Speeches: 2004
Planning from the grass roots up
The topic - Planning from the Grass Roots Up - is a timely one as local government and planners come under pressure from a number of quarters. Unfortunately, it seems some people want planning to come from the top down. Planning is one of the most critical tools in developing and shaping our communities. Planning instruments make our cities and towns liveable. They shape the character of our communities and defines our landscapes. Planning outcomes make or break our communities.
Address to Planning Institute of Australias Local Government Forum
Councillor Mike Montgomery
President, Australian Local Government Association
22 February 2004: Hobart
Thank you Chairman.
I'd like to start by congratulating the Local Government Planning Network and the Planning Institute of Australia for hosting this important forum in this the Year of the Built Environment.
The topic - Planning from the Grass Roots Up - is a timely one as local government and planners come under pressure from a number of quarters. Unfortunately, it seems some people want planning to come from the top down.
Planning is one of the most critical tools in developing and shaping our communities. Planning instruments make our cities and towns liveable. They shape the character of our communities and defines our landscapes. Planning outcomes make or break our communities.
That's why your role as planners is so important and so highly regarded.
While our system works reasonably well, we do acknowledge the need for some reform. To this extent, we are keen to hear the view of planners and I'm keen to listen to what you have to say about the issues confronting us all.
Today, I'd like to look at the fighting - if I can put it that way - on four fronts.
I'd like to start by having a look at the reasons why local government is best placed to undertake the function of planning and to outline the core principles we apply to planning matters.
Planning has always been - and always will be - an issue of the upmost importance for Australian communities.
We all have a right to expect and enjoy the environmental amenity and well-being of our communities.
The essence of council involvement in planning is this - that local communities should have control of their own environment through democratically elected local government.
Planning is best carried out through the well established processes that involve professional planners working alongside the elected community representatives at the local government level.
Local government is elected and responsible for a broad range of services in a clearly defined geographic area.
This means that local government is better placed than the other two spheres of government to understand and meet the needs of its local community and in ways that are appropriate to local conditions.
The exercise of planning powers by local government is entirely in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that the functions of government should be exercised as closely as practicable to the affected citizens.
So, planning is about communities working together to achieve desired outcomes.
As the Principles of Local Democracy - as endorsed by the National General Assembly of Local Government - state:
A broad competency power must be granted to all local government authorities in Australia so that those authorities may respond to the needs of their communities in the most appropriate manner. There must be no limits imposed by other governments on the performance of local government's legitimate actitivities.
There's a further point to be made here and that's this. As the former mayor of Liverpool, Mark Latham, and ALGA have said for some time, as the world moves towards a more global future, there is a growing demand and desire for localism - that is greater engagement and participation at the community level. We need to be locking local communities into decision making processes - not locking them out.
Local government promotes urban development which:
- offers the best possible quality of life and environment for all residents
- achieves best practice in urban design
- provides appropriate protection and enhancement of heritage character and cultural identity
- is ecologically sustainable
- provides the choice of housing sought by our communities
Detailed local planning to achieve these outcomes must primarily remain the responsibility of local government. Other spheres of government should comply with planning and development policies properly adopted by the responsible local government.
As the government of Australian towns and cities, local government will continue to exercise its prime leadership role in shaping the short and longer term physical, economic, social and cultural development of urban areas and will actively involve local communities in these processes.
Local government seeks ongoing partnerships with state and federal governments to improve urban areas through policy development, integrated planning and implementing programs suited to local and regional circumstances.
These, then, are the principles and policies we apply to planning issues.
Why, then, are these principles under attack?
There is a clear campaign underway by the development industry to rein back council planning powers.
The criticism leveled at local government largely focuses on the way which development applications are processed.
While much of the criticism is ill-founded, we would agree that there is increasing pressure on local government planning systems. These come from a number of sources, including:
- continuing shortages of experienced planners
- severe pressure on local government finances restricting councils' ability to employ more staff and upgrade management systems
- increasingly complex legislative requirements imposed by other spheres of government
- growing demand from industry for faster decision-making processes
Today, we are seeing considerable pressure on local government from a number of quarters. Unfortunately, much of it is not aimed at addressing the core problems we face.
One source of pressure is coming from other spheres of government.
The NSW Local Government and Shires Associations last month said that there were so many planning reviews and enquiries underway that the situation was becoming - and I quote - "ridiculous".
The Associations said that, with no less than 10 major planning reviews announced in recent months, so-called planning reform in NSW was being carried out in a manner that was complex and illogical.
It has warned that what developers want - and what the Associations fear the state government will deliver them - is a system where development is rubber stamped with no community or council input, and where developers can buy their way around planning controls.
In South Australia, the state government is seeking to involve councils more in higher level planning policy development but they believe that the way to do that is to reduce council member's involvement in the approval process, rather than allowing greater delegation to flow from having supported and well resourced improved policy development.
