Problems with Victorian Draft Planning and Environment Bill
Addition contributed on 12-2-2010
"IN SUMMARY
I would summarise the proposals set out in Modernising the Act as creating a parallel planning system. The changes proposed do not really modernise or upgrade our existing planning system. Rather, these changes create a new planning system the effect of which is to increase the Minister's powers and to partly privatise the planning system at the expense of the autonomy local government has traditionally enjoyed as both a planning authority for amendments and as the responsible authority for planning applications. The definition of state significant developments is so broad that the Minister will have little difficulty in justifying intervention wherever the Minister sees fit. There is little transparency or accountability to those impacted by such decisions.We should reject this Review in total and recommend in the interests of democracy that you send it right back to the drawing boards.
Mary Drost
Convenor
Planning Backlash"
POINTS IN THE DRAFT PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BILL WHICH ARE VERY BAD FOR VICTORIA.
SECTION 1 OBJECTIVES OF PLANNING IN VICTORIA
Sounds nice words, but try those words in VCAT and they become meaningless. However they say the right things and we should certainly use them when defending our cases.
I hope that planning is for present Victorians rather than for these extra millions they want to bring here. In other words, to protect the present lifestyle and not cram us all in like sardines to make way for more.
SECTION 2 THE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT PROCESS
This must be opposed in its entirety.
In effect it is privatizing the Amendment Process.
At present only councils can initiate an amendment. This Review proposes putting this power into the hands of private persons, with the Ministers approval.
There is also the suggestion of fast tracking amendments.
This would mean that Councils and we residents would lose all control over changes in the Planning Scheme such as overlays like heritage, or landscape etc. Almost worse, developers could propose an amendment to the Minister to change an ordinary residential area into an Activity Centre.
This proposal has been objected to since the beginning by councils and residents alike and the Government seems blind and deaf to our wishes, so here it is again in the final draft. They give endless details about how it will work and how people are approved to be able to propose amendments. Naturally they propose a fast track method to get these amendments approved by the Minister.
They claim the reason they are doing this is because councils sometimes won't support an amendment, for instance if a developer proposes an amendment to the council the council can and does say NO.
They claim another reason is that councils sometimes don’t have time or resources so the government is trying to prevent delays.
THE TRUTH is that the biggest hold up of amendments is the Ministers office which will sit for up to 18 months on requests from the council to advertise an amendment and then again for months to have it approved after advertising it.
Council should be in control of amendments as they are responsible to their communities so must be the ones to adopt, abandon and approve an amendment to their planning scheme.
SO PLEASE IN YOUR SUBMISSION OBJECT IN STRONGEST WAY TO ALLOWING OTHERS TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE MINISTER.
It will be developers who want to do this to get rid of overlays that prevent them building what they want where they want, or making new Activity Centrrs for them to develop.
SECTION 3 THE PLANNING PERMIT PROCESS
Interestingly enough, in the earlier document that was put out for submissions last year, this section contained ideas about limiting the number and location of neighbours to be notified as well limiting those who could put in objections about a planning application. There was also talk about charging ordinary citizens to put in objections. Naturally these ideas drew strong objection. They don't seem to be here this time, but they might get sneaked in at some later stage. Be vigilant.
The proposed Code Assess system has many problems.
The Government want to bring in very prescriptive rules for development and if the application ticks all the boxes then the Council have only 14 days to assess it, there will be no notices to neighbours, no objections allowed and no appeal to VCAT, with the CEO the one responsible to decide on the permit. This is not good.
There are several further issues with Code Assess.
- If there are existing 173 agreements, they can no longer be considered.
- Also council, in its decision , cannot take into consideration a Structure Plan for that area that they have adopted if it has not yet been approved by the Minister.
- The section Objectives of Planning in Victoria which provides guidance for decisions are not able to be considered when dealing with Code Assess.
- it is the Minister who is to decide on the rules of prescription - this is very wrong. The Council and community should have the right to have input into the establishing of these prescriptive rules, not all in the hands of the Minister.
In normal applications, Council have the right to ask for more information in 28 days so this does not match the code assess rules of 14 days. Obviously 14 days is ridiculous, too short, should be at least 28 days.
The Process is very unclear. For example if Council considers something does not meet the predetermined criteria, do they just refuse the application or go through the normal planning process of advertising and getting objections etc?
THIS CODE ASSESS CONCEPT AS IT IS PRESENTED HERE, SHOULD BE OPPOSED.
SECTION 4 STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
1. State Significant Sites should be clearly defined and not left to the whim of the Minister. This definition should include community and council participation, otherwise it is something that involves only the Minister and the Developer and has no transparency or accountability. The community should be asked for submissions about declaring a site to be significant.
There is the case where the Minister declared Tooronga 'Significant' against not only the council and the community but also his own panel and gave the developer exactly what he wanted and then allowed the developer to drastically amend the proposal after it was started because it was not economic.
2. Before a site is declared significant, the claim should be publicized and scrutinized and justified and the community able to put in submissions.
3. 'Call ins' by the Minister must be seen to be not just a reaction to what a developer suddenly wants. Here again the community and council should be consulted.
4. The Minister must at all times be transparent and accountable and show written justification for his decisions and this should be made public. The public are not impressed by the Minister constantly saying he is creating jobs when we have in our hands the lists of developments that have been approved and deferred or abandoned or on sold at great profit. These actions do not show good planning.
5. The Minister’s decisions must be subject to appeals in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). That would be democracy.
SECTION 5 OTHER MODERNISATION INITIATIVES
Two things jump out in this section.
1. 173 agreements are legal documents signed between 2 parties to give security and comfort, usually about a development. The developer or anyone, should not be able to go to VCAT to have this agreement amended or ended. That defeats the whole purpose of a 173 agreement. It would be very wrong to have this in the Bill.
2. Under "other technical changes." (This is really compulsory acquisition of land)
This would rate as one of the WORST ASPECTS in the Draft Bill and keeps coming back no matter what anyone says against it.
This time it does not spell it out as clearly as it did in the previous Draft of the Bill. This is to do with more power to the Minister for purchasing land.
This must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances.
In the previous Draft they made the mistake of mentioning to which part of the Act if referred and on looking that up it became clear it was compulsory acquisition of land. Now it is much sneakier and simply clarifying that the Minister has the same power as the council for purchasing land.
To make it clear - I spell out the possibilities for the department - worst case scenario but possible.
CASE STUDY
Camberwell Junction Principle Activity Centre - Madden puts in his Development Assessment Committee (DAC)
The developers want to extend the area of the Centre, it is very restricted by large slabs of Heritage housing really close by. They propose AN AMENDMENT to the Minister to get rid of the heritage overlays on these old Victorian houses on large areas of land (what a waste of space) which the Minister agrees to, but the irritating people wont sell, they like their stupid old houses, so the Minister uses his new Power for COMPULSORY ACQUISITION and they all get knocked over and decent 30 storey apartment and office blocks go up in their place. And my understanding is that in Victoria, compulsory acquisition does not have to be fussed about true values of takeovers. If any lawyers reading this disagree I stand corrected but that is what one young lawyer told me.
OTHER MATTERS
The main thing here that should be commented on is the time allowed councils for assessing applications. It is too short. Developers make use of this and often drag their feet when asked for more details, knowing the system and that when the time expires they can immediately go to VCAT where they hope to get a better deal. This timing should be worked out by council as to how long they realistically need for these big applications and should be allowed the appropriate time. Obviously when applications have to be advertised and go to council meetings, there should be at least 80 or 90 days allowed for the council to make a decision. It is far better to be slow and get a good outcome than a rushed one with a poor outcome.
Recent comments