Subdivision (Fees) Regulations 2016

The Regulations introduce several key concepts that practitioners must understand.

First, fee units. Rather than setting dollar amounts directly, the Regulations use fee units as defined in the Monetary Units Act 2004. The explanatory details at endnote 1 state that for the financial year commencing 1 July 2016 the value of a fee unit was $13.94, with rounding to the nearest 10 cents. The amount therefore changes annually, and the Treasurer fixes the value before 1 June each year and publishes it in the Government Gazette and a Victorian newspaper. This indexation mechanism affects all fixed fees (regulations 6, 7, 8) and effectively allows the government to increase fees without amending the Regulations. For applicants, this means the nominal dollar cost rises each year, which can affect budgeting for long projects. The percentage fees are not indexed in this way because they are calculated as a percentage of estimated construction cost, which itself may rise with inflation.

Second, estimated cost of constructing the works. This phrase appears in regulations 9, 10, and 11 as the base against which percentage caps are applied. The Regulations do not define how the estimated cost is to be determined, who prepares the estimate, or whether it is contestable. This lack of definition creates uncertainty and potential for disagreement between the applicant and the council or referral authority. An applicant who low‑balls the estimate may trigger a dispute; an applicant who overstates the estimate increases the fee payable for checking (0.75 per cent) and preparation (3.5 per cent) but not for supervision (2.5 per cent). The incentive is to minimise the estimate to reduce percentage fees, but the council or referral authority may reject an estimate it considers unreasonably low. This is a typical compliance burden where the price depends on a variable that one party controls.

Third, the two categories of fees: fixed (regulations 6, 7, 8) and capped percentage (regulations 9, 10, 11). The fixed fees are simple to apply and predictable. The percentage fees vary with project size, and the Regulations impose only a maximum, not a fixed rate. Regulation 9(1) says the fee for checking an engineering plan is “the fee fixed by the Council or referral authority … which must not exceed 0.75 per cent of the estimated cost”. The council or referral authority may set a lower rate or a flat fee, provided it does not exceed the cap. Regulation 10 caps the fee for a council‑prepared engineering plan at 3.5 per cent, and regulation 11 caps supervision fees at 2.5 per cent. These caps protect applicants from excessive charges but also allow councils to charge the maximum, creating a revenue opportunity.

Fourth, waiver and rebate power. Regulation 12 gives councils and referral authorities a broad discretion to reduce or eliminate fees. The three grounds are tightly drawn: withdrawal with replacement application, minor matter or no appreciable burden, and land used exclusively for charitable purposes. Notably, the “minor nature” ground is entirely subjective - “in the opinion of the Council or referral authority” - and is not subject to any objective standard. There is no ground for financial hardship, no ground for error by the authority, and no ground for multiple applications on the same land. The charitable purpose ground is the only categorical one; the other two require a case‑by‑case judgment. The recording obligation under regulation 13 ensures some transparency but does not create a right of review if reasons are inadequate.

Fifth, the application of fees to “referral authorities”. The Subdivision Act 1988 defines referral authorities, typically utilities and public land managers, who must be consulted on subdivision plans. The Regulations extend the fee‑setting and waiver powers to them, meaning a water authority or roads corporation can charge the 0.75 per cent checking fee for engineering plans and the 2.5 per cent supervision fee, and can also waive fees on the same grounds. This expands the compliance landscape: an applicant may pay fees to multiple bodies for the same project, each with its own interpretation of “estimated cost” and its own willingness to waive.

The Regulations affect three primary groups: applicants for subdivision approvals, councils and referral authorities as fee collectors, and indirectly the broader property development industry and land owners.

