Modernising Victoria’s Planning Act

The CMPA recently provided comments to the Department of Planning & Community Development on their suggested changes to the Planning & Environment Act 1987. ROGER BUCKLEY, CMPA Executive Director provides a summary of the submission.

CMPA Members are particularly concerned about the complexity, cost and time required for a planning permit to be processed. Their experience in applications is showing increasing costs in dollars and time, particularly if applications end in VCAT.

The CMPA does urge the development of all guidance material that will be developed with the changes to the legislation to be available in simple, easy to understand, unambiguous language so that the planning professional as well as the proponents can understand the requirements without confusion.

Specific comments on each of the Response Papers follow.

RESPONSE PAPER 1 – Objectives of Planning

CMPA supports the concept of the objectives of planning to balance the environmental, social and economic considerations in making decisions on land use.

Stone resources close to market are of vital economic importance to the provision of low cost public infrastructure and competitive housing affordability. To ensure strategic planning of the use and availability of these resources so they are not sterilised by incompatible land uses in the future, government needs to embrace the role of stewardship of the resource. Such a role will also contribute to ensuring continuing diversity of supply which assists in maintaining a competitive market place. To facilitate government stewardship of the valuable stone resource, it is suggested that objective (h) be changed to:

“to protect natural and man-made resources, infrastructure, utilities and other assets and enable the orderly development of natural resources and provision and coordination of infrastructure, utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community”.

RESPONSE PAPER 2 – The Amendment Process

Technical amendment

The CMPA suggests that only properly accredited and skilled people be authorised by the Minister to prepare a technical amendment. This role should not be available to just anybody as vexatious objectors may even use this route to further frustrate proposals, further increasing Victoria’s sovereign risk. It should also be clearly stated on what grounds the Minister may withdraw any such authorisation.

Standard amendment

Guidelines for the basis of the Minister’s decision on an amendment should be publicly available and outline how the decision is based on defendable facts that balance the environmental, social and economic considerations.

The inability to challenge amendment decisions is also an issue and there should be a means by which this can occur. The CMPA supports the introduction of statutory time frames in an effort to reduce the time of the approval process.

However, there should also be some reward or benefit provided to organisations that perform better than the stated benchmark as well as encouragement provided to the lower performing organisations. There should also be consequences for not meeting specified time-frames for specific proposals such as “approval assumed if no response received within xx days”.

RESPONSE PAPER 3 – The Permit Process

Code Assess Track

CMPA strongly supports efforts to provide a “fast track” planning permit approval process for simple proposals through the Code Assess Track. It is suggested that the Code of Practice for Small Quarries currently being finalised by the Earth Resources Division of DPI could be such a code that could be used to assess simple quarry proposals.

The Code sets out specified performance standards or assessment criteria and could be easily incorporated into local planning schemes.

Merit Assess Track

Efforts to make the planning permit system more transparent and streamlined are to be applauded; however significant issues in the proposed Merit Assess Track will still occur, similar to the current planning permit application process for quarrying proposals.

The CMPA is finalising its report An Unsustainable Future: The Prohibitive Costs of Securing Construction Material Resources in Victoria. This report highlights how Victoria’s community is at risk of having to pay more for houses and roads due to a slow, costly, repetitive, uncertain extractive industry Work Authority approvals process combined with ever increasing regulatory burdens such as the new native vegetation and heritage requirements for new or extended quarry operations.

These risks have lead to reduced investment in new quarry operations during a time of increasing demand. This has the potential to limit future supply, increase product costs, leading to increased costs of public infrastructure projects, decreased housing affordability and an increased environmental footprint of transport.

Government needs to recognise its stewardship role in the effective management of the State’s valuable construction material resources and to ensure they are not sterilised for future generations use. It needs to provide a secure and realistic pathway for industry to access resources.

There is an opportunity for Government and industry to work together to develop an extractive industry framework which will deliver a sustainable and secure future for the industry; one that allows continuation of supply of cost effective construction materials to the community.

The report examines nine case studies and identified key issues relevant to the planning process. The submission then listed the issues and suggested Government actions as presented in the An Unsustainable Future report article in this issue.

Quality of applications

It could be argued that the security of obtaining an outcome through improved processes needs to be obtained before proponents will invest large sums of money in providing quality, in depth planning permit applications.

Permit Conditions

It is noted that the Minister may direct responsible authorities and referral agencies to use standard conditions for specific matters. It is suggested that standard planning permit conditions be developed for quarrying proposals in consultation with DPI and industry.

These permit conditions should focus on off site impacts outside of the Work Authority boundary. This concept should also help to limit planning permit conditions being included that are not supported by Government policy.

Community involvement

The CMPA recognises the important and valued role the community plays in Victoria’s planning process. It does not support expanding the requirements for community involvement in the planning process beyond the current provisions as there is little evidence in the quarrying sector that formal community consultation will in fact reduce costs to the operator.

Planning Permit Amendments

The concept of the responsible authority being able to amend a planning permit that has been directed to be issued by VCAT is supported as it helps to streamline the process if the responsible authority undertakes the amendment in a time efficient manner that is proportional to the scale and complexity of the amendment.

RESPONSE PAPER 4 – State Significant Major Development

CMPA notes the new criteria for the state significant major developments and how the proposed new process will not affect assessment and approval processes for specific types of development such as mining which are already provided with an approval process under other legislation.

The CMPA strongly suggests that as extractive industry will be covered under the umbrella of the same legislation as mining from the 1st January 2010, then extractive industry proposals should also not be covered by the proposed state significant major developments process. This undertaking should be outlined in the legislation.

RESPONSE PAPER 5 – Other Modernisation Initiatives

The CMPA supports the concept of annual reporting of planning activities by the Minister, DPCD, planning authorities, responsible authorities and referral authorities. This reporting should use consistent milestone stages and target times for the same processes across the industry.

Efficient administration of approvals should be rewarded with inefficient administration encouraged to perform better. Performance reporting should be used to identify planning bottlenecks and help reduce overall planning approval time frames. This should be managed so the desired outcomes are achieved, rather than just another government report disappearing into the bureaucracy.

The CMPA also supports the implementation of e-Planning initiatives. The ability to submit forms and information electronically and transfer these to referral authorities will help to reduce costs for the proponent.

The CMPA also supports the proposed changes to Section 173 agreements. The current requirement for the Minister to be involved in the process is too cumbersome and time consuming. Removing this obligation when the Minister is not a party to the agreement should reduce red tape. The ability to review to VCAT when disputes occur should also help to reduce blockages in the process.

Details of the review and the Response Papers are available from the Department’s website at www.dpcd.vic.gov.au, then click on Planning, then click on Quick Links

You must be logged in to post a comment Login