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.

Victory in NSW - But For Whom?

As reported in an earlier post (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/lest-we-forget-wa-parallels-in-nsw.html) drawing on reports in Government News, the Government of new NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, has done an about face on some forced local government amalgamations.

Regional amalgamations will be abandoned, but the people of Sydney are not so lucky. Sydney communities whose councils have already been merged will not be given the opportunity to de-merge by plebiscite and those currently the subject of court action will depend upon the outcome of those actions.

As Keith Rhoades, President of Local Government NSW, has stated, this is clearly a political compromise that is likely to satisfy no-one (http://www.lgnsw.org.au/news/media-release/media-release-political-compromise-lost-opportunity).

However, there are some winners as well as the obvious losers. The National Party will welcome the decision as it will help them avoid further humiliations like the 2016 Orange by-election, where the Nationals lost to the Shooters and Fishers Party after having held the seat for 69 years (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-21/orange-by-election-won-by-shooters,-fishers-and-farmers-party/8043658),

The 'split-decision' (even, one might opine, schizophrenic decision) appears unlikely to help the NSW Government in Sydney electorates, where there is strong opposition to forced amalgamations, but there is one group that will be overjoyed by the continuation of previous decisions in the city.

Across Australia, the property development industry has been actively calling for and supporting forced local government amalgamations - it has also been substantially contributing to political party funds. Their interests, though, are not those of the communities within which they operate and upon which they have the greatest impacts. Larger councils, the property interests consider, are more likely to approve ultra-high-density developments that give them the greatest profits - partly because they will be more party-political but more because they are less able to give community-based scrutiny to complex development proposals.

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/02/regional-council-mergers-halted-sydney-mergers-stand/?platform=hootsuite

DAPs To Start Feeling The Heat

Further to the previous post on the South Perth successful court action on DAPs (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/david-slays-goliath-again.html), Vincent Mayor John Carey is moving a motion at tonight's briefing meeting that Council work actively to reign in the DAPs. Tonight's meeting is a briefing and the actual decision will be made next Tuesday (8th March). You can address either tonight's briefing or the Council Meeting on 8th March.

Councillor Elizabeth Re, City of Stirling, has emailed the dapaffectedcommunities group to say:

I am sorry I cannot attend the Tuesday council meeting tonight at the Town of Vincent as I will be attending the City of Stirling meeting whereby I have put forward a similar notice of motion to stop the DAP’s  at the City of Stirling  council meeting tonight.

The more Councils formalise their opposition to the DAPs (or at least the way they currently over-ride local communities and planning schemes), the more likely action to reign them is - especially with the next state election being just 12 months away. So lobby your own Council, if you can, to pass similar resolutions and make the DAPs a central issue in the next state election.

Remember, the DAP debacle comes on top of failed forced local government reform, reneging on MAX light rail, the contentious Perth Freight Link, failures of hospital programs and out-of-control state debt.

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.

Development Assessment Panels Disempower Communities

Development Assessment Panels are supported by the property development industry and the WA State Government but take decisions away from local communities for precisely those developments that have the greatest impact on those communities.

Too often, those panels choose to ignore the requirements of local planning schemes and policies that have been developed by local Councils and approved by the WA Planning Commission. 

Too often, their deliberations and decisions are not subject to public scrutiny.

The City of South Perth Residents Association invites you to a meeting of DAP-affected communities to hear of experiences from across the Perth Metropolitan Area. Come to the Como Bowling Club on Wednesday 29th July for a 7.30pm start.

A large turnout is anticipated, so if possible please let Cecilia Brooke know by email (brooke.cecilia@yahoo.com.au) that you will be coming.