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.

Rocks In Their Heads

That's what the majority of WA local Councils seem to have.

Faced with a hostile Premier intent on revenge for his defeat on local government so-called reform (which was really nothing more that forced amalgamations) and a Minister who just the previous day flagged a range of punitive measures against local government, WALGA's AGM voted 172-46 against claiming the high moral ground through taking the initiative to develop a range of reforms covering such matters as transparency, travel, gifts, hospitality and contact with developers.

Mind you, watching Simpson deliver his speech, I got the distinct impression he was reading Barnett's words and didn't put much energy into them. Delivery was very wooden, even for him, and the way he left the podium very much gave the impression of "thank God that's over".

If this motion went through the normal WALGA process, delegates would have had opportunity to have it discussed at Council - but how many, I wonder, did so.

Delegates to the WALGA AGM are delegates - and must vote as their Council determines. So do we presume that the vast majority of Councils feel they have something to hide - or are they simply too unconcerned with how they are perceived to think about it.

The Barnett so-called reform was entirely wrong-headed if real reform, as distinct from larger, more-politicised councils, was the objective. But if Councils persist in this head-in-the-sand attitude, they might not find their communities so supportive next time Col wields his big stick.

Col Pot's Potty Economics

Yet again, Colin Barnett shows he doesn't understand local government - not to mention having incredible cheek to lecture others on financial responsibility when he has presided over economic disaster, driven by his 'captain's picks' of infrastructure spending.

If the rates on an individual property go up by $600, as he instances, this is almost certainly due to either (a) the Valuer General revaluing properties (as is required every few years) and increasing the value of some by more than others or (b) the property being revalued as a result of improvements, additions or alterations.

In the former case, even if Council rate revenue were to remain the same, some properties would pay more and others less.

Looked at another way, the highest rate increase for 2015/16 is 8% (Victoria Park). For this to equate to $600, the previous rates payable must have been $7,500 - which implies a 'Gross Rental Value' (the basis on which rates are calculated) of just under $100,000. By comparison, the GRV of my house in Mt Lawley is about one-quarter of that - even the 8% rate increase would be $150 - not $600.

So it looks like the $600, if, indeed, it is a real figure and not just a figment of Col's imagination, is most likely largely the result of revaluation, for one reason or another, or the property is a commercial one not, as many people would have assumed, a residential one (ie the case facing most people). Of course, $600 is important to business as well as to households, but Col shouldn't be misleading us into thinking about how $600 would affect us as individuals.

As In WA, So In NSW

I have previously remarked on how the NSW Government is trying to go blindly down the same path as the WA Government on forcing local government amalgamations (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/when-will-state-governments-learn.html).

Fascinating to see how consistent with WA is the NSW community opposition to forced local government amalgamations (http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2015/07/survey-says-72-against-nsw-council-mergers).

Click to enlarge

South Perth Rejects City of Perth Bill

Last night, South Perth City Council voted unanimously to express its strong concerns about a range of aspects of the City of Perth Bill currently before the Legislative Assembly (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/well-done-south-perth-council.html). 

This could be the game-changer that creates awareness of the dangers of the current City of Perth Bill for all local governments not just those specifically mentioned in the Bill.

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.

Barnett Still Lying About Local Government

Colin Barnett is unhappy about local government rate rises (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-16/council-rates-hikes-not-acceptable-wa-premier-says/6626022) but fails to acknowledge the extent to which increases are a direct result of forcing metropolitan councils to spend ratepayers money on his failed so-called reform process.

CPI is not a relevant measure of cost pressures on local government - not much of your council budget goes on food or housing. Local government cost index has been increasing faster than consumer prices, especially during the resources boom.

Barnett says if ratepayers thought their rates were too high they should look at their council's size and viability. He said that might prompt some to rethink their position on whether council amalgamations are needed. "You can go into parts of Perth and rates will be $2,500, you can go into other parts of Perth and they'll be $1,100," he said.

Well, Col, the highest-charging metropolitan councils are outer ones with large areas to service, low densities and development pressures to support. It is not unexpected that their costs (and hence their charges) are higher. Size is not the issue - the low-charging large councils are ones that are largely-developed.

And it seems he just can't help himself about wanting amalgamations. Don't tell us what to think about local government, though, Col. Local government should be just that - local. If communities want to amalgamate, that's fine - but the initiative should come from them (let's change the Local Government Act so that the Minister can't make formal amalgamation proposals) and they should have the opportunity to call a poll on any proposals or recommendations. 

New Blog: Capital City Citizens' Committee

http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au

I'll still be commenting here on the City of Perth Bill and other local government matters, but there is a new blog on the block (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au) focussing on what is needed to establish an effective capital city for Western Australia and all Western Australians.

The Capital City belongs to all Western Australians, not just the ratepayers, residents and businesses of the City of Perth. We are all citizens of our Capital City.

As well as drawing attention to the flaws of the current City of Perth Bill and urging its rejection by the Parliament, the CCCC is constructively working to identify the functional and legislative basis for a Capital City of which all Western Australians can be proud.

Liberal MLC, Mark Lewis, Fails Dismally

Liberal MLC Mark Lewis tried to find 'reasons' why country people should support the City of Perth Bill - but, as Cecilia Brooke eloquently points out, he failed dismally.

