{"id":396,"date":"2006-09-02T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-09-01T20:00:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"-0001-11-29T14:00:00","slug":"streamliningtheplanningprocess-ornot-396","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/2006\/09\/02\/streamliningtheplanningprocess-ornot-396\/","title":{"rendered":"Streamlining the planning process – or not!"},"content":{"rendered":"

On the 30 of August the Minister released his "cutting red tape in planning" report<\/a>, which is the result (so far) of the round table and working group on the issue (or you can download the report from us<\/a>) <\/p>\n

For a history of this issue, see our previous write up<\/a>, and our original comments<\/a> from when this project was announced.<\/p>\n

In summary, what the paper proposes is tweaking around the edges of the major problems with the planning system – indeed it makes some things worse by removing items from the planning system. It has also missed a good opportunity to address key issues. <\/p>\n

In addition, while some of the headings look quite good -and we would agree with the sentiments, the action items listed won’t actually achieve the headings goal. <\/p>\n

The major sections of the report<\/a> are – <\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Introduce a code assess track<\/strong>
    \n If done right (!) we agree code asses is a good idea. However, at the same time we must tighten up the ‘merit’ process, so that it is harder to get bad developments through.<\/em>
    \n <\/li>\n
  2. Expand e-planning capability<\/strong>
    \n While all the services mentioned are a good idea, key services are missing, and the time frame are extended for what should be a comparatively small simple system (50,000 planning applications a year are insignificant for modern computer systems). <\/em>
    \n<\/li>\n
  3. Refine Referrals<\/strong>
    \n Seems fine, but is not a major problem for many applications.<\/em>
    \n <\/li>\n
  4. Align notification and review with impact<\/strong>
    \n Notifications are an area that need substantial reform – but in the OPPOSITE<\/strong> direction implied by this section ie the major problem currently is not enough<\/strong> notification, not too much!
    \n <\/em> <\/li>\n
  5. Promote efficient decision-making<\/strong>
    \n Investigating delegation models, or Councilors abdicating their planning decisions, does NOT<\/strong> promote better decision-making!<\/em>
    \n <\/li>\n
  6. Reduce amendment timeframes & documentation <\/strong>
    \n Does not address the underlying problems, including the time taken by the Department and the Minister.<\/em>
    \n <\/li>\n
  7. Remove unnecessary matters<\/strong>
    \n This is NOT the way to ‘streamline’ the planning process! It causes more problems than it solves!<\/em><\/strong>     See our previous comments.<\/a>
    \n <\/li>\n
  8. Review targeted VPP provisions<\/strong>
    \n Given many of these provisions – ie car parking – are simply not working, they need to be reviewed. However, the focus of the review should be to improve outcomes, not make the process easier for developers!
    \n <\/em> <\/li>\n
  9. Make State Policy more relevant to local decision-making<\/strong>
    \n This needs to be addressed in a number of ways – including improving the status of local policies and their relation to state policies. These issues are not properly addressed in the recommendations either here or in part 10.
    \n <\/em> <\/li>\n
  10. Make local planning policy stronger<\/strong>
    \n While the heading looks good, none of the listed actions will strengthen local policies! Indeed the preamble implies it is a local council problem that these local policies are not effective, where in reality it is the State planning policies and VCAT that are making them close to useless!
    \n <\/em> <\/li>\n
  11. Develop skills<\/strong>
    \n While we are all for developing planning skills, it would be much better to improve the planning system <\/strong>and make it easier to use (ie more mandatory planning provisions etc). If planning was done properly ie like the Vancouver model of specific planning requirements, the need for ‘skilled’ staff would be greatly reduced.
    \n <\/em> <\/li>\n
  12. Share resources<\/strong>
    \n The key problem here is not that there aren’t enough planners, but that the current system is too discretionary and resource intensive. This is not addressed by the recommendations.<\/em>
    \n <\/li>\n
  13. Improve enforcement capacity<\/strong>
    \n Enforcement is currently a major problem, with many developments just retrospectively applying for permits. The recommended actions don’t address any of the significant issues.
    \n <\/em> <\/li>\n
  14. The Planning and Environment Act 1987<\/strong>
    \n Yes, this is 20 years old and needs to be reviewed.<\/em>
    \n <\/li>\n
  15. Update planning fees
    \n <\/strong>Yes, this needs to be reviewed, mainly in the upward direction for large developments! <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Our original Submission<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    On the 30 of August the Minister released his "cutting red tape in planning" report<\/a>, which is the result (so far) of the round table and working group on the issue (or you can download the report from us<\/a>) <\/p>\n

