with the updated Movement and Place framework. For anyone who hasn't had a chance to review them yet, DTP has highlighted several other key updates, including climate-responsive design guidance, contemporary advice for higher-density environments, universal design for all ages and abilities, and stronger recognition of Country. All welcome changes.
My question is: what purpose(s) do Urban Design Guidelines 2.0 fill?
I ask this as a formally design-trained and practising urban designer who cares deeply about good places and good design, but who now spends most of her time as a strategic planner-translating urban design intent into implementable controls- and often works across statutory planning as well. The central issue is not whether Victoria should choose design codes or design review guided by the Guidelines. It is how clearly each tool is expected to operate, and at which point in the planning process.
I appreciate that these guidelines act as an overarching state policy document about what constitutes good urban design. They provide a common reference point and can help shape strategic planning, structure planning, precinct planning and policy development, which is essentially an upstream role.
My confusion stems from the fact that Victoria has been moving towards broader planning system reform focused on faster approvals and greater design codification. We've seen deemed-to-comply pathways, the Townhouse and Low-Rise Code, the Mid-Rise Code, updated apartment standards and a wider shift towards codified assessment. These reforms appear to reduce the reliance that development assessment has historically placed on discretionary policy judgement and increase reliance on codified standards.
At the same time, the Urban Design Guidelines remain referenced in Clause 15.01-1S (Urban Design) of the Planning Policy Framework and continue to operate as a document that may inform development assessment.
Upstream versus Downstream
The guidelines appear to serve two purposes:
Upstream: shaping strategic planning, structure plans, precinct planning and future controls.
Downstream: acting as a reference document during permit assessment.
This dual role creates a tension. Upstream work is conceptual while downstream role requires statutory weight and clear defensible decision making. If urban design objectives are already being embedded into structure plans, overlays, Development Plans, Clause 55, Clause 57 and Clause 58 requirements, what additional purpose is served by re-testing proposals against broader urban design guidance during permit assessment? At that point, the guidance often duplicates what is already captured in the VPPs. This overlap creates duplication and uncertainty about how much weight these guidelines should have in decision making.
So, what additional role are the Urban Design Guidelines intended to play during development assessment?
I can understand why the State may want to retain that flexibility. There will always be circumstances where controls have not been updated, local provisions are silent, or there are design issues that aren't adequately addressed elsewhere. However, many themes contained within the Urban Design Guidelines are already reflected across other parts of the planning framework and supporting policy documents. Climate-responsive design is one example. Elements of this are already addressed through climate change policy, landscape requirements, tree canopy provisions and the growing number of codified built form controls being introduced into the VPPs. The remaining gaps could be addressed by updating the planning policy framework based on the best available knowledge, which would also provide greater statutory weight in decision making.
Given the lack of well-developed design review processes that are embedded in statutory requirements, the use of Urban Design Guidelines as a discretionary development assessment tool is fraught with challenges. For practitioners, particularly those working in development assessment, the result can be an increasingly complex decision-making environment where multiple documents promote similar outcomes but carry different levels of statutory weight.
Design Review or Design Codes?
Internationally, planning systems tend to favour one of the two approaches. Some, such as NSW and the UK, have stronger design review processes embedded in their systems. Others rely more heavily on codified controls. My purpose in writing this post is not to argue which system is better. They both have their merits and challenges. Design review gives more room for professional judgement, but it can also create uncertainty. Design codes provide more certainty and consistency, but they don't always deal well with unique situations. Neither approach is perfect. The release of these guidelines indicates that Victoria is trying hard to balance the two systems and maintain a hybrid approach.
A Path Forward
Planning system reform should not just make things simpler for proponents, it should also make things simpler for practitioners many of whom are not urban designers and are left trying to navigate policy, controls, guidelines, incorporated documents, referral authorities and technical advice that don't always point in the same direction.
It should also allow for independent design-led insights for complex or multi-dimensional proposals and be able to support alternative or innovative solutions in appropriate situations.
Therefore, to make the system work better for everyone, reform should focus on:
Better alignment between design guidance and the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPPs)
Embedding elements of the guidelines into policy and particular provisions where appropriate.
Providing greater clarity about how the guidelines are intended to be used downstream to reduce duplication during development assessment.
We all know even experienced designers and design reviewers often have a difference of opinion about what constitutes good design. Good design is also not a static concept. In ten years' time, the goalposts will have moved again. Urban design Guidelines are also not very dynamic documents, and emerging best-practice design principles may not always be fully codified or may not even be able to be fully codified.
Perhaps this strengthens the case for a more formal design review process embedded in the broader Victorian development assessment system, beyond the Development Facilitation Program and the few councils that use it. In a hybrid system, the real challenge is determining where to draw the line between quantitative performance-based controls and a formal design review framework. This is a conversation that planning system will need to confront sooner rather than later.