No Consultation (Again) = Disrespect

I have previously drawn attention to lack of consultation (and denial of it) in this blog - http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/porkies-in-parliament.html and http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/simpson-nonsense-and-inconsistency-again.html.

Jane Boxall's letter in today's West Australian demonstrates that this lack of consultation is so all-pervasive as to amount to disrespect.

The West Australian, 6th July 2015

Councils for Democracy Alive and Well

As Mosman Park Mayor, on Norris, said, "it looks like CfD will have an ongoing vital role in local government".

There is most certainly a need for an alternative and more effective voice than WALGA to pursue the interests of all local governments and their communities.

There is also a crying need for continued opposition to the Barnett government's flawed ideological pursuit of so-called reform in local government.

Yes, there is room for improvement in local government.

No, the pig-headed Barnett/Simpson approach is not the way to achieve improvement - instead it wastes resources on trying to achieve change that would, if achieved, be at best ineffective and more likely counter-productive.

When Will State Governments Learn?

When will state governments learn that local government is not just about economic efficiency but also about a sense of community and identity? 

Where there are 'economies of scale' (and the evidence is that there are very few), councils can (and do) work together to share resources or to outsource functions to other councils. 

Where there are no economies of scale (most local government activities, according to the evidence), all amalgamation achieves is a loss of community identity - and the cost of changing everything from letterheads and signs to computer systems.

The loss of community identity and the lack of synergy in proposed amalgamations is epitomised by the proposed merger of Queanbeyan and Palerang Councils which have "fundamentally different demographics", with Palerang being largely a rural council, dealing with or delivering services into the farming community, small rural villages and towns, whereas  Queanbeyan is essentially an urban council (below right).

Good luck to the NSW communities that are resisting the pressure from the NSW Government. I can understand why some have chosen to submit a Plan B, as many Councils did here in Western Australia, but I'm not sure this is really the way to go as the Plan B implies an acceptance of amalgamations that are not wanted by these councils or their communities.

The Ideological Madness Continues - In NSW

Holroyd Council "tick[s] the full seven benchmarks … operating performance, home source revenue, asset renewal, infrastructure backlog, asset maintenance, debt service cover and real operating expenditure" but Parramatta wants to take it over.

The Australian Local Government Association opposes forced amalgamations (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/deja-vu.html).

But the State Government "has not ruled out forced amalgamations if councils cannot reach consensus" on council numbers reduction set in train by the State Government itself.

This sounds horribly familiar to those of us in WA.

CCCC Thanks to Shane Love and The Nationals

A few days delay in publishing the CCCC letter thanking Shane Love and the Nationals for sticking to their principles - but the West gets there in the end.

Deja Vu

In an almost exact repeat of the so-called reform process in WA, we have the NSW (also Liberal) Government reneging on a promise not to force local government amalgamations and then going ahead and doing it.

Pity (well, not really) former WALGA president, Troy Pickard, now President of the Australian Local Government Association, walking slap bang into the middle of the same fight in which he so singularly failed to distinguish himself in WA.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-19/local-councils-vote-against-nsw-amalgamation-proposal/6558832

Simpson Nonsense and Inconsistency Again

On 21st May, Simpson told the Parliament that he was "working with the City of Subiaco" (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/porkies-in-parliament.html).

On 18th June, he told the Parliament that "one letter has gone from the department to request a meeting with Subiaco CEO and Mayor", but that he has had no reply. In view of the Subiaco Mayor's statement that the City of Subiaco has had no contact from the department or the Minister since March, why hasn't the Minister checked that the letter was actually received. Perhaps it's still sitting in his out-tray waiting for him to sign it.

On The Parliamentary Record

Not that we needed it to be so, given the public statement in the West Australian on Tuesday, but still good to see it confirmed in the Parliament.

Bad Day For Barnett

So-called 'maverick' Liberal MP, Rob Johnson, votes against the Government. Barnett's petulant response is to say Johnson won't get Liberal endorsement in 2017 - despite the fact that such endorsement is not at the whim of the Premier.

And the Nationals affirm their intention to vote against the City of Perth Bill.

It's really good to see that at least some in politics (and, yes, there are others - but too few) are willing to take a stand on principle.

However, the current Bill is not only about boundaries - although it does give them too much importance, which is both an affront to democracy and a distraction from what should be the main aim of enhancing our Capital City.

The remainder of the Bill is poorly thought out and does little or nothing to establish a true Capital City.

Colin Barnett's View of the Magna Carta

http://www.bl.uk/collection-items/burnt-copy-of-magna-carta-with-the-seal-attached

Today is the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta.

Magna Carta, meaning ‘The Great Charter’, is one of the most famous documents in the world. Originally issued by King John of England (r.1199-1216) as a practical solution to the political crisis he faced in 1215, Magna Carta established for the first time the principle that everybody, including the king, was subject to the law (http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-an-introduction).

800 years later, the Magna Carta remains a cornerstone of the British (and hence Australian) system of government and law. However, one could be forgiven for concluding that this burnt original (one of four originals) of the Great Charter is how Colin Barnett sees it.

We have hope, however. 

Perth people power has put WA’s treacherous king of the 21st century on notice and has already forced him to run up the white flag over forced amalgamations.

Next, the people, through their representatives in the WA Parliament, will reject his egregious City of Perth Bill in its current form.