Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
Planning Panels Victoria has published guidance, Practice Note 4, asking advocates, experts and submitters to state how generative AI was used in documents they file, and asking advocates to confirm that cited VCAT decisions and PPV reports exist
Practice Note 4 describes itself as guidance, states no commencement date and cites no statute giving it force. As guidance, it binds nobody; whether any statute gives PPV practice notes separate legal force is a question we did not check. The note also says verification of AI output is not satisfied by asking another AI system, or the same one, to check it.
Bottom line: Published as a web practice note that describes itself as guidance and is written in mandatory terms. It states no commencement date and cites no statute giving it force. As guidance, it binds nobody. Whether any statute gives PPV practice notes separate legal force is a question we did not check. The only date we found is 21 September 2026, in page metadata and a page-updated line.
Who this affects: Planning and environment lawyers and other professionals appearing for parties before Planning Panels Victoria, expert witnesses giving evidence under PPV Practice Note 1, and council, proponent and community submitters who file documents with PPV.
Issue date: No issue or commencement date appears in the note's text. Page metadata gives dcterms.issued and dcterms.created as 2026-09-21, and the line at the end of the note reads "Page last updated: 21/09/26".
What changed: A standing, itemised AI-use statement for documents filed with PPV, split by role and set out in guidance that states no commencement date, where the earlier committee letter we opened carried a one-line declaration direction in a single matter.
Analysis: Our reading of the guidance is that the citation confirmation for advocates names VCAT decisions and PPV reports, not only case law. The consequences the note names are reduced weight and further directions; it introduces them with "including", so it does not present them as a closed list.
Primary sources: PPV Practice Note 4: Use of Artificial Intelligence in PPV proceedings
- Instrument (EN)
- Planning Panels Victoria Practice Note 4: Use of Artificial Intelligence in PPV proceedings
- Authority
- Planning Panels Victoria (the site footer also carries a Department of Transport and Planning section and links)
- Jurisdiction
- Australia, Victoria. All PPV proceedings, on the note's own statement of scope
- Status
- Published as a web page. The page as captured links no PDF version. No commencement date stated in the text
- Bindingness
- Procedural practice note. It describes itself as guidance and, as guidance, binds nobody; it cites no statutory basis, and we did not check whether any statute gives practice notes force. It names reduced weight and further directions as consequences, introduced with "including"
- Issue date / next deadline
- 21 September 2026 per page metadata and the page-updated line only. No deadline or transition period stated
- Related instrument
- PPV Practice Note 1, Expert Evidence, whose page also shows an update of 21/09/26 and now carries an AI declaration line
- Primary source
- https://www.planningpanels.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-ppv-proceedings
What does Practice Note 4 ask of advocates?
In guidance that carries no commencement date, the note says a lawyer or other professional appearing for another person "must include a statement addressing the following in any document filed with PPV". Three items follow: an explanation of what parts of the document (if any) were produced using Gen AI and how it was used; confirmation that "any case law, VCAT decisions or PPV reports referred to in the filed document exist, have been accurately cited and are relevant to the proceeding"; and confirmation that the advocate has checked the content for accuracy.
The middle item names VCAT decisions and PPV reports alongside case law. The guidance adds that AI use "does not diminish an advocate's professional obligations, including duties of competence, diligence and accuracy".
On the text of this guidance, the statement attaches to any document filed, not only to documents where AI was used. The parenthetical "(if any)" suggests a nil statement is contemplated. That reading is ours; the note does not spell it out.
What the note says about expert reports
On experts, the guidance, undated as to commencement, allows AI to assist with a report but says it is not to be used to generate the expert's opinion. Its text: "Gen AI may assist in the preparation of an expert report but must not be used to generate the expert's opinion or professional conclusions." The only date attached to that line is the 21 September 2026 page metadata and page-updated line.
The same guidance then lists four things expert evidence filed under Practice Note 1 is to include: which parts (if any) were produced using Gen AI, how it was used, confirmation the expert checked the content for accuracy, and a declaration that the contents reflect the expert's own opinions and professional judgement.
PPV's current Practice Note 1 page also carries a 21/09/26 update line and now includes an AI declaration sentence. That page adds to the standard closing declaration the words "I have identified any parts of my evidence that were generated using Artificial Intelligence." An archived 4 December 2025 copy of the earlier PPV experts page, marked last updated 10/11/25, carries the same closing declaration without that sentence and makes no reference to artificial intelligence. The two notes now describe the expert statement in different levels of detail, and experts will want to satisfy both.
Verification and the limits of AI checking AI
Any person filing or relying on a document "remains responsible for the accuracy of the content" whether or not AI was used, and AI-produced content is to be independently reviewed before filing, on the terms of a note that is guidance and names no start date.
The guidance says verification "must involve reference to original source material and independent fact-checking", and that it "is not satisfied merely by asking another AI system, or the same AI system, to confirm the accuracy of AI-generated content".
Two further provisions in the guidance sit beside that. Participants are told not to mislead PPV, Panel Members or other participants about the nature of work done by a Gen AI tool or the extent of human involvement. And PPV may direct a participant to identify the AI-produced portions and the steps taken to verify them.
Disclosure and weight
The note treats disclosure and weight separately, as guidance with no stated start date. It states that disclosure "does not, of itself, affect the weight to be given to a document, submission or expert report".
