The Expert Panel’s ideas for Planning Reform
Posted on August 14, 2014
On 6 August 2014 the Expert Panel on Planning Reform released its second report, “Our ideas for Reform”. There are 27 ideas for reform contained in the report and not surprisingly some of them are causing some controversy.
The report recognises the positive attributes of our existing planning system while identifying the reality that the current system does not have the confidence of the community and businesses, lacks transparency and flexibility, and it is overly complex.
The panel has been charged with ensuring the State has an effective, efficient and enabling planning system to address statistics like:
- 90% of applications made under the current planning system are ‘on merit’ applications
- 1 out of every 3 decisions referred to the ERD Court are reversed
- 40 out of 68 Councils have not reviewed their zoning rules within 10 years
- Over 600 different zone classifications in the planning library
It is not surprising with statistics like this that there would be some new and culturally challenging ideas proposed - not the least of which is the proposition that the administration and delivery of the planning system should not lie with elected members as their role is best suited according to the panel, to the policy and strategy of the planning system.
The report is over 150 pages long and is divided in to five key topic reform ideas:
- Roles, responsibilities and participation;
- Plans and plan making;
- Development pathways and processes;
- Place-making, urban renewal and infrastructure; and
- Alignment, delivery and culture.
The ideas for reform are by in large very good and it is difficult to select which of the 27 ideas will have the most important role to play in promoting an effective, efficient and enabling planning system as they are interconnected. From the writer’s perspective, some of the most important ideas which would benefit both the community and businesses are:
- Reform 1 which proposes the creation of a State Planning Commission which would incorporate the roles currently performed by the Development Policy Advisory Committee and the Development Assessment Commission and be the pre-eminent State planning body with statutory power and responsibility for the administration of the planning system.The Commission would also provide policy support and advice, monitor delivery of planning outcomes and work with councils to respond to Government policy and local issues. The Commission would have a level of independence from Government.
- Reform 2 which proposes a network of between 8 – 10 Regional Planning Boards that would prepare regional strategies, approve council rezoning proposals, undertake public hearings and appoint Regional Development Assessment Panels. It is envisaged that the metropolitan area would consist of three regions, north, south and central. The city centre would be included in a wider area and extend beyond that currently encompassed on the City of Adelaide.
- Reform 3 which proposes the idea of a statutory Charter of Citizen Participation to replace the current consultation process. The charter would be designed to enable citizens to be heard by way of early community engagement through the use of what the panel calls ‘new and emerging technologies and media’. The charter would be flexible and move away from current prescriptive statutory requirements.
- Reform 8 which proposes a new statewide planning code that will contain a comprehensive menu of zones, overlays and other spatial layers maintained by the State Planning Commission. The panel identified that while ‘Better Development Plans’ attempted to create greater consistency, this will not actually be achieved without legislative support. The planning code would replace Better Development Plans.
- Reform 11 which recognises the complexity of the current statement of intent, and the cost associated with preparing the statement. It proposes that it be replaced with a one page initiation document which can allow for a re-zoning program approval rather than individual re-zoning approvals. Regional boards could initiate re-zoning changes and decide council re-zoning proposals. The State Planning Commission would make the final determination on zoning changes without ministerial intervention. The premise behind this idea is the recognition that for development plans to be credible, they need to be updated easily. The current ‘mean time’ for approval of development plan amendments is 37 months. The panel recognises that this is too long.
- Reform 13 which proposes breaking consents into smaller steps allowing, for example, building envelope, land use, design, structure and layout, finishes and landscaping consents. The panel recognises that the current planning and building rules consent stages may not be appropriate for complex projects and that there is a need for more flexibility to ‘align assessment processes with users looking to secure investment finance with the ‘bankability’ that progressive decision-making provides’.
- Reform 15 which proposes new regional-level assessment panels that would become the primary forum for development assessment, undertaking assessments currently handled by the Development Assessment Commission and the Development Assessment Panel. Regional Development Assessment Panels would be made up of accredited professionals who would undergo periodic training. Council members would not have decision making roles on the panel but could be called upon by the panel to participate in discussions. The new structure recognises concerns that the influence of local elected representatives on panels may be leading to decisions that do not reflect the development plan intent.
- Reform 17 which recognises that under the current system, Government agencies are required to ‘sponsor private infrastructure projects before they can proceed to planning assessment’ and that without recognition of essential infrastructure, this system cannot change. Separating infrastructure from the Crown development process is seen as a means of achieving a new approval process. The State Planning Commission would determine and maintain categories of infrastructure that could use such an approval process.
- Reform 27 which identifies that underpinning the ideas in the report is the premise that the current planning system does not have ‘enabling practices and an enabling culture’. The panel recognises that legislative change can only do so much unless the cultural issues are addressed as ‘poor practices and a risk-averse decision-making culture have become entrenched in many quarters of the planning system’. To support the need for a cultural shift, the State Planning Commission would take a key role, and be responsible for, a code of planning excellence. They would work with Local Government, the public service and professional organisations to pursue cultural change.
Aside from the above, the report also identifies some more unique reform ideas such as:
- A form-based approach to zoning which includes design guidelines and standards having formal statutory recognition with design features included in the state planning code;
- Making the appeals process more accessible by establishing a regional merit review process with re-hearings by regional assessment panels, empowering commissions to make binding arbitral directions at conferences and allowing the Court to impose costs in limited cases; and
- Creating more enforcement options by way of administrative sanctions to enforce minor matters, and allow the courts to impose sanctions such as adverse publicity orders and business improvement orders.
The ideas in the report represent an extensive assessment of what the panel heard in its listening and scoping stage. From the writer’s point of view, the report proposes some crucial reforms to assist in achieving the goals of the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. Submissions on the Exploring and Discussing stage report can be made until 26 September 2014.
The panel will now move to the evaluation of ideas phase in October and November 2014 and deliver its final report at the end of December 2014.