Planning in chaos!

[Rockstar]

Maybe they like the way I treat them - 'cause it's definitely not the way I dress.

 

[tcocaro]

Brisbane, (this is a rough calc as I cannot recall the exact time-frames but I will be close). Couple of days to aknowledge properly made application, 3 weeks for information request, followed by (99% of the time) an extension of time for council to review the application (lets pretend a miracle happens and they dont request this) given the application is peerrrrrfect (in councils eyes). They move onto submission period i.e. another 3 weeks so we are now up to 7 weeks (atleast!) then lets say there are no objections it will take council a week or 2 to produce the conditions (draft) then another week for the formal.

10 weeks assuming council doesnt request a single thing and, there are no submissions, no problems and changes no matter how minor.

I cannot beat youre time-frame in Brisbane (unless I can shove it through Risk-Smart then im in with a slight chance) - dont even get me started about ACTPLA in the ACT.

I am now looking for smaller sites to ensure my development program continues at full capacity given there are large gaps of dead time between larger projects.

PS: Congrats on your projects, dont put yourself down just because you do smaller duplex developments - mark my words youre probably making more $$ than us so called larger developers!

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.

 

[Aaron Sice]

thanks for posting.

my frustration with the WA planning system runs in a vein an inch wide and a mile deep. it's so long and convoluted a thought train that i cannot type it.

with sydney, i think the govt should provide trains down the middle of the road, and make each road lane either side a single lane, with a 2m wide dedicated bike path adjacent. train stations need only consist of lightweight covered structures and the 'could' be underground even (to much expense, but in areas where space is limited what else are you gonna do? buy the real estate around it?).

if NSW were serious about it, they'd find a solution.

 

[tcocaro]

I cant afford the brown paper bag I would have to give the required council member in order to get this level of service.

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 !?

 

[tcocaro]

If NSW was serious about anything they would call an election today in order to allow business to have the confidence its making deals with a government that will still be there tommorow.

thanks for posting.

my frustration with the WA planning system runs in a vein an inch wide and a mile deep. it's so long and convoluted a thought train that i cannot type it.

with sydney, i think the govt should provide trains down the middle of the road, and make each road lane either side a single lane, with a 2m wide dedicated bike path adjacent. train stations need only consist of lightweight covered structures and the 'could' be underground even (to much expense, but in areas where space is limited what else are you gonna do? buy the real estate around it?).

if NSW were serious about it, they'd find a solution.

 

[tom32]

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.

I am glad you said that.

As I see it those who want for affordable housing in this country actually should be driving the same agenda as those who build houses.

Those who develop residential I guess it will depend on their current stock of zoned land? Some developers with a warchest of funds and little land on their books at the moment the regulations changed would probably stand to gain by a sudden freeing up of the planning process and the easy pickings that would initially ensue, but those with masses of land paid for at a crazy premium due to current supply regulation clearly stand to lose.

Can you imagine if you were allowed to develop in say sackville or maroota and the government funded a highway straight out to Norwest Sydney. Look at what you pay their for acreage in either place compared to Kellyville. It would be a license to print money for a time at least till everyone else started doing it.

Of course by making it cheaper to develop homes and if prices stay where they are now you get more supply coming on line. That houses will not remain at current prices for that long in this situation is why I suspect any freeing up of the approvals process or paring back taxes will only happen over a long time scale.

It would be a strong headwind indeed for property prices generally if land was freed up and taxes removed in new housing.

 

[Fudge]

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.

Gees,

How can you factor in this.

I would be under the assumption that provided your proposal fits the intent of the surrounding use and amenity of the area (by being assessed through the code - not impact assessible), then I would have thought it was a 'sure thing'.

How can you factor in what someone doesn't like, even though it conforms. That would peeve me right off ($200,000) %&#k !

F

 

[Aaron Sice]

when you're involved in a heritage area or a "town centre" zoning, whereby a structure plan or DAP is in place that has "extra-over" covenants your regular planning issues, generally there is some kind of "special planning board" that needs to assess each application in this area and push for uniformity and/or lack of.

when dealing with these numpties, you need to break out the word "precedent" and cite examples. that way, the onus is on them to prove why you are a different case. mention a process audit in the meantime and see how fast you're approved.

 

[Bargain Hunter]

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.

I have submitted DA's and have been on the receiving end of having to resubmit because one person on Council decided they did not like the facade. I also have another DA which was submitted pre-Christmas and is held up even though the land is zoned for the proposed use.

My comment was based on how I believe the system should work. If a building complies with the relevant zoning, usage and other written requirements then there should be no discussion and no consultation, the plans should be stamped, a notice issued to surrounding properties and a permit issued to proceed.

If on the other hand the development does not comply then the developer is given the opportunity to make it compliant. If they choose not to comply then they can put up with the delays and the consultation and the rest of the malarkey because it is their choice to go against the planning requirements for the area. If they want to take it further they can lodge it with the Land and Environment Court.

The exception to this rule would be developments that have State or National significance such as major infrastructure projects. Examples in NSW would be a second airport, or a new motorway to link the M7 with the F3. Obviously no one wants to lose their house for a motorway or have jets flying overhead however in this case the needs of the greater community should outweigh those directly impacted by the development.

It makes sense to appoint an independent body to assess this type of development, review the proposed options and determine the best solution. The development is substantial, will take many years to complete and needs to be undertaken regardless of who is in power.

Regards

Andrew

 

[Bargain Hunter]

I would be under the assumption that provided your proposal fits the intent of the surrounding use and amenity of the area (by being assessed through the code - not impact assessible), then I would have thought it was a 'sure thing'.

My point exactly. If it complies it should be approved no question.

 

[Aaron Sice]

My point exactly. If it complies it should be approved no question.

trouble is, you didn't chuck them a carrot. you need to put in errors for them to pick up so they can justify their job position.

otherwise they'll fine-tooth-comb it.

 

[tcocaro]

Yes and there is a train of thought that if you submit an application 100% correct you will get something less back, ie reduced yield etc so what occurs is developers submit more than what is allowed so council pegs them back to what they wanted "really" in the frist place...

trouble is, you didn't chuck them a carrot. you need to put in errors for them to pick up so they can justify their job position.

otherwise they'll fine-tooth-comb it.

 

[Tesla Rules]

toe.

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.............


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.

The earth was flat for a millennium because Those in Charge (and the majority) said it was......

 

[tcocaro]

Ummm thanks for your post genius... now how about you reply to the appropriate thread that way you can take your total number of posts to 8.

-- Are you comparing the approval of a townhouse development to the hisotorical debate if the world was flat or a globe?

-- Are you comparing Steven Keen with Christopher Columbus?

If you dont know anything about planning, approvals, council or have experiences as a resident involved in the planning process then this isnt the thread for you...

so frustrating!

The earth was flat for a millennium because Those in Charge (and the majority) said it was......