Applicants are the most directly affected. Anyone who applies under section 5(3)(c) of the Subdivision Act for certification of a plan must pay 11.8 fee units at the time of application (regulation 6). This includes property developers, landowners, and their agents (surveyors or town planners). The fee is payable before the service is rendered, creating a cash‑flow cost. If a plan requires alteration under section 10(2), an additional 7.5 fee units is due (regulation 7). If the certified plan then needs amendment under section 11(1), another 9.5 fee units is due (regulation 8). These are sequential fees for a single subdivision project. Applicants also face potential engineering‑related fees under regulations 9, 10, and 11 - checking fees fixed by the authority up to 0.75 per cent of estimated cost, preparation fees up to 3.5 per cent if the council does the engineering work, and supervision fees up to 2.5 per cent. For a large subdivision with $5 million in engineering works, the maximum checking fee would be $37,500 and the maximum supervision fee $125,000. These are significant costs that affect project viability.

Councils and referral authorities are the recipients of the fees and the holders of the waiver power. The Regulations give them a revenue stream from subdivision activity. The percentage caps mean they cannot charge unlimited amounts, but they can set their own fees within the cap. This may lead to variation between municipalities: one council might charge 0.75 per cent for checking, another might charge 0.5 per cent. Applicants face inconsistent costs depending on location, which can affect decisions on where to develop. The waiver power under regulation 12 gives authorities discretion to reduce fees, but this discretion is not accompanied by criteria for consistency. One authority might routinely waive the alteration fee for minor boundary adjustments; another might never exercise the power. The recording requirement under regulation 13 provides a paper trail but does not compel equal treatment.

Charities are a specific category affected. Regulation 12(c) states that a fee may be waived or rebated if it relates to land used exclusively for charitable purposes. This creates a limited carve‑out from the fee schedule, reducing the cost of subdivision for charitable organisations such as churches, hospitals, or community housing providers. However, the waiver is discretionary, not automatic. The applicant must still apply and satisfy the authority that the land qualifies. The cost of proving charitable use and negotiating the waiver may offset some of the benefit.

The broader property development industry is indirectly affected because the fees imposed on applicants will be passed through to purchasers as part of the overall subdivision cost. Fixed fees of a few hundred dollars are a negligible fraction of a lot price, but percentage fees for engineering and supervision can be material. These costs act as a regulatory tax on development, raising the price of subdivided land. For independent developers and small builders, the compliance burden of estimating costs, negotiating fees, and potentially seeking waivers adds administrative overhead. Larger developers with dedicated legal and surveying teams can absorb this more easily, suggesting that the Regulations impose a larger relative burden on smaller market participants.

Finally, the Regulations affect state and local government policy. The revenue from fees helps fund the administration of subdivision approvals, but the fee schedule also influences the speed and complexity of the process. Percentage fees tied to construction cost may create perverse incentives: councils have a financial interest in approving larger works (because they earn a percentage of a larger base), but also a financial interest in supervising them closely. The cap prevents unlimited charges, but the council can still set the fee at the maximum. This does not align individual private choice optimally; it inserts a price control that may lead councils to under‑charge for simple checks and over‑charge for complex ones, cross‑subsidising between projects.

The Regulations impose duties primarily on applicants and secondary duties on councils and referral authorities. They also grant certain rights to applicants.

The principal duty on an applicant is to pay the prescribed fee at the time the application is made or the plan is submitted. Regulation 6(2) requires the certification fee (11.8 fee units) to be paid “at the time at which the application is made”. Similarly, regulations 7(2) and 8(2) require the alteration fee and the amendment fee to be paid when the request or application is made. Regulation 9(2) requires the engineering plan checking fee to be paid “when the engineering plan is submitted”. These timing requirements are a point of compliance: the applicant must have funds available upfront and cannot defer payment until the service is delivered. Failure to pay may mean the application is not processed, though the Regulations themselves do not state this consequence; the Subdivision Act or council policy would govern that.

For percentage‑based fees, the applicant’s duty is to pay the fee fixed by the council or referral authority, but subject to the statutory cap. The applicant does not have a duty to pay more than 0.75 per cent of estimated cost for checking (regulation 9(1)), more than 3.5 per cent for council‑prepared plans (regulation 10), or more than 2.5 per cent for supervision (regulation 11). If the council attempts to charge more, the applicant has a right to refuse and demand compliance with the cap. However, in practice the applicant may lack leverage because the council controls the approval process. The cap is a protective right, but its enforcement may require formal objection or legal challenge.

