Planning in chaos!

[tcocaro]

I have written this post to hopefully begin a discussion on how we can solve the countrys planning chaos which I am sure most would agree is hindering our nations ability to move forward whether its because of affordability, lack of infrastructure or any of the 100 other issues as a consequence of our poor planning system!


Planning in chaos!

Today planning is largely a function of local and state governments whether it’s a single house in the burbs or a skyrise in the city developers cannot get anything done without a government rubber seal of approval.

To ensure orderly development councils put in place a myriad of development controls in order to ensure what is built meets both building guide lines and town planning objectives.

Given our democratic system of government it was only logical that such a process would not only involve the applicant being the developer and the council reviewing it but also the public which would be affected by such a proposal.

All of this sounds very logical and understandable so why is planning across the country in such a mess. Its virtually impossible to get anything approved within 6 months and if the development falls within a nimby prone suburb your dreaming if its happening any sooner than 12 months if at all.

Such delays ensure costs go up, deliver of new housing is restricted and affordability is made worse not to mention preventing much needed public infrastructure getting off the ground.

So why are we in this mess? Is it because of those, damn greedy developers wanting to turn the world into a concrete jungle! Or is it the greens who believe we all should be living in sustainable mud huts and growing vegies on our roofs? Or perhaps it’s the locals shouting not in my backyard. Or maybe it’s just your run of the mill bureaucracy we have come to accept from our governments.

In my view it’s none of these. Don’t get me wrong these play their part but they are not the root cause of the problem. The problem is democracy and our democratic way of thinking ensuring everyone has a right for their views to be heard. Don’t get me wrong, I am not promoting dictatorship so hear me out.

Lets take train lines for instance, these cannot get done not only because of cost but because no one wants a train line running through their backyard! Take the hills area in NSW so desperately wanting better public transport but hold a town meeting today with the promise that a train line is theirs for the taking and decision would not be made thanks to the thousands of property owners directly affected withdrawing their support.

So what’s the solution? Better laws? Better planning? NO, very smart and well intentioned people have tried this. Fundamentally building a house is simple so is setting a framework around it to ensure its built right but making sure everyone is happy with that house being there is another story!

The problem is that since planning affects so many people i.e. those already living in the suburb, those around the suburb, those wanting to live there, developers, builders, environmentalists and the list goes on, its impossible for all parties to be happy.

Making matters worse sometimes entire electorates become enthralled in particular planning issue which ensures the local member for that area has no choice to fight against such developments with tooth and nail despite such a development being critical for the state.

The needs of the few outweighs the needs of the many, train-lines, new roads, better housing etc are all delayed because a suburb didn’t want to have the line running through their suburb and the local member was up for re-election.

This is why I suggest that planning is taken out of the hands of council and into the hands of an independent government body similar to the RBA. I would envisage the mechanisations to be similar with the head being a government appointee, a charter and objectives but fundamentally independent.

To understand such a radical solution one only needs to look at why the RBA was made independent in the first place. Politicians themselves know very well that they could never be allowed to control the monetary levers of the economy because monetary actions are so counter intuitive to most.

Can you even imagine a world were political leaders could by the stroke of a pen raise or drop interest rates? The political pressure to make such monetary decisions void of economic rational would be enormous and it would be absolute chaos!

So governments around the world made the decision to shift the responsibilities for such a critical process to an independent central bank. In short removing political interference and by extension public debate as to whether or not rates should go up or down i.e. contrary to our democratic ideals! But it’s for our own good basically the rate of interest should be set to ensure the economy as a whole prospers. Without independence there would be chaos!

The same chaos we face today in our planning system. If there was a separate independent planning body that made planning decisions independently of political interference then we would all be much better off.

 

[.toe]

Good idea tcocaro, it certainly would ensure that the right motivations are in place, and a solution is desparately needed for planning and also infrastructure.

The issue though might be political will, because we have vacuous election campaigning and a general political recession. I dont see mention of the need for any type of reform. It's all about how you balance the budget (handout vs back to surplus). I'm not sure that the states are any better.

 

[pdawg]

Great post!

