The problem is that many objectors do cite planning code requirements but in a way that basically attempts to replicate councils job.
Very few developments comply 100% to the letter of the planning code instead they meet the performance criteria of the code.
For instance I had a situation where one part of one building within a townhouse complex was (possibly) higher than maximum height allowed by 15cm (I am talking part of the roof not even the whole roof).
Now people reading this may say well if you dont meet the planning code strictly then thats the developers problem. The problem is this, if there was no objections then council would see 15cm as negligble or a non-issue because the said development meets fully the intent of the code. Further more it can always be fixed (with time\money) but a 15cm change will have no material benefit to anyone (in most circumstance) - except when you block someones view etc.
Other objections second guess council and challenge their own assesment and start citing incorrect planning codes or stretching their intent.
My issue is that the objector couldnt care less if a part of the roof was potentially 15cm higher than technically allowable. They just dont want development.
I feel objectors should state clearly their OBJECTION to the development. Although receiving one appropriate objection (which was wrong and had to do with a contention regarding boundary lines) I have yet to receive a second OBJECTION which actually related to a personal objection with the development.
If objectors were truthfull they themselves know their so called objection wouldnt be given any credibility because it would start of something like...
"My objections with this development is that I dont like units, I dont like townhouses and I dont want this to occur in my street or suburb."
Instead what we get is...
"I object to this development because traffic would be a nightmare, its too big, its ugly, it doesnt fit into the streetscape, there isnt enough parking, the windows look over my house, my house will live in its shadow, i dont like how that shrub is being removed, and the noise created will be untolerable"
Council then grabs this and turns it into a please explain, something like...
"Please confim traffic, please provide a render or more elevations to show the bulk and scale, please show a shadow diagram, please have an arborist confirm no vegetation on site is protected and have a detailed acoustic report... and so on and so on"
20-30 thousand dollars and 3-4 months later council then move onto the (sometimes) legitimate concerns they may have with the development itself when their professionals look at the application as opposed to an frustrated neighbor who works as a part time hair-stylist and angry with us developing the site!
Its a tiresome process and the issue is this. If there was no objections then council would concentrate on the issues, if there are objections then council just asks the applicant as if money\time was never an issue to beef up all reports, provide more report, detail etc regardless of whether the issue is valid in any way shape or form or whether the objector has any knowledge at all about the objections made themselves...
A debate in Australia needs to take place as to how we handle individuals concerns (or so called objections). Somehow developers are made out to be the destroyers of suburbs.
Ill end with a little story I found amusing which frustratingly highlights the stupidity of many peoples stance against development in general.
I had one objector cry fowl that she has been living in a suburb for over 30 years and went on an on about she has the right to not see the suburb she has lived in for so long destroyed!
My town planner (who was with me) politely said I have been living here (same suburb by coincidence) for over 50 years and when we bought there was only 7 houses including his own. They then sold off the majority of their land to a developer who then land subdivided the block she now owns and lives on...
ironic isnt it.. it would be funny if it wasnt so painful.
Also do you think this story made one iota of a difference in here stance or thinking? fat chance..
Hi Tim, I tried to post the following as a comment but the damn comment options thingy is beyond me -
Outstanding! I'm not a developer, but work in the construction industry, and well-know of the months - often stretching to years - countless of my customers have faced getting DAs approved for never any good reason. Your proposal to require development objections to cite valid code or process violations to merit council consideration is spot on. This could begin simply by requiring councils to do so in their rejections of DAs, rather than with interminable vague references to "amenity". Above all, a change in the entire planning approval structure is required from a 'show cause why' a development should be approved to a 'show cause why not' position. And perhaps Salt's suggestion of an industry body or think tank to campaign for such change has indeed come. Good work!