Applicants also have a right to seek a waiver or rebate under regulation 12. This right is procedural only: the applicant may make a request, and the council or referral authority must consider it, but the decision is discretionary. There is no right to a waiver; the authority may refuse for any reason consistent with the regulation. The three grounds - withdrawal with replacement, minor nature or no appreciable burden, and charitable use - limit the scope of the power. An applicant whose project does not fit any ground cannot legally compel a waiver. The right is further limited by the requirement that for ground (a) (withdrawal with replacement), the applicant must submit a new application; a simple withdrawal without a replacement does not qualify.

The duty on councils and referral authorities is two‑fold. First, they must apply the fee caps: they cannot charge more than the prescribed percentage for engineering checks, plan preparation, or supervision. Second, if they grant a waiver or rebate, they must record the matters taken into account and the basis for the decision in writing (regulation 13). This duty is procedural and does not impose any substantive standard. The authority could record a one‑line statement and still comply. There is no duty to grant a waiver, even if the circumstances clearly fall within regulation 12. There is no duty to give reasons if the waiver is refused - the recording requirement only triggers if the waiver is granted. This asymmetry means an unfavourable decision is opaque, and the applicant has no right of explanation.

The Regulations do not create any right of appeal or review. They are subordinate legislation under the Subdivision Act, and any review would have to be sought under administrative law principles (judicial review of the decision to refuse a waiver, for example) or under the parent Act. The absence of a statutory merits review mechanism means the council or referral authority’s discretion is largely unreviewable on the facts, absent unreasonableness or jurisdictional error.

There is also a right for applicants to be charged only the fixed fee for certification and statement of compliance bundled together, rather than two separate fees. Regulation 6(1) makes clear that the single fee covers both the certification and the issue of the statement of compliance. This prevents double‑charging for two related steps.

The Regulations themselves do not create penalties or enforcement mechanisms. They are a fee‑setting instrument, not a penal regulation. There are no offences, fines, infringement notices, or criminal sanctions within the 13 regulations. Enforcement of the fee obligations would rely on the general law of debt, contract, or on provisions in the Subdivision Act 1988.

If an applicant fails to pay the required fee, the likely practical consequence is that the council or referral authority will not process the application or perform the service. The Subdivision Act section 5(3)(c) requires a plan to be “certified” by the council; the Regulations set the fee for that certification. If the fee is not paid, the council is under no obligation to certify. Similarly, without payment of the alteration fee under regulation 7, the council may not agree to the alteration. The sanctions are therefore administrative delay or refusal, not financial penalties.

For the percentage‑based fees, non‑payment at the time of submission (regulation 9(2)) could result in the engineering plan not being checked, stalling the subdivision process. The council could also treat the non‑payment as a breach of a statutory condition, potentially leading to revocation of permits or refusal to issue statements of compliance, but that depends on the Subdivision Act, not these Regulations.

The waiver power is discretionary, and there is no penalty for a council that unreasonably refuses a waiver. The recording requirement under regulation 13 is the only enforcement‑adjacent provision. If a council grants a waiver but fails to record the reasons, it is arguably in breach of the regulation. However, breach of a statutory rule does not itself create a penalty unless the regulation so provides (which it does not). The practical consequence is that the waiver decision might be challengeable on procedural grounds in judicial review, but the remedy would be an order to provide reasons, not a sanction.

There is also no mechanism for the State to enforce the fee caps against councils. If a council charges 4 per cent for engineering plan preparation instead of the maximum 3.5 per cent, the applicant’s recourse is to resist payment or seek a refund. The Regulations do not impose a penalty on the council for overcharging. This places the enforcement burden on the applicant, who may be reluctant to dispute a fee while still needing the council’s co‑operation on the subdivision.