Tcocaro

Great post! I have a few questions though:

How would the independent body compensate those who are directly affected by the developments? Is there a threshold on the amount of compensation? E.g the residents believes their property is worth X amount while the independent body only values the property at Y amount (significantly less than the owner's valuation). What laws or controls would you put around this? I understand the need for development... but as a taxpayer I am not prepared to have all my taxes go towards a stubborn NIMBY!

The media! You can't have change in this country without the media. How do you think the media would portray this change? The media is mostly negative except for that little 1 minute spin after the weather on the nightly news. I can picture a story on Today Tonight about how a bulldozer ran over an 80 year old protesting resident fighting to save his home holding a cardboard sign. Could the media be the success or failure of this proposed change? Time will tell

Where to start? NSW is such a bloody mess, I can't speak on behalf of the other states but as you outlined... the Hills area is one place screaming for better transportation planning and development but I am sure there are many others. Which areas take precedence? How much control (geographically) does this independent body have initially? Would they take baby steps in small regions first or go guns blazing across the country?

 

[Bargain Hunter]

If a building and its usage complies with the zoning and the requirements for that zoning, then there should be no need for community consultation, the building and its purpose should be approved following confirmation of its compliance. This should take no more than 2 weeks.

If the building goes outside of these boundaries be it due to building purpose, operating hours, height or size and so forth then it would need to be assessed further based on the level of non-compliance.

No-one should be able to say you cannot build something that is compliant because they don't like how it looks. This is what we had with one of our developments. It went to a central planning committee and one of the committee members did not like the facade. This delayed the development and added around $200k in additional costs, when the building was compliant at day one.

 

[tcocaro]

Thanks. I think my solution is more fantasy than reality as it would take monumental political will for something like that to get off the ground. However there are currently quasi attempts at it now, for instance;

The NSW planning minister has the right to arppove\decline applications single handedly. This is an attempt to circumvent the collapsed system but everyone agrees this is a temporary and very wrong solution that cannot possibly continue.

Also in Brisbane there is now Risk Smart which is an attempt to remove council from the planning process.

I just hope that something gets done because it hurts me to see the stalemate that we are in. I would love to see this country get up on its feet and do what must be done, acheive what we can acheive and set the pace rather than lag behind and wait until we have no other option.

Good idea tcocaro, it certainly would ensure that the right motivations are in place, and a solution is desparately needed for planning and also infrastructure.

The issue though might be political will, because we have vacuous election campaigning and a general political recession. I dont see mention of the need for any type of reform. It's all about how you balance the budget (handout vs back to surplus). I'm not sure that the states are any better.

 

[lizzie]

it's about time we stopped listening to the vocal minority and listened to the quiet majority instead.

i agree that if something is compliant then it should be passed ... and i'd love to see some leaders in the play who have some balls to do what needs to be done and aren't just pandering from one election to the other.

 

[.toe]

If you are thinking of putting together an email and a mailing list to bunches of pollies I would certainly add my name to it, and I'm sure others here would

Dunno if it'd help though?!

Thanks. I think my solution is more fantasy than reality as it would take monumental political will for something like that to get off the ground. However there are currently quasi attempts at it now, for instance;

The NSW planning minister has the right to arppove\decline applications single handedly. This is an attempt to circumvent the collapsed system but everyone agrees this is a temporary and very wrong solution that cannot possibly continue.

Also in Brisbane there is now Risk Smart which is an attempt to remove council from the planning process.

I just hope that something gets done because it hurts me to see the stalemate that we are in. I would love to see this country get up on its feet and do what must be done, acheive what we can acheive and set the pace rather than lag behind and wait until we have no other option.

 

[Dazz]

i'd love to see some leaders in the play who have some balls to do what needs to be done and aren't just pandering from one election to the other.

Agreed lizzie, trouble is, as you know, the vocal majority have all these whizz bang labels that they plaster on anyone who speaks out against their particular pet hate. People in general cave in immediately when they get labelled.

The issue goes out the door, and the labels take precedent. Media latches onto the label, and then before you know it, you have a Pauline Hanson sized media beat up.

Issues and subjects don't rate a mention nowadays. She's all just spin and hair-dos and makeovers and more image. They are into earlobe sizes, eyebrows, pot bellys, you name it.

Substance has long been forgotten, and she's just spin spin spin.

