The WA Business News has published a comment piece on the report (https://www.businessnews.com.au/article/Complaints-process-focus-of-DAP-inquiry - see foot of this post), giving prominence to the views of the Property Council - but also quoting the disturbing fact that just 24 out of 209 projects assessed by DAPs in 2014-15 were rejected - that's less than 12%. No wonder many people are worried that the DAPs trample on communities and their rights.
The Property Council
response to the report on Development Assessment Panels ('Complaints focus of
DAP inquiry', Business News, 11th September 2015) is so predictable as to be
almost laughable. Of course the Property Council supports a report that doesn't
address the key issues of community interest and variations from planning
schemes and policies.
We all know that DAPs favour development interests, but
Joe Lenzo doesn't tell us why the community interest should be ignored in this
way.
Unless Joe Lenzo already
lives in an apartment tower, would he be happy for one the DAPs' outrageous
approved developments to be built in his neighbourhood? Even if he does live in
an apartment tower, would he be happy about another tower intruding into his
view.
I suspect that were
such a tower to be approved by a DAP, Mr Lenzo might well have a different view
on third-party appeals.
Perhaps one reason the
development industry appears to be so keen on isolated high-rise/high-density rather than
towers grouped in centres with good access (eg around train stations) is that
it can sell the uninterrupted views at a premium.
It is, incidentally,
worth noting that third-party appeal rights do exist in other places and do not
appear to have the dire consequences Mr Lenzo fears.
In Queensland, for
example, the Sustainable Planning Act, 2009, provides for any person who has
made a proper submission on a development application to have a right of appeal
against a development decision or in respect of conditions that form part of
that approval. The Queensland Government is currently reviewing its planning
legislation (http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/planning-reform) and proposes to
retain the third-party appeal right provision.
It seems to me that
restricting that right to those who have expressed an interest in or concern
about a development proposal at the assessment stage, through making a
submission, is a sensible way of managing third party appeal rights. Those with
a genuine interest would have this right available to them, but the 'johnny-come-lately'
and opportunistic objectors would be precluded.
Let's not forget,
also, that appeals are not costless; the playing field is not level.
Individuals and community groups rarely have much in the way of resources, but
the development industry has deep pockets with the further advantage that
appeal costs are tax-deductible.
Any talk of appeal
rights is predicated, however, on the decision-making process itself being
open, participatory and accountable. It is by no means clear that the DAPs come
within the proverbial bull's roar of this state of affairs.
The Legislative
Council Committee's report also criticises local governments for 'outdated and
inconsistent planning schemes', apparently ignoring the facts that (a) the WA
Planning Commission itself is often a major contributor to delays in adoption
of new planning schemes and (b) the WAPC requires schemes to comply with its
'Model Scheme Text' under the Town Planning Regulations.
If local governments
are to be held to account for delays in reviewing town planning schemes, let's
also apply the same scrutiny to the WA Planning Commission.