The sunset provision (section 5 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, noted in the endnotes) provides a form of enforcement by termination: the Regulations expire on 27 September 2026 unless re‑made. After that date, fees would revert to the default position under the Subdivision Act, which may require fresh regulations. This sunset is a control on the delegation of legislative power, not on day‑to‑day compliance.

Because the Regulations contain no penalties, the risk of enforcement action for non‑compliance is low, but the cost of non‑compliance is the inability to proceed with the subdivision. That cost can be substantial, especially for percentage‑based fees. In effect, the Regulations create a pay‑to‑play system for statutory approvals, enforced by the authority’s refusal to act.

The Regulations are subordinate to the Subdivision Act 1988 (the Act), made under section 43 of that Act. They do not operate independently; they give effect to fee‑related obligations that the Act creates or contemplates. For example, section 5(3)(c) of the Act requires a plan to be certified by the council; the Regulations prescribe the fee for that certification. Section 10(2) allows a council to agree to an alteration; the Regulations set the fee. Section 11(1) permits amendment of a certified plan; the Regulations prescribe the fee. Section 15 deals with engineering plans; the Regulations cap the checking, preparation, and supervision fees in that context. Section 17(2)(a) deals with supervision; the Regulations cap that fee. Thus, the Regulations fill in the pricing details left open by the Act.

The Regulations also interact with the Monetary Units Act 2004. The fixed fees are expressed in fee units, and the dollar value is determined under that Act. The endnotes explain that the value of a fee unit for 2016-17 was $13.94 and is to be fixed by the Treasurer annually. This means the Regulations are tied to a separate legislative scheme for indexation. Changes to the Monetary Units Act - for example, a change in the definition of fee unit or the rounding rule - would affect the dollar amounts without amending these Regulations. The interaction creates a need for applicants to check the current fee unit value each year.

The Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 governs the making, tabling, and sunset of statutory rules. The endnotes state that these Regulations will sunset 10 years after the day of making (27 September 2026). That sunset provision is a legislative control that forces periodic review of the fee schedule. If the Regulations are not re‑made before that date, they cease to have effect, and the fees become unregulated under the Subdivision Act. This could create a gap: councils would have no prescribed fee and arguably could not charge any fee unless the Act itself provides an alternative. The sunset interacts with the need for certainty in property transactions; a gap could cause delays.

There is also an interaction with the Planning and Environment Act 1987, which governs the planning permits that often precede subdivision. While these Regulations deal only with fees under the Subdivision Act, a developer typically needs both a planning permit and a subdivision certification. The fees here are separate from any fees payable under planning schemes or under the Planning and Environment Regulations. The cumulative compliance cost includes both sets of fees.

The Regulations may also interact with local laws and council fee schedules. Councils have powers under other legislation to set fees for other services, but the Subdivision (Fees) Regulations override any inconsistent local fees for the specific services listed. A council cannot charge a higher fee for plan certification under a local law because the state regulation prescribes the fee. Similarly, referral authorities such as water corporations are bound by the caps in regulations 9 and 11; they cannot impose higher charges under their own constituent Acts.

There is no interaction with the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) or trade practices law because the fees are statutory, not commercial. The waiver power under regulation 12 could interact with charitable law in determining what constitutes “land used exclusively for charitable purposes”. That term is not defined in the Regulations, so it would take its meaning from the general law of charities and perhaps from analogous provisions in other Victorian statutes, such as the Rating exemptions under the Local Government Act.

The Regulations replace the Subdivision (Fees) Interim Regulations 2015 and are themselves version 001 with no amendments. There is no interaction with other subdivision fee regulations covering different aspects (e.g., registrar’s fees under the Transfer of Land Act). Those are separate instruments.

