Building Up: Does Anyone Do Risk Analysis?

I've often wondered why there is such a mania for building up to the heavens, when there are so many examples of cities that work (and work better) on a more human scale (see, eg, Richard Rogers (1997). Cities for a Small Planet. Faber and Faber, London, UK). High-rise buildings are inherently energy-inefficient, with their reliance on vertical transport and energy-intensive materials such as concrete, the need to lift heavy building materials to great heights and their inevitable reliance on air-conditioning because of the dangers of windows that actually open.

They are also socially-inefficient, because people rarely talk to each other, or interact in any way at all, in lifts. This lack of community has resulted in widespread demolition of 1960s public housing in many cities - a fate that could all-too-soon await more-recent high-rise apartment buildings.

But these concerns almost pale into insignificance compared to the potential consequences of structural or other failure. The stresses on a 40-storey building are many times those that a 5 or 10 storey building has to withstand - not just the weight but the wind stress and the effect of any shifting in the ground beneath.

It took the recent major cracking of a recently-constructed Sydney high-rise for someone to point out that it had been constructed on a reclaimed swamp and is only 300 metres from a still-existing swamp. 

NSW Urban Taskforce chief executive Chris Johnson has said that the problem with the Sydney high-rise would either be a 'fundamental error' in how the building was constructed or the ground it was built on.

It remains to be seen whether Sydney's Opal Tower can be made safe, but even if it is made structurally safe it will be a long time before residents actually feel safe. It is already being suggested that the problems in the building could trigger a fire sale, bringing financial as well as psychological losses (https://www.afr.com/personal-finance/opal-cracks-a-minefield-for-investors-20181226-h19h7b).


As one whose first sight of Australia was the stub-end of the then-recently-collapsed Westgate bridge in Melbourne looming out of the morning mist early one morning in July 1971 (and having many friends and former colleagues who are road and bridge engineers), I am perhaps more aware than most of the potential for, and consequences of, structural failure.

A key issue, in this and so many of the other instances of structural failure around the world, is the extent to which the risks of such failure were identified, managed and, where possible, removed. 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/huge-pressure-developers-cutting-costs-are-root-cause-of-defects-20181226-p50o97.html

So far, we have not been reported to have been faced with this sort of situation in Perth, but the existence of other, apparently unreported, major problems in other Sydney/Canberra high-rise buildings (https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/huge-pressure-developers-cutting-costs-are-root-cause-of-defects-20181226-p50o97.html) suggests we should not be complacent. In particular, where there are real identifiable risks, we should, at the very least, be wary of high rise development.

Which brings me to the Mill Point Area of South Perth. This is an area virtually surrounded by the Swan River and with a water table very close to the surface - indeed, recent experience indicates that groundwater here is also flowing rather than being a static water table. Most of the ground on which high-rises are proposed to be built is, effectively, saturated, which makes it very difficult to stabilise and compact. Deep piles down to bedrock, through saturated sands, increase the effective height of a building from stable foundations.

Of more general and fundamental concern is that Governments are increasingly giving effective control of development processes to the private sector, which has an obvious vested interest in maximising development yields and minimising construction (not necessarily maintenance or operational) costs. The process by which the Sydney Opal Tower was approved is not dissimilar to the Development Assessment Panels here in WA - to which the current state government is proposing to add a streamlined WA Planning Commission dominated by those same interests (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com/2018/07/green-paper-modernising-western.html) and a Design Panel (for the purpose of approving 'development bonuses') also dominated by them (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com/2018/12/wa-government-wants-more-conflicted.html).

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/opal-tower-residents-to-be-evacuated/news-story/ee8a7135eab1fc54996ef81ad05fc80c

WA Government Wants More Conflicted 'Experts' in Planning and Design

On 28th November, the WA Government called for nominations for a State Design Review Panel https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/sdrp.aspx. Nominations close on Friday 21 December at 2pm.

Pause to observe the timing of this nomination period when so many people have other things that require their attention - minor things like school holidays, getting ready for Christmas, going on Holiday. Indeed, the last day of sitting for the WA legislative Assembly was 29th November and the Legislative Council 6th December, so our pollies are 'out of session', too - not to say that they're not working in some form, but they're not actually doing the work of governing.

The role of the Panel is described as being to "help improve the design of development and infrastructure proposals, assist with achieving best value from investment, and ensure that projects maximise their contribution to the built environment for the benefit of the community".

Sounds good - but the devil definitely resides in the detail.

In practice, the effect will be to remove consideration of design (and associated development bonuses) from the JDAPs (which have two local council members (out of 5 total), so only require one 'renegade' specialist member to refuse an application). So, having removed all larger development decisions from elected councils, they are now, in effect, to be removed from the JDAPs to hide behind a totally unelected group of specialists whose independence is chronically compromised by their reliance on property, development and landowner interests for so much of their income.

Moreover, despite the Panel's being required to work "for the benefit of the community" there are no community representatives. This poses the considerable question of who determines what is for the benefit of the community?

Then, the membership. The 'core members' of the Panel will be drawn from the same 'specialists' as the majority membership of the Development Assessment Panels: architecture, landscape architecture, urban design and planning. Admittedly, there will also be a number of 'technical specialists' drawn from a wide range of disciplines, but their expertise will only be called upon "for those review sessions where it will be relevant".

It was suggested to me that I should nominate, as my qualifications and experience cover a number of these 'technical specialist' areas, but I have very severe concerns about the Terms of Reference for the Panel.

Most important of my concerns is the draconian requirement for confidentiality which, in effect, prevents Panel members, including technical specialists, from participating in other forums or communities covering matters of urban planning and design - potentially even when they are not specifically dealing with a development for which they have been a party to discussions.

Despite the high-sounding definitions of 'Best Practice' and 'Design Principles', the functioning of the Panel appears to ignore some key aspects.

Best Practice
- Independence. As I have previously noted, JDAP specialist members (and hence 'core members of the DRP) have an unavoidable and systemic conflict of interest, as much of their professional income is derived from large landowners and property developers.
- Accountability.  The advice that the Panel provides "must be clearly seen to work for the benefit of the public" - but all proceedings of the Panel are confidential and there is no mention of Minutes being taken or of their availability if they are.
- Transparency. "The Panel's remit, membership, governance processes and funding should always be in the public domain". Yet all proceedings of the Panel are confidential and there is no mention of Minutes being taken or of their availability if they are.

Design Principles 
- Context and Character. Good design "responds to and enhances the distinctive characteristics of a local area, contributing to a sense of place".  A 'sense of place' is more than just built form - without community input, this will be no more than technical 'experts' making their own judgment rather than being based on actual experience of people in the affected communities, each of which will have its own distinct and potentially very different characteristics.

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.