More simplism from the simple souls in ministerial office.[Simplism (noun): The tendency to oversimplify an issue or a problem by ignoring complexities or complications. http://www.thefreedictionary.com]
In reality, just another attack on local governments to make life easier for the property developers.
The argument about single houses is designed to get the individuals who want to develop a family home on a single block onside - but it is a non-issue. If a development proposal complies with the state government's Residential Design Codes, the local government already has no alternative but to approve it. To say that compliant developments will be "exempt from approvals" is a nonsense, as someone has to assess that the proposed development is, in fact, compliant - and in all fairness to all concerned (but especially the neighbours) this cannot be the proponent.
However, in existing developed areas, redevelopment other than simply replacing one house on a block with another single house on the same block almost always involves non-compliance with the Codes.
There's a lot of devil in the detail yet to be announced - for example, taken literally, the statement that the "WA Planning Commission will also become the sole arbiter on structure plans guiding land use, subdivision and developments".
At one level, there is nothing new in this. Structure Plans and subdivision of land already require WAPC approval. WAPC Guidelines produced in 2012 seek to standardise the process (scope, format and content) of structure plans.
So most of this hype is about trying to paint local government as the villains, when the Minister for Planning and the WAPC already has the 'necessary' powers. It's about spuriously supporting Homer's paranoia about local government - not about actually improving the planning and development outcomes for the people of Perth.
And while I'm on the subject of outcomes (not a popular subject with planners), the Minister for Planning would achieve much more by seeking ways to get jobs where people need them. A lot of the congestion problems in Perth are a result of the planners aspirations for residential location being achieved but not those for employment location. Houses are built, but jobs don't follow - so people have to commute long distances, by car or train, to get a job.
Instead of simply colouring areas for employment on maps, it's time the WAPC and the Government found ways of encouraging businesses actually to take up that land. Alternatively, if the land is in the wrong places as far as business is concerned, the whole residential planning strategy needs to be changed to get a better meshing of residential and commercial development.
Any thoughts on Minister Nahan's media release 10 August or his submission to the LGAB on Proposal 10 also published on his website?
ReplyDeleteIt would appear to me that the way development is been driven in the Perth Metro area that there is no strategic planning at state government level. Development is purely to line the pockets of developers.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteA whole host of thoughts - most of them not printable. Nahan's statements are ill-informed, misleading and arrogant. As for the "City of Canning's campaign is an attempt to shut down democratic choice", this obvious nonsense is on a par with Local Government Minister, Tony Simpson's statement back in October last year, when he labelled the Dadour poll provision of the Local Government Act as being 'contrary to the principle of democratic local government' (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/dadour-provision-safe-for-now-but.html).
With regard to your second point, there is plenty of strategic planning but nothing to make it happen - a classic case of what a former professional colleague of mine called 'planning as a substitute for action'. Whatever else one might say or think about the property development industry, it does act and, in the absence of real alternative actions, it gets its way.