According to the source document, Version No. 001 of the Subdivision (Fees) Regulations 2016 (S.R. No. 121/2016) has no amendments. The Table of Amendments at endnote 2 states: “There are no amendments made to the Subdivision (Fees) Regulations 2016 by statutory rules, subordinate instruments and Acts.” Endnote 3 confirms there are no amendments not in operation. The Regulations were made on 27 September 2016 and commenced on 13 October 2016. They revoked the earlier Subdivision (Fees) Interim Regulations 2015 (S.R. No. 117/2015) as per regulation 4. No further versions or amending instruments are listed.

This lack of amendment history is notable for a fee‑setting instrument that has been in force for several years. Fee units are indexed annually under the Monetary Units Act, so the dollar amounts have changed, but the unit numbers have stayed the same. The structure of fees - 11.8, 7.5, 9.5 fee units, and the percentage caps - has not been adjusted. This means the real value of the fixed fees has increased with fee unit indexation, but the percentage caps have remained constant. The absence of amendment suggests the government has seen no need to revise the schedule or the waiver grounds since 2016.

The sunset date is 27 September 2026. If the Regulations are not re‑made, they will expire. The amendment history (or lack thereof) may reflect that the instrument was intended as a stable, long‑term measure. However, given the economic changes since 2016 - including inflation in construction costs - the percentage caps may have become more or less restrictive. A 2.5 per cent supervision fee on a $10 million project in 2026 is $250,000; in 2016 the same percentage on a $6 million project was $150,000. The cap itself has not changed, but the absolute amounts have increased with project costs. The lack of amendment means the regulatory burden adjusts automatically with construction cost inflation.

The only amendment mentioned in the endnotes is not to the Regulations themselves but to the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provisions cited for style. Those are general guidance and do not affect the substance.

For practitioners, the clean amendment history means there is no need to track transitional provisions or multiple versions. The Regulations are as originally made. However, the impending sunset should be noted; any subdivision planned to extend beyond 2026 should consider the risk that the fee schedule may change or lapse. Clients may need to lodge applications before the sunset to lock in the current fee structure, though if the Regulations are re‑made with similar terms, the effect is neutral.

The source document does not reference any litigation concerning the Subdivision (Fees) Regulations 2016. No cases are cited in the text, and the endnotes do not list any judicial decisions. This absence does not prove there has been no litigation - a practitioner would need to search case law databases - but the instrument itself provides no litigation history. Given that the Regulations are a minor procedural instrument setting fees, it is plausible that they have not been the subject of direct judicial challenge.

Potential grounds for litigation could include a challenge to the reasonableness of a fee (e.g., a council charging at the maximum cap for engineering checking even when the work is minimal), a challenge to a refusal to waive a fee under regulation 12 (e.g., the council unreasonably refusing a waiver on the “minor nature” ground), or a challenge to the calculation of “estimated cost” for percentage fees. However, the Regulations confer broad discretion, particularly under regulation 12 where the authority’s opinion is determinative. Judicial review on Wednesday unreasonableness grounds is possible but difficult to win.

There might also be litigation about the validity of the Regulations themselves - for example, whether the Governor in Council had the power under section 43 of the Subdivision Act to set fees by reference to fee units that adjust annually without further amendment. Section 43 of the Subdivision Act likely permits fees to be set by regulation, and the Monetary Units Act authorises fee units, so a challenge would be weak.

The absence of reported litigation could mean the fee schedule is uncontroversial or that the costs of challenging a small fee outweigh the benefit. For the percentage fees, the amounts can be substantial, so there is more incentive to litigate. Yet no cases are mentioned. It may be that councils and referral authorities negotiate rather than litigate, or that applicants accept the fees as a cost of doing business.

Another reason for sparse litigation is that the Regulations do not directly affect individual rights; they set prices for a statutory service. A dispute over a fee is more likely to be resolved through negotiation, internal review, or complaint to the Ombudsman than through court proceedings.

That said, the recording requirement under regulation 13 could become relevant in litigation if a party seeks reasons for a waiver decision. If an authority grants a waiver and fails to record reasons, an aggrieved competitor or objector might argue procedural invalidity. But that scenario is speculative.

