NSW planning legislation should be extensively rewritten – including going back to separate development and building applications, planner David Broyd says.
His paper, Where to Planning?, published by the University of New South Wales, was the subject of a survey to which 55 local government planners from across the state responded.
Ninety-three per cent of respondents agreed that NSW planning and environmental legislation should be overhauled as recommended by the Upper House Standing Committee into the NSW Planning Framework, while 92.6 per cent agreed that community trust in planning needed to be rebuilt and 81 per cent agreed that the whole ”culture” of doing business in planning in NSW needed to change.
”The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act was fine for its day when introduced in 1979 but is now outdated and incompatible with today’s social, economic and environmental context of planning,” Mr Broyd says.
”The content of multiple pieces of legislation needs to be integrated into a single act to clarify the decision-making responsibilities between state and local government.”
Mr Broyd is one of the state’s most experienced planners, having worked at Tweed, Wollongong and Port Stephens councils, and is a former president of the Planning Institute of Australia NSW.
”The planning system has become overly complex, cumbersome and process-oriented, as the result of many politically expedient and ad hoc changes,” he says. ”Our politicians tell the community what it wants to hear rather than what it needs to hear.”
With the national population projected to grow by 14 million to 36 million in the next 35 years, the federal government must play a greater part, Mr Broyd says.
”At present, there is no national vision and no national co-ordinated process towards planning the future population distribution and associated infrastructure priorities,” he says.
His view that there is a compelling case for the federal government to be more involved in planning and lead the preparation of a national settlement strategy was supported by 83 per cent and 79 per cent of survey respondents respectively.
Eighty-three per cent agreed there should be greater consistency between planning legislation, systems and practices across states and territories.
Joint regional planning panels should become appeal bodies rather than maintain their current role of taking away the decision-making responsibilities of councils (supported by 62 per cent). That the Department of Planning should become a leader of policies and practices rather than assessing applications and ”policing” local government work was endorsed by 81 per cent of planners.
”This would mean the department’s high level of professional skills being shifted to crucial strategic and policy work,” Mr Broyd says. State agencies should be required to prepare relevant policies for public scrutiny and, when adopted, there should be greater delegation to councils (supported by 78 per cent).
More than 85 per cent supported the idea the LEP (zoning) template needed to be more flexible and allow more local controls.
Not all of Mr Broyd’s proposals gained majority support. The establishment of a Sydney planning and infrastructure authority headed by a minister for Sydney and the related amalgamation of some councils drew a mixed response. Such an authority was supported by 72 per cent of respondents but only 41 per cent agreed it should be headed by a minister for Sydney.
Source: SMH, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/planners-endorse-call-for-clearer-simpler-rules-20110516-1epwd.html
“Joint regional planning panels should become appeal bodies”
All this would achieve is longer delays and planning outcomes decided by lawyers.
Shire councils can administer DAs under DCPs, but do not have the resources to assess town planning matters that include regional and state issues. Joint Regional Planning Panels should be responsible for all DAs that are regional or cross shire based. Councils should be required to outline their position in the form of a report and be part of the consideration process.
Toni Sarri