The threat to local government planning powers is, of course, not unique to this country.
In the United Kingdom, the Local Government Association last year warned that the British Government's planning agenda will remove planning powers from local authorities and give them to new regional quangos.
Here in Australia, local government is more than willing to work with other spheres of government and industry groups to examine ways in which we can improve the planning approval process.
There are many examples of this work at the state level. For example, the Municipal Association of Victoria has released with the state government a pre-lodgement certification program that will significantly reduce planning application times for applicants and councils.
Glen Eira City Council piloted the innovative pre-lodgement certification initiative last year with impressive results. The average application decision time was reduced from 160 days with a 73 per cent approval rate to 55 days with a 92 per cent approval rate.
Another Victorian innovation is the Architect Expert Panel, a pilot project involving four councils. An initiative of the Institute of Architects, MAV and the state government, it encourages close co-operation between architects and local government in promoting good design outcomes.
These are the sorts of improvements we are looking for. Processes that achieve demonstrably better processes between architects, industry and government and better outcomes for the community at large.
Architects' complaints
I'd now like to mention comments made by some architects that adversely reflected on local government.
Last year, a small group of architects accused councils of "stifling good design" and "promoting junk building". In particular, they have been trying to remove the criteria of 'aesthetics' from the development assessment process, saying that - and I quote - "untrained council officers" and "mob-driven" councillors should not be deciding what is good and bad architecture in this country.
I fear that certain architects have been on something of a crusade and, in their enthusiasm to overrun the infidel, have told only one side of the story.
There are three points I'd like to make.
One: While councils earnestly encourage good design, there is no way the community will wear an open slather approach to planning and development. Architects and developers are not the sole arbiters of what makes a good building - it's the community that has to live with the results.
As I've said before, one architect's aesthetics can be an entire community's eyesore.
Two: Planning is a tough and increasingly difficult job. While councils are having difficulty attracting and retaining planners - there have been supply problems in the marketplace for some time - there has also been a dramatic increase in the range and complexity of development applications and the rules that apply to the approval process.
State governments are often the source of the problem - not councils - as they continue to set new and complex planning demands that councils must meet.
Three. Progress is being made on streamlining the application process - a point cheerfully ignored by some critics. Getting the balance right between the certainty required by developers and architects, and the standards required by the community, is no easy matter.
There will always be tension. But moving towards a better balance is possible and there's plenty happening to improve the system, as I have outlined earlier.
So, what needs to be improved?
DAF Model DA process
At the national level, local government is actively participating in the Development Assessment Forum.
It brings together local government, industry groups, planners and state and federal governments with the stated objective of harmonising Australian development assessment systems through the promotion of what is described as leading practice regulatory reform.
No harm in that, you might think. But as we get down to the tin tacks of the reform agenda, we are seeing some developments which, as they say, may disturb some viewers.
In the bid to harmonise the system, DAF commissioned the Centre for Developing Cities at the University of Canberra to develop a model of the development assessment process. Its report was provided to DAF in September last year.
Significantly, the consultants have said that they see enormous potential for making development assessment simpler, more logical and more effective for shared learning and for deriving full benefit from the impending digital transformations in both government and property.
Their vision is that, however complex the task of building sustainable cities and regions, stakeholders will be presented with simple steps through logical processes based on explicit criteria.
This - they say - should apply whatever the particular choices communities make about the more contentious aspects of development assessment.
The consultants' model presumes that there should be no third party appeal rights, that there should be a separation of roles - not delegated authority - between elected community representatives and planning staff and that there should be a single assessment body.
This turns the community into spectators and planners into box tickers.
The model now forms the basis of a consultation paper that is being circulated by DAF.
I should make it clear that the model now out for consultation is not endorsed by DAF. It is being issued by DAF to test the views of stakeholders.
DAF will determine its views on the consultation model before providing recommendations to the Local Government and Planning Ministerial Council, possibly as early as July.
The stated objectives are to cut red tape, deliver a quality built environment acceptable to the community, reduce costs, promote investment and create more jobs.
The criticisms levelled at the current system are that its confusing, slow and wasteful. It wants more consistent results.
The consultation model has three key elements - leading practice principles, leading practice and leading practice logic.
Under leading practice, the model seeks a separation of roles, with elected councillors taking responsibility for the development of planning policies and independent bodies being responsible for assessing applications against these policies.
What this is effectively saying, is that councillors should make planning policy but have no say in the approval process.
The existing situation is this - councillors rarely step into the DA process. When they do, it is nearly always to reflect community concern about specific developments.
The consultants say that the correct response to community concern about individual developments is to change the policy.
The trouble with the consultants' report and with the DAF model is that it simply fails to understand the relationship between the community and their elected representatives.
The reality is that, no matter how careful and how robust a planning policy might be, there will be applications that may technically conform with planning requirements, but will still incense the community.