For the purpose of this deep dive, the source does not provide litigation history. The heading should note that no litigation is recorded in the instrument itself, and that practitioners should conduct their own research for any unreported decisions. Without source‑grounding, we cannot claim there is no litigation; we can only say the Regulations do not reference any. The better approach is to state that the Regulations contain no reference to litigation, and to infer that direct judicial interpretation of these specific regulations has not been necessary or has not resulted in a reported decision at the time of the instrument’s publication.

Several aspects of the Regulations can trap an unwary applicant or authority.

First, the fee for certification under regulation 6 is payable “at the time at which the application is made”. If an applicant submits a plan but does not pay, the council may treat the application as incomplete. There is no grace period. The same applies to alteration and amendment fees under regulations 7 and 8. This timing requirement is strict and can cause delays if the applicant underestimates the fee or expects an invoice.

Second, the percentage fees for engineering plan checking (regulation 9) are fixed by the council or referral authority, with only a maximum cap of 0.75 per cent of estimated cost. The authority could set the fee at 0.75 per cent routinely, even for a trivial check. The applicant has no right to a lower fee. The phrase “estimated cost of constructing the works” is not defined, so disputes can arise if the council and applicant disagree on the estimate. The council may insist on a higher estimate to increase the fee, while the applicant wants a lower estimate to reduce it. The Regulations provide no dispute resolution mechanism.

Third, the waiver power in regulation 12 has a trap: ground (a) allows waiver only if the application is withdrawn and a new application is submitted in its place. If an applicant withdraws an application and does not submit a new one, the fee is not refundable or waivable under this ground. The ground is designed to allow re‑submission without double payment, not to allow withdrawal altogether. An applicant who abandons a project will lose the fee.

Fourth, the “minor nature” ground in regulation 12(b)(i) is wholly subjective: “in the opinion of the Council or referral authority”. An opinion that the matter is not minor is effectively unreviewable. A council could refuse a waiver for a trivial boundary adjustment simply by opining that it is not minor. The applicant has no right to an independent assessment.

Fifth, the recording requirement under regulation 13 only applies if the waiver or rebate is granted. There is no requirement to record reasons for refusing a waiver. This asymmetry means a refusal can be opaque. Without reasons, the applicant has no basis to challenge the decision.

Sixth, the fee units are indexed annually. An applicant who obtained a quote in one financial year may be surprised by a higher fee in the next if the application is delayed. The Regulations do not lock in the fee unit value at the date of application; the payable amount is the value at the time of payment (since fee units are a number, the dollar amount depends on the current value). This is not explicitly stated, but it follows from the Monetary Units Act.

Seventh, the percentage caps in regulations 10 and 11 are maximums, not fixed amounts. A council could prepare an engineering plan and charge 3.5 per cent of estimated cost, even if the actual preparation cost is much lower. There is no requirement for the fee to be cost‑related. The council could profit from this service. Similarly, the supervision fee of up to 2.5 per cent could be charged even if actual supervision is minimal.

Eighth, the Regulations do not specify what happens if a plan is certified but the statement of compliance is not issued. Regulation 6(1) bundles the certification fee with the statement of compliance. If the council certifies the plan but later refuses the statement of compliance (e.g., because works are not completed), the applicant has already paid for both. There is no provision for a refund or rebate in that scenario, unless the council exercises its discretion under regulation 12(b) - but that is discretionary.

Ninth, the sunset date of 27 September 2026 means the Regulations will expire unless re‑made. Applications in late 2026 could be caught in the transition. If the Regulations expire, the fees under the Subdivision Act revert to the default: there would be no prescribed fee, and councils might be unable to charge anything for certification, leading to a potential paralysis of the subdivision system until new regulations are made. This is a systemic risk.