It's going to take a massive turnaround to tackle the media problem. Negative questioning, irrelevant questioning, rude questioning, personal questioning, it's completely shambolic and the leaders cop the lot.

Editors in the darkened studios can make anyone look like a complete idiot. Two hours of good solid commentary, with 10 seconds of slip up.....they choose to show the 10 seconds. 22 million people see that and think / form an opinion that they are an idiot....power of the media is out of control....hence every leader surrounds themselves with shields and spin doctors.

 

[tcocaro]

I am thinking that given the number of people active on this forum many of which much smarter than myself that perhaps we could come up with some ideas that might turn into something more...

Wishfull thinking I know but its better than doing nothing at all..

If you are thinking of putting together an email and a mailing list to bunches of pollies I would certainly add my name to it, and I'm sure others here would

Dunno if it'd help though?!

 

[.toe]

Editors in the darkened studios can make anyone look like a complete idiot. Two hours of good solid commentary, with 10 seconds of slip up.....they choose to show the 10 seconds. 22 million people see that and think / form an opinion that they are an idiot....power of the media is out of control....hence every leader surrounds themselves with shields and spin doctors.

You dont even have to believe in a conspiracy to play people as idiots. One of the main imperatives in journalism is to offer both sides of a story equally. Trouble is it's not always the case that both sides of a story warrant equal treatment.

As one example, much of the climate change debate was muddied because journalists tried to give equal time to scientists arguing for, and lay people and politicians arguing against. But lay people shouldn't get equal time with scientists on the arguement of whether climate change exists.

 

[tcocaro]

toe.

Exactly, I totally agree with your comments. Journalists under the guise of having a "fair and balanced argument" think by getting two opposing views together is good journalism regardless if on one side you have a respected scientist and the other some crackhead who happens to disagree.

Global warming is a good example, another closer to home could include a certain economist who beleives there will be 4X% drops despite the vast majority of economists disagreeing.

The problem is the vast majority of people are idiots. For instance if you filled a stadium full of scientists and split them into 2 groups, global warming beleivers and deniers and had a debate this would work. Why? because there will be literally thousands on one side and a few on the other - it would make good tv.

Most people would conclude "surely that many scientists cant be wrong"

however hold a debate with the most respected scientist from each side and its anyones guess on how the public will react - most probably with innaction and confusion.

The same applies for economics, planning or any other topical point.

People shaking their heads when reading this will no doubt point out the fact that a lone voice against the many doesnt necessarily have to be wrong just because their views go against the grain.

The problem is if we constantly ignore the many over the few, more times than not we will constantly be backing the wrong horse.

I would follow the general consensus of 100 economists that prices wont drop by 40% rather than listen to 1 that does.

I would follow the general consensus of 100 scientists that global warming exists rather than listen to 1 that doesnt.

I would listen to the general consensus of 10 doctors on how to treat cancer rather than 1 herbalist.

People are free to disagree but when the outcome affects us all I beleive the herbalist, the 1 wacky scientist and the (lets not mention his name) economist can all go to hell.

We need to rely on the best available information at the time. Should that be proven wrong we can go back and listen to those lone voices but to constantly listen to them upfront is a recipe for delay and confusion.

You dont even have to believe in a conspiracy to play people as idiots. One of the main imperatives in journalism is to offer both sides of a story equally. Trouble is it's not always the case that both sides of a story warrant equal treatment.

As one example, much of the climate change debate was muddied because journalists tried to give equal time to scientists arguing for, and lay people and politicians arguing against. But lay people shouldn't get equal time with scientists on the arguement of whether climate change exists.

 

[tcocaro]

Lizzie I agree with you however I am also realistic and pragmatic. I dont blame politicians for their stances given many times they have no choice. When their constituents all rally against a development it would be political suicide to go against his\her own voters.

He\she will be kicked out of office so why would that politician take such an action? It may sound noble and the right thing to do but the reality is it would be political suicide.

Hence why my suggestion attempts to remove political interference from the decision making process much like the RBA has. Unless such a stance is taken the entire country will always be held to ransome by the few that are worse off (or most times perceive to be worse off).

To be honest ask yourself how you would react if you were told Sydneys second airport will be built in your suburb? Suddenly your enthusiam might change.