And when a community gets upset, it wants, expects and deserves action from its councillors.
In other words, the reform process must not trample over the property rights of existing residents.
The model needs to be changed to ensure that councils can respond to community concern - not in some future planning policy - but in direct response to the immediate issues of the day.
We also need to remember that planning policies will always lag behind community expectation. Changing planning policies takes time, and often occurs in the wake of a controversial application.
Something more immediate is needed to ensure a community can stop something it doesn't want.
What the DAF model proposes is a policy of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.
My point is this - we need to ensure that councils have, to the fullest extent possible, the ability to respond to community concern. They are best placed to assess the will of the community because they are directly accountable to the community through the ballot box.
Yes, this must be a transparent and clearly defined process - but it has to be there.
The separation of roles as proposed in the DAF model is nothing short of an assault on the democratic process.
There are also other concerns with the model. In particular, the consultants envisaged a system with no third party appeals.
The DAF consultation document actually describes the model as having 'defined third party involvement'. But it states quite explicitly, that - and I quote - "unless an error in administration occurs, third parties are encouraged to advocate change to the policy driven criteria".
Now third party appeals are not universal, but I would think that this represents a further challenge to Australian communities that will get many community groups hot under the collar and, in my view, rightly so.
So, where does the model go now.
The Local Government and Planning Ministers Council on 13 February supported a broad-based consultation on the draft model and committed funding for this purpose. But it will only consider the content of the package after the consultation has occurred.
At the end of the day, however, it will be a matter for each state and territory to decide on what parts of the final model it will adopt.
I hope that there will be significant changes made as a result of the consultations and that the final model can be one which can be supported by the stakeholders represented on the DAF Board.
Productivity Commission Inquiry
Local government has come in for some criticism from another source - the construction industry. There has been a concerted campaign by some groups to remove the ability of councils to levy developer charges.
The Housing Industry Association, for example, argued that councils should no longer be allowed to levy infrastructure charges on the developers of housing estates, arguing instead for a state based infrastructure fund.
They said state and local government infrastructure charges could add $30,000 to the cost of a house and land package on a Sydney greenfields site.
But their arguments were given short shrift by the Productivity Commission, which is inquiring into first home ownership.
Its interim report said that the claimed savings from reducing developer charges appeared to be overstated, as most categories of charges were justified on efficiency and equity grounds.
The Commission considered charging for 'community-wide social infrastructure' may not be justified, but charges for such items have - it said - been generally small.
The Commission also said that debate about infrastructure charges appeared to have been clouded by lack of precision in terminology, with the term 'community' infrastructure being used synonymously with 'social' infrastructure, but actually encompassing major economic infrastructure.
Thus - it said - the HIA's suggestion that such charges amount to some $30,000 far exceeds - far exceeds - the true social component.
I might add that the Productivity Commission examined claims that planning approvals are taking longer and longer.
It rightly acknowledged that planning approvals require due process and this inevitably takes time.
While it said the processes appear to involve unnecessary delays, it found it hard to find the evidence to support this claim.
It examined a survey conducted by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects which suggested that processing times for both single new homes and medium density developments had increased in nearly all states.
But it said - and I quote - "It has been difficult to reconcile these estimates against the official data available from other sources".
The NSW Local Government Association decided to put claims of excessive delays to the test. It undertook a quantitative and qualitative survey of DA processing times last year. 56 councils participated in the survey.
The survey data was collated and analysed by independent consultants. The key findings of the survey were:
- Two-thirds of DAs were determined within the relevant timeframe.
- DAs that took longer to process were four times more likely to be non-compliant with council policy and four times more likely to have provided incomplete information.
- DAs that took longer to process were twice as likely to have been referred to a state government agency and almost twice as likely to have required public notification and referral to a council meeting.
The survey results support the following conclusions:
- Negative publicity relating to councils' DA processing times relates to a minority of DAs.
- DAs which comply with council codes and policies and provide all the required information are determined more quickly than non-compliant or incomplete DAs.
- While public notification and referral to council meetings impact on DA processing times, they are an important part of the community endorsed planning process, and in any case, only 4% of DAs go before a council meeting.
- The performance of local government in relation to DA processing is a two-way street.
The quality of development applications submitted to councils is a crucial factor in the time they take to be determined.
- The planning process would be improved if applicants improved the quality of their DAs.
- Where a council code or policy is tested or required information is not provided, some delay should be expected.
As we move forward and improve our planning systems, we must be sure to base our reforms on hard facts and not sacrifice the democratic rights of our citizens on the altar of commercial interests.
Let's have a balanced and sensible debate about planning reform.
Let's engage in meaningful and balanced reform around commonly agreed issues.
But whatever we do, we must not weaken the concept of 'planning from the grassroots up'.
Thank you.
Mike Motgomery, 22 February 2004
