Development Approval Application

These days, the ‘elephant-in-the-room’ when it comes to development approval applications is local authority approval timeframes.

development approval applications – approval timeframes

Most professional consultant teams are really only prepared to discuss protracted development approval applications timeframes in hushed tones. Development approval applications approval times are reserved for closed door client meetings or off-the-record phone conversations.

Community experience in development approval applications across the state give you some indication how the lengthy ordeal.  Recent local authority examples include development approval applications drawn-out to 200 days.  A simple development approval application with another local authority for a class 1 dwelling at the notched up a staggering 224 days.  Another current application at the same local authority is sitting at 122 days and counting.  A Manager of Development Services unashamedly advised that the development approval application would take minimum 90 days for two story building.

The late Michael Swift, City of Busselton CEO 1997-2002, was meticulous in ensuring all applicants were delivered an expeditious response (ie within twenty-eight days) on each and every  application and would no-doubt be grieved by the legacy that now exists.  When canvassing south-west builders, developers, town planners and other professionals; these timeframes are certainly not anomalous – bearing in mind that most development approval applications are then followed by a building permit application – also approved by the local authority.

development approval applications – where to lodge planning appeals

One might say, “…build a bridge a get over it…” or “…start a group…” but these are extensive timeframes.  The delayed approval timeframes are beyond the ninety days statutory period stipulated in the Town Planning and Development Act 2005. Delayed approval timeframes have a real commercial cost to each application, every applicant, planning/building professionals and the wider community.  Afterall, aren’t planning officers’ salaries subsidized by the local authority ratepayers who fund the Council through taxes?  When faced with these exaggerated timeframes, the choices include:

1. State Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) review after ninety days;
2. abusing planning staff (only for the very brave or fool-hardy)
3. complaint to the Chief Executive Officer;
4. lobby Councilors;
5. complaint to the State Government;
6. complaint to the Ombudsman;
7. all of the above

planning appeals

Baby boomers may have noticed the adjustment of attitudes amongst the public service with the evolution of JDF’s to the ‘officer’ description.  Recalcitrant behaviour is an issue that falls between the cracks of government bureaucracies. The applicant is left with the choice of pleading for mercy to the CEO or lobbying Councilors.   The next task is to motivate Councilors to bring about accountability to the CEO and/or sub-ordinate staff. This type of political maneuvre will defer applicants back to a planning appeal at the State level after ninety days. Regrettably, taking your case to the Tribunal involves more effort, cost and longer timeframes – and local government officers know it.  Local authorities can employ deliberate stalling tactics to presumably ‘bleed-out’ the appellant through excessive consultant time and professional fees. A recent appeal addressed the insufficient respect towards the Tribunal in the decision DR 196 2014 Bruhn vs City.  The local authority lost and the Bruhn’s were awarded $14,880 costs – a David and Goliath battle lost by the Philistines.

privatizing public planning

In recent times, the Building Commission has shifted building surveyors out of local authorities to the private sector via the Building Act 2011. So should planning officers be the target of the next privatization push of a hopeful new state government?  The recent privatization of building surveyors’ services by the Building Commission has it’s detractors.  However, the construction industry now enjoys expedited timeframes on building permit applications and significantly reduced fees. Successive state and national governments have privatizations (eg CBA, Qantas, Telstra, Alinta Gas) alongside a plethora of other parliamentary privatization proposals.  Should local authority planning departments be the next behemoth to be privatized?  “…Extreme…” or “…radical…” you say but perhaps not?  The Planning Commission has actually already set-up a working group to consider the outsourcing of the arduous planning approval process.

private planning proposition

The proposition being explored by the Planning Commission pertains to the private sector assessing sub-divisional applications. Premier Brian Burke set the ball rolling and made the first attempt on privatizing the Public Works.  Subsequent liberal and conservative government retired larger amount of the bloated public sector workforce. It’ll take an incredibly self-assured State politician to initiate a move of this magnitude in privatizing town planning services. Would the private sector do a better job?  ASIC (via the Corporations Act) may bring greater accountability to private planning companies than we currently see in local authorities?  Are the local authority CEO’s prepared to relinquish their lucrative development approval fees and planning officers take a hair-cut? And finally the question on every voter’s lips; what effect would this have on rates?