Personally I would prefer to have faith that a committee was in place and decided my suburb was the best choice rather than what we have now that my suburb was propbably selected because its a safe labor seat rather than the right suburb for an airport but it happen to be a political marginal seat.

People have learnt to just accept the RBA decision (more or less) on their position to raise or drop rates. There will be debate but more or less we agree that they are trying to make the best decision possible free of interference. We need to work towards a model such as that for our planning decisions.

We need to debate the makeup of the model, who is in the committee and how it is structure rather than trying to debate every single development application that ever comes before a council.

it's about time we stopped listening to the vocal minority and listened to the quiet majority instead.

i agree that if something is compliant then it should be passed ... and i'd love to see some leaders in the play who have some balls to do what needs to be done and aren't just pandering from one election to the other.

 

[tcocaro]

If you have developed you know this isnt the case in reality. Every application has a submission period were people have their chance to complain. The complaints are always the same, traffic, eyesore, blocking views, over-development etc.

THe main issue is that many of the code\regulations are performance based so its up for interpretation. For example "Building must be similar in bulk and size as to adjoining buildings" compared to "code based" which would say something more likie "Building must be 9m high and no more than 20m wide.."

Further more even if an objection may not be valid i.e. the plans submitted meet code requirements council may still "ask" for you to change the plans. At this point the developer either says no or just does the change to make the process run faster.

This causes delays regardless if the developer agrees or disagrees given a monumental amount of time was absorbed to even get to that point. First, a submissions period must have occured, council would need to review the submissions, the developers town planner must respond to them, the council must read the response, the council needs to respond to this, the developer must then respond to council and then council must decide if not request the same thing again! This process can take months.

I know of developers (this is no joke) that submit and application to council and on the same day submit an application into the land and environment court (which takes 6 months to hear your case). As soon as the land & environment court is prepared to hear their case the developer (deem refuses his\her own application) and seeks the courts to approve it as they beleive its quicker.

This is just absurd! but goes to show how ill the planning system we have today actually is.

If a building and its usage complies with the zoning and the requirements for that zoning, then there should be no need for community consultation, the building and its purpose should be approved following confirmation of its compliance. This should take no more than 2 weeks.

If the building goes outside of these boundaries be it due to building purpose, operating hours, height or size and so forth then it would need to be assessed further based on the level of non-compliance.

No-one should be able to say you cannot build something that is compliant because they don't like how it looks. This is what we had with one of our developments. It went to a central planning committee and one of the committee members did not like the facade. This delayed the development and added around $200k in additional costs, when the building was compliant at day one.

 

[tcocaro]

Answered below;

Tcocaro

Great post! I have a few questions though:

How would the independent body compensate those who are directly affected by the developments? Is there a threshold on the amount of compensation? E.g the residents believes their property is worth X amount while the independent body only values the property at Y amount (significantly less than the owner's valuation). What laws or controls would you put around this? I understand the need for development... but as a taxpayer I am not prepared to have all my taxes go towards a stubborn NIMBY!

Ok this might be touchy but I dont think they should be compensated. Just like the RBA doesnt compensate those adversley affected by interest rate rise neither should the proposed planning body. Except in the situation where land has to be acquired. However in the example were a train line runs nearby so long as its constructed to code i.e. privacy/noise/safety meets requirements then there should be no compensation. When someone buys a property they are buying a property NOT the right for nothing to ever be built around them.

The media! You can't have change in this country without the media. How do you think the media would portray this change? The media is mostly negative except for that little 1 minute spin after the weather on the nightly news. I can picture a story on Today Tonight about how a bulldozer ran over an 80 year old protesting resident fighting to save his home holding a cardboard sign. Could the media be the success or failure of this proposed change? Time will tell

No solution. However I feel if somehow the planning body gets implemented then the media attention will get less. For instance the media rarely attacks the RBA directly when they raise rates.. hopefull the planning body once in place would be treated similarly (I am dreaming a little I know)

Where to start? NSW is such a bloody mess, I can't speak on behalf of the other states but as you outlined... the Hills area is one place screaming for better transportation planning and development but I am sure there are many others. Which areas take precedence? How much control (geographically) does this independent body have initially? Would they take baby steps in small regions first or go guns blazing across the country?

