Push to cut planning appeals
Josh Gordon
November 29, 2011
VICTORIANS would have less scope to appeal against contentious planning proposals under a plan being considered by the Baillieu government.
A briefing by the Department of Treasury and Finance says planning rules for developers have become a ”significant drag on growth”, urging government to streamline the process to cut costs for new developments.
Planning Minister Matthew Guy tomorrow will be handed a separate review of the planning system from an ”industry” advisory group he commissioned to ”help overhaul the planning system”.
The treasury briefing document, obtained by The Age, suggests that the appeal process should be pared back to cut the number of objectors, amid complaints from developers that the average cost of delays waiting for planning permits is $35,000.
Treasury has also expressed concern about what it sees as ”conflicting policy objectives”, with the state government under pressure to tackle housing affordability, maintain liveability and boost economic growth, while local government bodies are worried about protecting heritage issues, maintaining the value of the existing housing stock and keeping the ”character” of a local area.
”The land planning framework should be overhauled to reduce the scope for appeals due to conflicting policy objectives, clarify who has standing to appeal planning decisions and assess the potential for greater use of market instruments to achieve planning objectives,” the briefing document says.
Tomorrow, Mr Guy’s office will be handed its review of planning rules headed by consultant Geoff Underwood, who faced claims of a conflict after it was revealed his consulting firm, Spade Consultants, had been lobbying the government on behalf of developers.
Under current rules, any person claiming to be affected by a proposed development can lodge an appeal, even if they have not been officially notified or they don’t live nearby.
The Master Builders Association of Victoria has told the review this is an ”unacceptable state of affairs” that opens the door to the possibility of ”commercial extortion”. It says that in 2009-10, 7 per cent of all planning applications ended up in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Mr Guy’s spokesman, Nicholas McGowan, declined to address questions put by The Age, instead providing a list of unrelated list of achievements in the planning area.
Mary Drost, from Planning Backlash, which represents almost 250 resident groups across Victoria, said any move that blocked residents’ right to appeal would be met with anger.
”We would be totally opposed to any restrictions placed on the ability to object,” Ms Drost said.
Master Builders Association of Victoria executive director Brian Welch said he believed the rules were ”excessively democratic” and encouraged ”vexatious objectors”. ”Every person with $35 or $40 in their hand has third-party appeal rights, so it’s a low threshold for people to have their voice heard, whether they are on the same side of the city or not,” he said.”
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/push-to-cut-planning-appeals-20111128-1o3c7.html#ixzz1f0opplcP
Glen Eira Debates 
December 1, 2011 at 12:59 PM
My reading of the article is that it is discussing two separate documents:
* A Department of Treasury and Finance briefing arguing for a lassez-faire
planning regime.
* The Underwood Review headed up by a property developer
There are no surprises that Treasury wants to help developers make even more money at community expense. We already subsidise their profits. As one developer said to me, “its all about money”. All the *other* matters involved in competent planning carry no weight with Treasury.
The Underwood Review was controversial from the day the Government selected the members. Heading it up is a property developer, Geoff Underwood, who makes his money from the development industry. In the words or Cr Wegman [Booroondara], “Where is the local community representation? How can you have a body reviewing the law that excludes those who are most affected by that law?”
Dr Burke [head of housing studies, Swinburne University] also sagely noted: “Each time a state government relaxes the planning laws to create more development opportunities you get the development sector abusing the process, which creates a backlash.”
Again it is no surprise that people with vested interests, such as MBAV’s Brian Welch, don’t wish to comply with rules or be subjected to scrutiny. Each time I’ve gone to VCAT, its been the developer who is requesting a review of Council’s decision. They do so because they consider it likely that VCAT will order a permit to be granted or remove conditions that inhibit the amount of money they can make. Its not that they have complied with ResCode–in no case I have been involved in has a proposal complied with ResCode. What is bizarre, and another reason why I don’t trust my council, is that there are documented instances where council has complied with a developer’s request to lower standards when the developer complained that couldn’t make as much money as they wanted othewise.
I support people’s rights to object when something affects their amenity. While the outcome of a Review is generally a foregone conclusion, it is important to have all the issues documented and a rationale provided for each one. Unfortunately even here VCAT fails miserably, seeking to justify their decision [87%+ in favour of a developer] rather than account for the matters contained in the Planning Schemea and incorporated documents as required by Planning and Environment Act. Councils cannot be relied upon or trusted to represent their communities at VCAT. Witness the capitulation over C60, in which third-party appeal rights were removed at the same time as adopting design standards that fail to comply with ResCode.
There’s another myth going around, and I note that Terry Burke is perpetuating it if the following is accurate: “Dr Burke says it is a basic planning principle to try to protect existing low-density residential areas by concentrating high-density development within specific activity centres.” These so-called activity centres contain existing low-density residential areas, yet their amenity is not being protected. I find the discriminatory treatment offensive and unacceptable–spending money to protect the amenity of some residents of “low-density” residential areas but not others. Councillors and VCAT members get very prickly when questioned about where they live. Heck, a skateboard park is enough of a loss of amenity for some councillors to kill the idea, when its proposed to be near them.
Its well past time for governments to live up to their promises concerning development, and invest in all the infrastructure and social fabric required for the targetted areas to work well as vibrant healthy and happy communities. Our biggest problem per se isn’t development but the rate at which certain areas are expected to transform. No government is prepared to spend the money required to address the social problems that follow–which puts Treasury’s wish-list into perspective. If you’re *not* prepared to spend the money, then don’t expect the community to support you.