Tenth, the Regulations apply to both councils and referral authorities, but the definition of “referral authority” is not provided in the Regulations; it is taken from the Subdivision Act. An applicant may need to identify all relevant referral authorities and pay separate fees to each for engineering plan checking. The same cap applies per authority, but the total cost could be 0.75 per cent multiplied by several authorities, plus preparation and supervision fees from each. The Regulations do not aggregate caps across authorities.

Compliance with the Subdivision (Fees) Regulations 2016 involves several practical steps for both applicants and councils/referral authorities.

For applicants, the first step is to identify which fees apply to the proposed subdivision activity. If applying for certification of a plan, the applicant must calculate 11.8 fee units multiplied by the current fee unit value, add rounding (to nearest 10 cents per the Monetary Units Act), and pay that amount at the time of making the application (regulation 6). The applicant should verify the fee unit value for the relevant financial year, which is published in the Government Gazette and a Victorian newspaper before 1 June each year, or obtain it from the council. For a financial year that has not yet been fixed, the applicant should use the latest published value or seek confirmation from the council.

If the plan needs alteration before certification, an additional 7.5 fee units is payable when the request is made (regulation 7). If a certified plan then needs amendment, 9.5 fee units is payable when the amendment application is made (regulation 8). These fees are in addition to the initial certification fee.

For engineering plans, the applicant must pay the fee fixed by the council or referral authority for checking the plan, up to a maximum of 0.75 per cent of the estimated cost of constructing the works (regulation 9). The fee is due when the plan is submitted. The applicant should obtain a written fee quotation from the authority before submission. The applicant should also provide a written estimate of construction cost, supported by a quantity surveyor or cost consultant, to ensure the cap is properly applied. If the authority sets a fee that exceeds the cap, the applicant should object in writing and refuse to pay the excess. The applicant may need to negotiate the estimated cost if the authority disputes it. For councils that prepare engineering plans, the maximum fee is 3.5 per cent of estimated cost (regulation 10); the applicant should confirm whether the council intends to prepare the plan and at what rate (within the cap). For supervision of works, the maximum fee is 2.5 per cent of estimated cost (regulation 11). The applicant should obtain a supervision agreement in writing specifying the fee and confirming it does not exceed the cap.

If the applicant believes a fee should be reduced or waived, the applicant should make a written request to the council or referral authority, citing one of the grounds in regulation 12. For ground (a) (withdrawal and resubmission), the applicant must be prepared to submit a new application. For ground (b), the applicant should provide evidence of the minor nature of the matter or the low burden - for example, a letter explaining that the alteration is trivial or that the service required minimal work. For ground (c), the applicant must provide evidence that the land is used exclusively for charitable purposes (e.g., registration as a charity, land title details). The applicant should request that the authority record the reasons for any waiver in writing as required by regulation 13. If the request is refused, the applicant should seek written reasons (though not required by the regulation) to evaluate whether to challenge the decision.

For councils and referral authorities, compliance requires applying the correct fee caps and not exceeding them. Authorities should establish and publish their fee schedules for engineering plan checking, preparation, and supervision, ensuring they do not exceed the statutory caps. When charging a percentage fee, the authority should verify the estimated cost of construction, and if in doubt, obtain an independent estimate. If the authority grants a waiver or rebate, it must prepare a written record of the matters taken into account and the basis for the decision (regulation 13). This record should be retained for audit purposes. Authorities should also update their fee unit calculation each financial year for the fixed fees.

All parties should be aware of the sunset date of 27 September 2026. Applicants with projects extending beyond that date should monitor for new regulations and budget for possible fee changes. Authorities should begin the process of remaking the Regulations well before the sunset to avoid a regulatory gap.

Finally, for any dispute about fees, the first step is negotiation with the authority. If the dispute cannot be resolved, the applicant may consider seeking internal review under the authority’s governance processes, complaining to the Victorian Ombudsman, or seeking judicial review. However, given the broad discretion and the small amounts at stake for fixed fees, litigation is unlikely to be cost‑effective. The percentage fees can be large enough to justify legal action, but the applicant should weigh the cost of delay against the amount in dispute.