Architects Not The Repository Of All Wisdom

A week ago, I wrote about the importance of communities in the planning and development decision-making process (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com/2018/11/keeping-planning-review-issues-alive.html).

Yesterday, I was taken to task by the President of the Australian Institute of Architects (WA) for apparent not understanding the unique role of architects. According to Suzanne Hunt architects can do no wrong and we should entrust development decisions to them because of the unique skills and experience.

Well, I beg to differ - and fortunately the West Australian published my riposte in today's letters page.

In neither of my letters did I mention (because the West would be less likely to publish if I did) the undeniable fact that many 'specialist members' of the DAPs have an endemic conflict of interest as most of their income is derived from large landowners and property developers - not necessarily in the case of any specific development but generally (see my submission to the Review of the WA Planning System).

I'm not the only one who didn't like Suzanne Hunt's reply to my first letter - and the West also published a letter from Tony Phipps of Riverton based on personal experience. As I pointed out in my letter, architects don't have literally to live with the consequences of their planning decisions, but communities do.

Keeping Planning Review Issues Alive

Further to my earlier post about the need to keep a close eye on the current Review of the WA Planning System, especially in the lead-up to the festive season, here is my response to an article in the West Australian of 14th November, featuring the views of David Caddy, Chairman of the WAPC.

Of course, the limitations of a letter mean one can't deal with all the issues raised by the article, but it at least keeps the powers-that-be aware that community concerns are real, have not gone away and will not go away unless they are properly recognised in the outcome of the review.

Letters, West Australian, 16th November, 2018.
Click picture to enlarge

For balance (and for those who might have missed the original article) here is the piece with David Caddy's views.

https://thewest.com.au/business/commercial-property/resistance-site-size-hurdles-for-medium-density-uptake-ng-b881016356z
Click frames to enlarge

Planning System Review: Be Alert In Lead-Up To Christmas

Back in July, I drew attention to the WA Government's review of the planning system and posted my submission to that review (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com/2018/07/green-paper-modernising-western.html).

Objectives of the planning review include:

• Making strategic planning the cornerstone of all planning decisions;
• Opening up the planning system so that it is understandable to all;
• Clarifying local and State planning roles and functions of the WA Planning Commission and Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage;
• Responding to community concerns about accountability and transparency of Development Assessment Panels;
• Formally recognising the need for community participation;
• Creating more certainty for industry and cutting red tape; and
• Refining developer contribution schemes. 

The Green Paper did not, in my view, satisfactorily address some of the key issues that have been of concern to communities across Perth in recent years. Indeed, in some respects, its proposals would exacerbate those problems - most notably through expanding the role and influence of so-called specialist members of the DAPs to include domination of the WA Planning Commission as well.

In addition, there was no mention at all of enhancing the rights of individuals and communities in the appeal process.

Over 240 submissions were received and the review team in the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage is reviewing the submission to assist the Government in responding to the Green Paper.

Unlike most such Inquiries and Reviews (including, for example, the current review of the WA Local Government Act - https://www.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/localgovernment/strengthening/Pages/LGactreview-submissions.aspx), submissions do not appear to be available online for us to read. We will have no idea, therefore, of the views expressed, by whom they were expressed or how much the Government response actually relates to them.

There has been silence on the matter since submissions closed on 20th July, 2018, but given various statements previously made about 'quick wins' - not to mention the fact that we are approaching the halfway mark of this term of government - it would be reasonable to expect some response within 6 months. That puts it, of course, fairly and squarely in the silly season, when families are on holiday and most of us have our minds on other things than the WA planning system.

I might well be unduly cynical in drawing attention to the possibility that the Government's proposals for change might be announced in the lead-up to Christmas/New Year, thus slipping under the radar of many, especially community organisations that tend to go into recess in December/January. 

Indeed, I hope I am proved wrong, but just in case, I'll be keeping a close eye on what happens and bring it to attention here and on my Twitter account.

Green paper: Modernising Western Australia's Planning System

The WA Government recently initiated a review of the WA Planning System and released a Green Paper outlining a range of possible proposals - https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/Planning-reform.aspx.

Submissions can be made in response to this Green Paper until  Friday 20th July.

Whilst there can be considerable improvement to the current situation, I believe that the Green Paper ignores a number of key issues, such as third-party appeals and the dominance of decision-making by so-called 'specialist members' who, almost by definition, have systematic conflicts of interest since much of their professional income is derived from large landowners and property developers.

My key contentions are that:
-  The planning process and resulting plans are inevitably seen by those seeking to maximise their financial return from investment in property as a constraint. They, therefore, have a vested interest in claiming that the system is unfair, complex or otherwise works against them.
-  The community (individually and collectively), in many cases, have neither the resources nor the incentive to participate in the development of plans. Consequently, their efforts are mainly directed at the development approval stage.
-  Community willingness to be part of the planning process is substantially eroded by development approvals that stretch the boundaries of or are in breach of gazetted planning schemes.
-  The decision-making (development-approval) process is inevitably weighted in favour of those with the greatest resources. In recent times, this imbalance has been structurally incorporated into the Development Assessment Panels, where ‘specialist members’ have an inbuilt majority. Such specialist members have an unavoidable conflict of interest, as much of their professional income is derived from large landowners and property developers.
-  The decision-making (development approval) process is weighted against the community, as there are no third-party appeal rights. Consequently approvals go unchallenged, whereas refusals are subject to ‘reassessment’ at the behest of the applicant.
-  It is critical that people and communities are effectively involved in ‘shaping strategic plans for their communities’. This will only happen, however, when it is demonstrably clear that those strategic plans actually inform decision-making and that development approvals are consistent with those plans.
-  Putting ‘specialist members’ effectively in charge of both the planning (WAPC) and the decision-making (DAPs) would be a recipe for alienation (at best) of much of the community – and more, rather than less, confrontation at the development stage.
-  To the extent that the complexity of existing plans and policies is a problem, it is more one for individuals and communities, who have limited resources, than it is for property-owners and developers, who are more likely to be in position to be able to engage professional advice.
-  To the extent that there are problems with out-of-date, conflicting or ambiguous plans and policies, the issue is only partly the planning system itself and more the way in which the system operates, including the time taken for the WA Planning Commission to assess, seek (sometimes trivial or editorial) amendments to and finally approve new local planning schemes.
-  Restructuring or reorganizing the planning system, even if it does reduce complexity and increase efficiency, carries its own costs of transition. Those with the greatest resources, typically property-owners and developers, are in a much better position to understand and adapt to the changes than are individuals and the community.
-  The Green Paper proposals for ‘connected smart growth’ take a restricted, almost physical-determinist’ view, ignoring (and sometimes running counter to) those things that make communities work and be places people want to live.

My full submission is set out below. Double-click on individual pages to enlarge.