• Who: Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), the peak body for all 79 Victorian councils
• What: a resolution seeking a moratorium on approvals for all new or expanded data centres until a comprehensive planning and environmental framework exists
• Second motion: tighter regulation of the social, economic and environmental impacts of data centres, including land, energy and water use
• Councils behind the motions: eight councils brought data centre motions to the October State Council, including Melbourne, Geelong, Maribyrnong and Hume
• Earlier calls: Melton, Brimbank, Maribyrnong and Hume had already asked for an immediate pause earlier in the year
• Main target: the state's Development Facilitation Program (DFP), which lets qualifying projects go straight to the Planning Minister
• Timing: reported on 30 October 2026, with caretaker mode starting the following Tuesday ahead of the 28 November election

The heart of the complaint is planning control. Under the DFP, a data centre judged to be significant economic development can be lodged directly with the Planning Minister. Councils say that leaves them as little more than a referral agency on projects that reshape their industrial land, their power networks and in some cases their housing supply.

MAV president Jennifer Anderson said the resolutions added weight to concerns councils had been raising for months. She described the DFP as taking powers away from councils and communities. She said councils want a proper partnership with the state rather than a seat on the sidelines.

The detail behind that frustration came out at a Senate inquiry into artificial intelligence and data centres in September. Melton's director of city futures told senators that every data centre application in her municipality had gone through the state pathway. Brimbank said the state was taking over assessment regardless of project size. Hume said it had seen no evidence for the construction or ongoing job numbers developers were promoting. Hume's council had passed its own moratorium motion unanimously in August.

In its own submission to that inquiry, the MAV argued that councils sit on the front line of AI infrastructure impacts, from housing growth to strain on local infrastructure and rising community expectations.

The government is not starting from scratch. In September it announced new data centre rules. They ban facilities in residential zones and near schools, set a residential buffer of around 150 metres and require data centres to use renewable energy and non-drinking water.

A government spokesperson said the state sets the rules and that data centres must bring their own energy supply so they do not push up costs for households. The spokesperson also said they cannot be built near homes. Councils have said the policy does not go far enough on local involvement and it does not include any pause on approvals.

The politics are now part of the property story. The Liberal and Nationals have said they would keep data centres out of residential areas and green wedges and steer them into designated data centre precincts away from homes. The Greens, through spokesperson Sarah Mansfield, want a moratorium on all new AI data centres plus compensation for affected communities. Anderson acknowledged there is limited capacity for the government to act during caretaker mode, so the MAV plans to lobby all parties before and after polling day.

Geelong's motion has a very specific backdrop. This year NextDC paid about $165 million for 169 hectares at Lovely Banks in the Northern Geelong Growth Area. The purchase settled in June through a NextDC subsidiary. The land had been marketed as Geelong Rise, with scope for up to 2,105 residential lots subject to council approval.

The attraction for a data centre operator is obvious. The site sits beneath high-voltage transmission lines near the Moorabool Terminal Station and close to the Victorian Big Battery. In a market where power is the scarcest input, that is about as good as land gets. NextDC has not announced a build on the site.

The City of Greater Geelong sees the other side of the ledger. It has warned that large data centres could delay the residential and industrial development growing communities need. NextDC is also building a smaller data centre in Corio, one of Geelong's largest suburbs. Together the two sites have made Geelong one of the clearest examples of data centres competing with housing for the same well-serviced land.

Inner Melbourne carries most of the near-term pipeline and several projects show why councils are uneasy.

• NextDC M3, 25-27 Indwe Street, West Footscray: a campus planned at 225MW with 60MW built at 30 June 2026. Jemena paused parts of the 66kV network upgrade feeding it after resident protests in Yarraville. NextDC removed about $140 million from FY27 guidance and its shares fell roughly 40 per cent. The Stages 6 and 7 expansion is in the DFP with a decision now expected in 2027.
• NextDC M4, Fishermans Bend: a $2 billion campus of up to 150MW. It was lodged in October 2025 and approved by the Planning Minister in January through the DFP after 75 days. Recent reporting says neither CitiPower nor South East Water responded during assessment. The Port Melbourne Action Group has raised concerns about consultation and the neighbouring Westgate Park. NextDC says the facility will use closed-loop air cooling with no water.
• GreenSquareDC MEL1, 44-76 Simcock Avenue, Spotswood: a planned campus that the company says could offer up to 240MW of IT capacity over three storeys. The site is described as former petrochemical storage land. GreenSquareDC is backed by Partners Group and lists 2027 as its target for operations.

Those three sites are within a few kilometres of each other in Melbourne's inner west and port precinct. They draw on the same constrained electricity network and sit beside established residential suburbs. That is exactly the mix the councils of Maribyrnong, Hobsons Bay and Port Phillip are being asked to manage with limited say over approvals.

For operators and the capital behind them, the risk is not a ban. It is time. A data centre business model depends on landing power and permits on a schedule that matches customer contracts. Every extra quarter of delay pushes back revenue and makes it harder to sign hyperscale tenants who can simply go to Sydney, Johor or another market.

The M3 episode already showed how quickly that can play out. A pause on transmission works, not on the data centre itself, was enough to wipe a large slice of value from a listed company in a single session. A statewide moratorium, even a short one, would add a new layer of uncertainty to every unapproved site in Victoria.

There is a counterpoint. Approved and powered campuses become more valuable when the pipeline behind them slows. Owners of sites with permits in hand and secured grid capacity could find themselves in a stronger position if the next government tightens the rules.

Data centre demand has been one of the strongest forces in Melbourne industrial land pricing this cycle. Deals such as PGIM's purchase of 20.7 hectares at 1 Oroya Drive, Truganina for about $165.6 million, or roughly $8 million a hectare, show the premium buyers will pay for land with a credible power story.

If the approval pathway narrows, some of that premium could come off sites that are speculative bets on future data centre use. Land that was being held for a data centre exit may need to fall back on logistics, manufacturing or mixed employment uses. That would bring pricing back towards what those uses can justify.

Housing is the other pressure point. Victoria has set aggressive housing targets and has threatened to remove planning powers from councils that miss them. Councils now argue that the same state is fast-tracking data centres onto land that was earmarked for homes. Lovely Banks is the clearest example and it will not be the last site where the two policies collide.

• Power is the asset. Proximity to a terminal station or substation is what makes a site valuable for data centres. Document capacity, connection status and the network owner's timeline before taking a site to market.
• Know your approval pathway. Whether a project runs through council or the DFP now shapes both timing and community reaction. Buyers will ask and they will price the answer.
• Have a fallback use. Sites marketed only on a data centre story are exposed to policy change. A clear logistics or employment alternative protects value.
• Tell the community story early. M3 and M4 both drew organised local opposition. Clear plans, visuals and consultation material help a project be understood before it becomes a campaign issue.
• Show buyers what the site can become. On large greenfield or brownfield holdings, masterplans, renders and campaign websites help investors see the staged outcome rather than an empty paddock or a fenced former tank farm.

The first test is the election campaign. Watch whether either major party commits to changing the DFP for data centres, or adopts the Coalition's precinct approach. Then watch how the incoming government responds to the MAV's call once caretaker mode ends.

On the ground, watch for a restart date on Jemena's 66kV works for M3, any planning application for NextDC's Lovely Banks land and progress on GreenSquareDC's Spotswood campus. Also watch the Senate inquiry into AI and data centres, which could push the issue onto the national agenda.

For now the message from Victoria's councils is simple. They want a say before the next wave of data centres is approved and they have chosen the busiest weeks of the political cycle to ask for it.