More Vengeance against Local Councils

The Ministers for Planning and Finance have announced reductions in "red tape" for homeowners, small businesses and industry. These changes are said to mean that "renovating or constructing a new planning compliant single house will no longer require approval, and small to medium-sized businesses won't have to seek approval to change a property from one permitted use to another."

Now this sounds like the sort of thing that no-one could reasonably object to, but the catch comes in considering how 'compliant' or 'permitted' are to be assessed.

A large part of what local government does in respect of planning and development applications is, in fact, assessing whether an application does comply or is permitted and, if it doesn't, what the areas of non-compliance are and whether they are acceptable.

Someone still has to determine that the single house or extension is planning-compliant or that the new 'permitted use is actually permitted (we all know of 'consulting rooms' that are really something else entirely) and, even if it is, whether additional conditions are required. If premises change from one 'permitted use' to another, for example, might it require changes under health regulations or for disability access?

Anyone who has been on a council will know that the applicant doesn't always get it right - and in some cases wilfully tries to pull the wool over council's eyes.

If local governments are to be removed from this role, it is, at the very least, incumbent on the Ministers to support them when (not if) they require changes to part-built or completed buildings on the basis that they don't comply with planning regulations.

Did I hear something about pigs flying?

https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2015/08/Reducing-red-tape-for-homeowners.aspx

None So Blind………

David Caddy says that 'DAPs, SAT must stick to local and state planning policies' (Post News, Letters, 8th August - see below). 

He echoes very closely the words of Gail McGowan, Director-General, Department of Planning, who wrote, in another letter (also below), that decisions made by DAPs "must be in accordance with local government planning schemes, state planning policies and sound planning principles".

Clearly neither of them has been paying much attention to what the Development Assessment Panels have actually been doing, as described in the Post article 'Dodgy DAP system slammed' (1st August - see foot of this post), which cites numerous examples of decisions inconsistent with town planning schemes.

But at least we can see that Gail McGowan, as Department of Planning CEO, is simply saying what her Minister insists that she say in support of the Government's pro-developer agenda.

David Caddy, however, is about as transparent as the DAP and SAT processes he supports. He has been a professional town planner for over 35 years and states in his professional resumé that he "has been successfully representing developers in Town Planning Appeals for nearly three decades" (https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wh1.thewebconsole.com/wh/4154/images/David-Caddy.pdf).

At the very least, in writing a letter so closely aligned to his professional interests, he should have stated his affiliations. As it is, most readers of the Post will be unaware of his links to the development industry and would be likely to take his statements at face value.

If he did do so, and it was an editorial decision at the Post not to print it, then I apologise unreservedly to David.

For the sake of similar transparency, I acknowledge that, when I was an elected Councillor for the then Town (now City) of Vincent (1995-2009), I was responsible for Council's adopting the practice of being represented in appeals to the SAT (and its predecessor, the Town Planning Appeals Tribunal) by (a) an elected member, (b) an independent town planner and (c) a member of the affected community. In this way we had a 75% success rate in defending appeals.

Of course, this was before the DAPs, notwithstanding the claims of Gail McGowan and David Caddy, changed the rules and said, through their decisions, that it was okay to ignore town planning schemes and planning policies.

Rocks In Their Heads

That's what the majority of WA local Councils seem to have.

Faced with a hostile Premier intent on revenge for his defeat on local government so-called reform (which was really nothing more that forced amalgamations) and a Minister who just the previous day flagged a range of punitive measures against local government, WALGA's AGM voted 172-46 against claiming the high moral ground through taking the initiative to develop a range of reforms covering such matters as transparency, travel, gifts, hospitality and contact with developers.

Mind you, watching Simpson deliver his speech, I got the distinct impression he was reading Barnett's words and didn't put much energy into them. Delivery was very wooden, even for him, and the way he left the podium very much gave the impression of "thank God that's over".

If this motion went through the normal WALGA process, delegates would have had opportunity to have it discussed at Council - but how many, I wonder, did so.

Delegates to the WALGA AGM are delegates - and must vote as their Council determines. So do we presume that the vast majority of Councils feel they have something to hide - or are they simply too unconcerned with how they are perceived to think about it.

The Barnett so-called reform was entirely wrong-headed if real reform, as distinct from larger, more-politicised councils, was the objective. But if Councils persist in this head-in-the-sand attitude, they might not find their communities so supportive next time Col wields his big stick.

Col Pot's Potty Economics

Yet again, Colin Barnett shows he doesn't understand local government - not to mention having incredible cheek to lecture others on financial responsibility when he has presided over economic disaster, driven by his 'captain's picks' of infrastructure spending.

If the rates on an individual property go up by $600, as he instances, this is almost certainly due to either (a) the Valuer General revaluing properties (as is required every few years) and increasing the value of some by more than others or (b) the property being revalued as a result of improvements, additions or alterations.

In the former case, even if Council rate revenue were to remain the same, some properties would pay more and others less.

Looked at another way, the highest rate increase for 2015/16 is 8% (Victoria Park). For this to equate to $600, the previous rates payable must have been $7,500 - which implies a 'Gross Rental Value' (the basis on which rates are calculated) of just under $100,000. By comparison, the GRV of my house in Mt Lawley is about one-quarter of that - even the 8% rate increase would be $150 - not $600.

So it looks like the $600, if, indeed, it is a real figure and not just a figment of Col's imagination, is most likely largely the result of revaluation, for one reason or another, or the property is a commercial one not, as many people would have assumed, a residential one (ie the case facing most people). Of course, $600 is important to business as well as to households, but Col shouldn't be misleading us into thinking about how $600 would affect us as individuals.