An efficient development assessment process is the foundation of effective town planning that manages the growth and sustainability of our cities and towns.
It is well recognised that reform of the current process across Australia is required.
While there are examples of planning processes that work reasonably well, overall, the current development assessment system is convoluted, inefficient and under resourced, resulting in lengthy delays and additional compliance cost, adding to the cost of development eventually approved.
The problems of an inefficient process are exacerbated by a lack of consistency between states and territories, but also, by inconsistency between local government area planning schemes, even when purportedly made under the same state or territory authority.
The trend towards local government use of planning rules to regulate what are essentially building regulation matters, no matter how well intentioned, in itself points to a failure of the system.
Ten years ago, the Development Assessment Forum (DAF), consisting of representatives from the three levels of government, the development industry and related professional associations, including the Australian Institute of Architects, began meeting to collectively consider what needed to be done. In 2005 DAF produced the Leading Practice Model for Development Assessment in Australia - (DAF model) designed to promote efficient, effective and nationally harmonised development assessment systems across Australia.
While one state has introduced part of the model, progress on implementation has so far been minimal.
The DAF model is on the agenda of governments, for example, through the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council and is well known to the planning departments.
The Australian Institute of Architects believes three components are needed for an improved and more efficient development approvals process.
The Institute believes that with these three elements in place, the result will be certainty and accuracy in decision making, with planning outcomes more in tune with community expectations.
The Institute acknowledges that part of the elements of the DAF model are implemented in some States and Territories but the imperatives of issues such as housing affordability and sustainability make minimising unnecessary costs of planning assessment imperative.
The Institute also recognises that existing funding grants to state and territory governments, such as the Commonwealth's allocation for harmonisation and reduction of red tape (through the electronic development application system), have a part to play in planning system reform.