Planning System "Reform" Project

a bit too much penis envy going on here…. a mixture of the Canberra Soviet and the south canberra petty bourgeoisie have a common obsession with developers….

seepi, it has been like this for years, and it is this “feature’, as much as any other, that gets people riled up about planning in the ACT.

This is what enables developers to get away with too high, too wide, too deep, too intensive, too everything bad, and not enough of the good, and drags planning into the mud (aided and abetted by ACTPLA who are incapable of simply applying a set of rules. It is this discretion that allows corruption to start – I’m not saying that it has but there are always plenty of rumours around.

Aussielyn, what Corbell, Savery, ACTPLA and developers fail to understand is that an adversarial planning system is the worst of all worlds. And what these “reforms” do is embed a lose-lose situation all round – the developers think they have a win, but this will eventually come back to bite them.

All adversarial systems, where there are ongoing irreconcilable differences between two parties, are subject to a pendulum effect. As one side starts to get the ascendancy, then pressure pushes the pendulum the other way.

So it is with the ACT planning system – the so-called “red tape” is a set of rules that have been developed to prevent developer abuse, and have been enacted in response to specific breaches; when those rules are seen as over-benefiting one side, then the lawmakers start to erode them.

It’s a moot point as to whether the pendulum in the ACT has swung too far in favour of residents, as opposed to developers – under Corbell, who uses call-in powers like confetti, who has abolished the LAPACs and never replaced them (using instead the quite inappropriate Community Councils), and so forth, citizen rights have already been eroded to almost nothing.

That is why I claim, I believe with absolute accuracy, that Corbell is the most anti-resident, pro-developer Planning Minister this territory has ever seen. When he first got that role, he was welcomed by community groups with open arms, after the pretty dud Brendan Smyth. Corbell’s main claim to fame now is that he has managed to make Brendan look like an intellectual giant.

It’s OK to criticise from the sidelines – I also believe that criticism brings with it a responsibility to be part of the solution.

I believe that the solution is to have a collaborative, rather than an adversarial, planning system. In this model, the community has a defined role to play in both developing policy, and oversight of implementation.

The community, within defined rules, would be given the opportunity to scrutinise planning proposals during the pre-application process.

When the community has “signed off’ on proposals, then they would have no more objection/appeal rights, unless there are compliance issues, eg the developer builds something different to what has been agreed to.

What this does is ensure that delays for developers due to objections and appeals are reduced; costs are contained and aggravation is kept to a minimum. The planning authority is then determining proposals based on clearly defined rules (rather than having discretion, as they currently have, as to what is compliant or not); and affected residents know exactly what will occur in their neighbourhoods.

The biggest gripe by residents is that development that occurs in their neighbourhoods is unexpected, ad hoc, opportunistic and all-too-often, inappropriate. A collaborative approach would make this renewal process more of a partnership, rather than having entrenched pro- and anti-development positions. The Corbell proposals simply make things worse, and what will happen is that developer excesses will ultimately end in the pendulum swinging back again.

Why Corbell is singing the developers’ tume has me beat, specially after his recent dealings with Jolly Josip over ‘Bundah Caravan Park, and Terry “The Terminator” who is about to terminate Simon’s political career over EpiCentregate.

Corbell started to move down this collaborative path at one stage, by encouraging negotiated outcomes before cases went to the AAT. This approach works, but there is insufficient commitment to it, and it also occurs far too late in the process to be truly effective.

This one single line renders the whole bill completely pointless:

the Territory Plan has numeric limits (the “performance measures”), but these are allowed to be exceeded where the proposal meets the “Performance Objectives”.

It is like something off Yes Minister. Anytime they want to do something dodgy, they just have to come up with some creative ‘performance objectives’. Great. And I didn’t think planning could get any less resident-friendly in this town.

Chris
People will not find out the facts by reading the Canberra Times! The RA is a better source with your contributions.

It was in the pipeline, in the Planning System Reform Project, to do away with the yellow signs advising people that a DA has been lodged on the land. This is designed to minimise third party objections to a development. This is to get rid of people opposing development that is happening in their street and their suburb. In the future immediate neighbours adjacent to the development will only be able to object if they can prove they are materially disadvantaged. Your house can be surrounded on three sides by a block of flats and you have little chance of wining an appeal, as was the case with Lady Hicks of Turner in the AAT.
Residents of inner suburbs, in core areas, will be targets for more blocks of flats and Mac Mansions. There will be pressure to expand core areas. ACT Treasury has reaped more rates from the $5 billion worth of building in the last 5 years. It is now very evident who controls planning in the ACT. ACTPLA has only 2 building inspectors so self-regulation has vastly benefited the development lobby, developers pay accredited certifiers to sign off on their designs.
The “ Reform” has shown that developers can now feel their power, of their lobbying investment, on their bottom line.

There’s two aspects to the debate on public consultation. The first is that government doesn’t know everything – there are tried and trusted reasons, and processes for seeking public comment on various proposals. Indeed, the ACT govt is seeking public input into the changes to the planning rules. The problem is that Corbell at al are working on the principle that if they get the planning rules set, then there is no need to consult or have objection/appeal rights on individual DAs. Experience has shown that this does not work, as firstly, developers push the boundaries, secondly decision-makers regularly get it wrong (see the AAT for many examples), and thirdly ACTPLA’s ability to enforce compliance with the rules is very weak.

The second aspect to this argument is that industry groups (HIA, MBA, PCA, etc) have very large budgets and have become powerful vested interest influencers through political donations. Community groups have no such influence, and govts (whether intentional or not) are easily swayed by noisy and infleuntial people (Terry Snow is one example, although he and Corbell have now had a falling out).

As an example, the PCA last year charged their members $31,500 each for the lobbying that is done on their behalf.

The PCA has already issued a press release supporting the proposed changes and the ABC is reporting that the MBA is equally thrilled by the planning changes.

When developers are wetting themselves with excitement, we should be very worried.

What you are really saying is that you no longer trust the people that you elected to represent you to in fact represent you. I would suggest that you have lost your faith in government and probably never had faith in th eprivate sector … so you create “public consultation” as another check and balance. This id despite being (as part of a collective) responsible for putting the government in place that you no longer trust

No, it’s when the public is excluded and scrutiny is inadequate. Allsorts of things happen behind closed doors – we need to be able to shed light on these deals. It’s like the current RA debates on school closures, censorship of crime data, the “Bundah caravan park, and so on.

Not only does the public have a right to know, it is (or should be) part of the process. Doesn’t matter if it’s govt or private or both – there must always be the public as the third element (and of course, the media (fourth estate) as well).

Or is it when Government’s get involved

AAP News is today reporting:

“Tasmania’s auditor-general Mike Blake will
audit a controversial deal between deputy premier Bryan Green and the state’s builder accreditation body.
Mr Blake announced the audit today, almost one month after requesting documents relating to Mr Green’s deal with the Tasmanian Compliance Corporation (TCC).
It is the third investigation being conducted into the deal, which guaranteed the TCC a lucrative three year monopoly on builder
accreditation or a compensation payout worth $2.5 million.”

This is what happens when there is no community oversight of what goes on between the government and private enterprise. The greatest crime of these proposed planning changes, and what Corbell has done since becoming Planning Minister, is to remove the role and input of community groups into the planning process.

Left to their own devices, govt and industry will set up cosy little deals like they have done in Tasmania.