Good question. I would assume that any system would have to be phased in given it will be near impossible to simply take over the entire nations\state planning structure overnight. Councils will still have to be responsible for part of the planning e.g. swimming pools etc so there will need to be a division of responsabilities made first. I would assume those suburbs posing least resistant to the idea would be first - realistically. Personally I would like to see a small and mid sized LGA adopt the system first in order for any teething issues to be ironed out.

 

[Amadio]

Approvals in one day

Perhaps the chaos could start being more orderly at the local level and spread out from there, rather than from the fed down.

E.g. In this town in California, developers, remodellers, home builders have everything so clearly and precisely laid out that they can get their plans together and get approval in one day. It is called the One-Stop Permit centre and the available staff is large and efficient. 90% of all applications are approved in less than one day. I know it really works because I've done it.
http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments...itsPlanChecksandFees/OneStopPermitCenter.aspx

But of course, the overall planning for the city has already taken place - that's why developers know what they can and can't do way in advance of purchasing land, and why the subsequent process can be so streamlined.

 

[Rockstar]

that's why developers know what they can and can't do way in advance of purchasing land, and why the subsequent process can be so streamlined.

I wonder what this effect has on the development market. Develelopers are a fairly rare breed in society because it really takes some balls to confront the risks involved - especially pertaining to planning approvals. If the planning controls were set up so that this risk is eliminated through DA approval certainty I wonder how many new developers we would see entering the market? As a small developer I have an advantage over 'wanna be' developers because I have a thorough understanding of, and experience with, the intricacies of the local current planning controls. This acts as my risk minimisation strategy.

If these controls become so blatantly easy to follow will there be more developers flooding the market??

 

[tcocaro]

I completely agree there is a paradox here the more difficult and convoluted planning laws are the higher our profit. This is why even builders stay out of the development game (the majority that is) due to the complexity\risk.

Lets be honest planning will never reach the point (not in my lifetime) that I turn up to a front desk with plans for a multi-unit development and get it stamped on the day.

Barring that it would be nice to not have to wait 12 months for a duplex either.

I wonder what this effect has on the development market. Develelopers are a fairly rare breed in society because it really takes some balls to confront the risks involved - especially pertaining to planning approvals. If the planning controls were set up so that this risk is eliminated through DA approval certainty I wonder how many new developers we would see entering the market? As a small developer I have an advantage over 'wanna be' developers because I have a thorough understanding of, and experience with, the intricacies of the local current planning controls. This acts as my risk minimisation strategy.

If these controls become so blatantly easy to follow will there be more developers flooding the market??

 

[.toe]

For those outside Victoria it's worth following up on what has happened in Melbourne with the plans to redevelop the Windsor Hotel. Here's a brief from memory.

Successive owners have been saying the beautiful old hotel is now too far outside current 5 star hotel models that it cant survive and needs redevelopment. The current owners put in a proposal. Jump forward, a journalist at the ABC receives a fax mistakenly sent (leaked?). It's from the planning ministers office and it's a media plan from his media advisor. Part of it mentions a plan to create a 'sham public consultation process' regarding the Windsor Hotel, so that they can use whatever negative comments are raised in order to clobber the development proposal for political reasons (votes).

The government were very embarassed by this so they sacked the media advisor, and denied she had been instructed to develop this media plan. There was a senate enquiry and the advisor and other government staff were called. But they were stopped, first by the minister, then by the attorney general, then by the premier. The government quickly passed the proposal and sprouted on about how fast the planning process is in Victoria. Don't you love a happy ending !?

If you have developed you know this isnt the case in reality. Every application has a submission period were people have their chance to complain. The complaints are always the same, traffic, eyesore, blocking views, over-development etc.

 

[Rockstar]

Barring that it would be nice to not have to wait 12 months for a duplex either.

Fortunately for me I have done 3 duplexes and the DA time has been 5, 8, and 9 weeks respectively. But this is due to diligent research of the DCP and some very helpful council planners.

I don't envy larger scale developers like you, Tim.

When you finally manage to change things out there in the jungle just maintain the status quo for duplexes and only make things easier for multi unit dev.

 

[Sheryn]

and some very helpful council planners.

Rockstar you have hit the nail on the head, you may have helpful and fast working employees. I have also been told Ballina Shire is good with duplexes.


Cheers
Sheryn