    For a history of this issue, see our previous write up<\/a>, and our original comments<\/a> from when this project was announced.<\/p>\n

    In summary, what the paper proposes is tweaking around the edges of the major problems with the planning system – indeed it makes some things worse by removing items from the planning system. It has also missed a good opportunity to address key issues. <\/p>\n

    In addition, while some of the headings look quite good -and we would agree with the sentiments, the action items listed won’t actually achieve the headings goal. <\/p>\n

    The major sections of the report<\/a> are – <\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Introduce a code assess track<\/strong>
      \n If done right (!) we agree code asses is a good idea. However, at the same time we must tighten up the ‘merit’ process, so that it is harder to get bad developments through.<\/em>
      \n <\/li>\n
    2. Expand e-planning capability<\/strong>
      \n While all the services mentioned are a good idea, key services are missing, and the time frame are extended for what should be a comparatively small simple system (50,000 planning applications a year are insignificant for modern computer systems). <\/em>
      \n<\/li>\n
    3. Refine Referrals<\/strong>
      \n Seems fine, but is not a major problem for many applications.<\/em>
      \n <\/li>\n
    4. Align notification and review with impact<\/strong>
      \n Notifications are an area that need substantial reform – but in the OPPOSITE<\/strong> direction implied by this section ie the major problem currently is not enough<\/strong> notification, not too much!
      \n <\/em> <\/li>\n
    5. Promote efficient decision-making<\/strong>
      \n Investigating delegation models, or Councilors abdicating their planning decisions, does NOT<\/strong> promote better decision-making!<\/em>
      \n <\/li>\n
    6. Reduce amendment timeframes & documentation <\/strong>
      \n Does not address the underlying problems, including the time taken by the Department and the Minister.<\/em>
      \n <\/li>\n
    7. Remove unnecessary matters<\/strong>
      \n This is NOT the way to ‘streamline’ the planning process! It causes more problems than it solves!<\/em><\/strong>       See our previous comments.<\/a>
      \n <\/li>\n
    8. Review targeted VPP provisions<\/strong>
      \n Given many of these provisions – ie car parking – are simply not working, they need to be reviewed. However, the focus of the review should be to improve outcomes, not make the process easier for developers!
      \n <\/em> <\/li>\n
    9. Make State Policy more relevant to local decision-making<\/strong>
      \n This needs to be addressed in a number of ways – including improving the status of local policies and their relation to state policies. These issues are not properly addressed in the recommendations either here or in part 10.
      \n <\/em> <\/li>\n
    10. Make local planning policy stronger<\/strong>
      \n While the heading looks good, none of the listed actions will strengthen local policies! Indeed the preamble implies it is a local council problem that these local policies are not effective, where in reality it is the State planning policies and VCAT that are making them close to useless!
      \n <\/em> <\/li>\n
    11. Develop skills<\/strong>
      \n While we are all for developing planning skills, it would be much better to improve the planning system <\/strong>and make it easier to use (ie more mandatory planning provisions etc). If planning was done properly ie like the Vancouver model of specific planning requirements, the need for ‘skilled’ staff would be greatly reduced.
      \n <\/em> <\/li>\n
    12. Share resources<\/strong>
      \n The key problem here is not that there aren’t enough planners, but that the current system is too discretionary and resource intensive. This is not addressed by the recommendations.<\/em>
      \n <\/li>\n
    13. Improve enforcement capacity<\/strong>
      \n Enforcement is currently a major problem, with many developments just retrospectively applying for permits. The recommended actions don’t address any of the significant issues.
      \n <\/em> <\/li>\n
    14. The Planning and Environment Act 1987<\/strong>
      \n Yes, this is 20 years old and needs to be reviewed.<\/em>
      \n <\/li>\n
    15. Update planning fees
      \n <\/strong>Yes, this needs to be reviewed, mainly in the upward direction for large developments! <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Our original Submission<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-396","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-statepolitics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/396","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=396"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/396\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=396"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=396"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sos.asn.au\/vic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=396"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}