The planning process in Australia has become a game of chance with a lack of consistency resulting in a can of worms of expensive and confusing regulations posing a threat to the Australian economy, the building industry and the future planning of our cities.
The claim is made in a report to released today by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) and its’ building advisory service Archicentre, that looks at the impact of planning systems in Australia.
It is estimated in the past three years that the workload required to apply for planning approval in Victoria has increased by over 100%. Some councils are charging a fee to tell applicants if they need a permit because of the time it takes to interpret complex issues.
In Queensland this has risen by 85%, in Western Australia by 80%, in New South Wales by 78% and South Australia by 60%. Over 6000 architects across Australia were surveyed for the report.
In a joint statement the National President of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) David Parken, and the Managing Director of Archicentre Robert Caulfield said, “The report is aimed at stimulating discussion and action at all level of governments to improve the planning system.”
Planning is the cornerstone of creating a sustainable urban environment for Australia’s capital cities.
It is important the system is functioning in a coordinated manner and can be understood.
The lack of consistent approaches by councils, and the absence of experienced planning consent staff in local government can see delays on average of up to 9 months to get many applications processed.
Apart from delays, the report also raises the issue of the vast waste of applicants’ funds which can run into thousands of dollars through the lodgment of work that is requested and often disregarded or lost in the planning process. Across Australia this runs into tens of millions of dollars annually which is passed on to the community.
The full report Planning Assessment Survey Report 2003 is available at www.architecture.com.au |
Summary of Major Findings
The survey generated considerable feedback. The main findings, concerns, and topical issues can be grouped under the headings of policy, process and people, and are summarized as follows:
Policy
Heritage issues triggering lengthy planning processes.
Planning consent staff and councillors ruling on areas that they are unqualified in such as building construction and architectural aesthetics.
Reports of unreasonable demands made on applicants for irrelevant or unnecessary material, especially for what are commonly accepted as technically simple jobs.
The lack of uniformity of regulations and planning laws across municipalities.
Process
Examples of some councillors and planning consent staff not being fully across their own guidelines.
Examples of under resourced council planning departments.
Examples of unhelpful staff, refusing to give pre application advice.
Indications of inexperienced planning consent staff having carriage of major planning assessment activities.
Lack of consistency of advice between council staff, councillors and others.
Some councils regularly misplacing documents.
Some planning consent staff not answering or returning calls.
The use of delaying tactics to create extra time for processing the enormous volume of applications. This results in extra unnecessary work and costs to the applicants.
Widespread examples of high turnover of planning compliance staff.
People
Reporting of regular planning disputes between councillors and planning consent staff.
Reports of some councillors overturning the advice received from their planning consent staff to cater for local political considerations.
|
Summary of Recommendations
The main recommendations drawn from this study can be grouped under the headings of policy and process.
Policy
1. State government agencies responsible for local planning need to establish common procedural guidelines for all local governments to follow.
2. Local government councillors should be involved in establishing local policies, but once established compliance or otherwise should be determined by an assessment panel comprised of council staff professionals and external assessors, not by the councillors themselves.
The Royal Australian Institute of Architects would be prepared to nominate independent architect assessors to participate on the assessment panel.
3. State governments should establish “planning zones” which may relate to specific
interest points such as heritage, landscape etc. These zones should not be confined by local government boundaries.
4. Leading on from recommendation 3, a local government assessment panel should be able to assess an application even for applications that span across planning zones or boundaries.
5. Aesthetic judgements should not be considered in the planning assessment.
6. Heritage and landscape overlays and other similar planning constraints should not trigger the need for planning approval for home renovations and new homes, they should form a part of the building approval process.
Process
7. All local government development control plans, guidelines overlays etc. should be available on the internet.
8. All local governments should move towards an electronic lodgement system whereby applications can be lodged and advertised on the internet and objections received electronically. This will considerably free up council officers’ time.
9. The local government planning assessment report on an application should be completed before public advertising and should form part of the advertising package.
10. Councils should “stream” applications so that for example all commercial applications go to one planning consent officer, all medium density housing to another etc.
11. As an interim measure (before objective is achieved) seminars should be organised for local councillors on how to understand the planning process and how to responsibly assess applications.
12. Specialist reports such as heritage compliance, landscape overlays, energy audits, should not be required at lodgement but should be provided if necessary prior to issue of approval or as a condition of approval.
13. External independent consultant planners or architects should be able to certify that application documents meet guidelines.
14. The advertising process should be reviewed so that it is less adversarial in nature. For example, terms such as ‘object’ and ‘materially effect’ should be replaced with ‘comment on’.
15. Following planning approval by local council or appeals body, endorsed plans should be certified by private independent planning consultants.
|