Its section headed "Why is guidance needed?" says something different about inaccurate content. Relying on incorrect or non-existent AI-generated content may result in consequences for parties, "including PPV not placing significant weight on submissions or evidence if there is any doubt as to whether the content is accurate and reliable".
On the guidance's own terms, disclosing AI use carries no weight penalty by itself, while filing content that cannot be stood behind can. The consequences the note names are reduced weight and directions; it introduces them with "including", so the list is not presented as closed, and we do not supply others.
Exclusions, submitters and confidential material
The published note, guidance with no stated commencement date, does not apply to tools that do not generate substantive content. It lists search engines that merely return results, spelling and grammar tools, formatting and accessibility functions, transcription or translation tools, and legal research tools that search legislation, judgments or tribunal decisions, naming AustLII as an example. The search engine carve-out stops at inbuilt AI features such as Google Gemini that produce personalised or editorial content.
Under the same guidance, a submitter is asked for a shorter statement in any document filed with PPV: what parts (if any) were produced using Gen AI and how, and confirmation they checked it for accuracy. They are not asked for the citation confirmation that advocates give.
A separate limb of the guidance covers confidential material. The note says such information "must not be entered into publicly available AI tools unless appropriate authorisation and safeguards are in place", and lists the names and contact details of other parties, submitter addresses and material PPV has ruled confidential.
How it compares with PPV's earlier approach
PPV was not silent on AI before this note. A committee letter dated 20 March 2026 in VPA Projects Standing Advisory Committee Referral 17, Greater Avalon Employment Precinct, carried a single paragraph headed "Use of Artificial Intelligence": where submissions or evidence were generated wholly or in part using AI, "a declaration must be made in writing to the Committee at the time of filing". We checked that matter's letters only and do not claim the paragraph was standard across all matters.
What Practice Note 4 adds, on our comparison, is a standing guidance text, with no stated commencement date, that applies to all PPV proceedings, splits the statement by role, adds the citation confirmation for advocates, says experts are not to use AI to generate their opinion, and defines what verification means. Archived 23 April 2026 copies of two PPV pages show a Guides and resources menu with no AI page.
Readers following planning AI guidance elsewhere, including the UK Planning Inspectorate's material, should treat this as a separate instrument from a separate body. Practice Note 4 does not refer to any other jurisdiction's guidance.
What we did not verify
What we opened: the full Practice Note 4 web page as served at the time of writing, including its page metadata and footer; the current PPV Practice Note 1 page; an archived 4 December 2025 copy of the earlier experts page; archived 23 April 2026 copies of the PPV home page and a project page, each showing the Guides and resources menu; the first eight of 17 PDF pages of the 20 March 2026 Greater Avalon committee letter and directions; and the 23 February 2026 directions hearing letter in the same matter. A direct request to the PPV site returned HTTP 403, so we read the pages through a rendering service.
What we did not open: any PDF of Practice Note 4, because we found none; the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or any instrument that might give PPV practice notes legal force; and any PPV direction or report applying the note. The page as captured links no PDF or downloadable version, and we did not locate a separate commencement notice.
What we refuse to claim: we give no commencement date, because the note states none, and we do not present 21 September 2026 as more than a page metadata and page-updated date. We do not say non-compliance attracts any consequence beyond the reduced weight and directions the note names, although its wording does not present those as a closed list. We do not say this is the first Australian planning body to address AI, and we do not describe the UK Planning Inspectorate's guidance, which we have not reviewed here.
Quotations are reproduced with ASCII punctuation in place of any typographic apostrophes on the page, which is a house typesetting convention and not a change to any word.
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
If you file in a PPV matter, build the statement into your template now rather than at the filing deadline, and make the citation check real: open each VCAT decision and panel report you cite, because the published guidance, though it states no commencement date, says verification by asking an AI system does not count. For expert reports, reconcile the Practice Note 4 checklist with the new Practice Note 1 declaration line so one report satisfies both.
Source File
Open the note and confirm four things: the three-item advocate statement under Advocates, the expert opinion sentence under Experts, the verification sentence under Use of Gen AI by participants, and the absence of any commencement date beside the page-updated line at the foot of the page.
Verification is not satisfied merely by asking another AI system, or the same AI system, to confirm the accuracy of AI-generated content. ยท PPV Practice Note 4, Use of Gen AI by participants in PPV processes; page metadata and page-updated line show 21 September 2026
FAQ
When does Practice Note 4 take effect?
The note does not say. The only date we found is 21 September 2026, in the page metadata and the page-updated line. No commencement date or transition period appears in the text.
Can an expert witness use generative AI at all?
Yes, within limits. The guidance says Gen AI may assist in preparing an expert report but "must not be used to generate the expert's opinion or professional conclusions", and the report is to disclose which parts were AI-produced and how.
Does a submitter who used no AI need to say anything?
The note, which is guidance, asks submitters for a statement in any document filed explaining what parts, if any, were produced using Gen AI. Our reading is that a nil statement is contemplated, but the note does not say so expressly.
What happens if a filed document contains fabricated authority?
The guidance says PPV may not place significant weight on submissions or evidence where there is doubt about accuracy, and that PPV may direct further information about AI use. It names no other consequence, though it introduces the reduced-weight consequence with "including".
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.