Improving Local Government in WA

The WA Government is undertaking a review of the Local Government Act. Stage 1 covered areas where some immediate improvements could be made. Stage 2 covers more strategic issues:

The review is probably timely, given that the current Act was passed in 1995 and represented considerable change from the way local government in WA had operated since the 1960s. However, it is unfortunate that neither the discussion papers nor any other documentation relating to the Review clearly defines problems that the Review is intended to address. Instead, they set out a broad vision for local government without providing a context for assessing whether proposed reforms would improve the performance of local government. 

This is particularly pertinent in the case of the pro-forma surveys attached to each of the detailed discussion papers, which ask for simplistic responses (eg ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Unsure’) to a series of questions without adequate (or, in many cases, any) supporting information. This 'tick-a-box' approach to consultation is an insult to those wishing to make a considered submission to the Review and is unlikely to provide useful information.

I'd strongly encourage anyone still considering making a submission to do so in their own words rather than simply ticking boxes defined by the authors of the Review.

Anyway, here is my submission, for what it is worth. [NB click on each page to enlarge.]

-->

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

NSW: In Retreat, Confusion and Cost - and Property Developers Disown Their Own Baby

Yesterday, the good news (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/people-power-does-it-again.html).

Today, the fallout, in the form of confusion and costs.

The NSW Premier cites 'uncertainty' as the reason for backing down, but any uncertainty is entirely the making of the NSW Liberal government in trying to force council amalgamations for purely ideological reasons.

Now the about face, which could have been avoided by not embarking on this ideological farce in the first place, leaves many councils uncertain about their future. This includes councils that have, often unwillingly, embarked on the merger process. It will be particularly messy where one council opposed the merger or where mergers involved splitting council areas (see last para in the item below).

There is also the issue of cost. All affected councils will have had to spend a lot of rate[ayers' money on this aborted process - just as in Queensland and WA. Not unnaturally, these councils will want to recoup those costs from the state government - although in shifting the burden from ratepayers to taxpayers (and adding legal costs for seeking recoup through the courts), it is not clear that anyone wins - except the lawyers, of course.

And we should not be surprised that the property development industry, a prime mover in the 'bigger is better' ideology, is now backing away and blaming the NSW government for getting its process wrong!

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/07/councils-first-clarity-now-confusion

People Power Does It Again.

Queensland communities forced the demerger of several forcibly-amalgamated councils - a partial, but significant, victory.

WA communities forced Colin Barnett to back down completely on forced local government amalgamations.

Now NSW communities have achieved the same, although there is a problem with councils that have already amalgamated against the will of one or more of the councils and communities concerned.

Congratulations to all those who have worked so hard in NSW.

Another one in the eye for those who said we were wasting our time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-27/council-amalgamations-scrapped-in-nsw-after-government-backflip/8748164