Less red tape, more local open space for communities
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Minister for Planning Matthew Guy will introduce new legislation into State Parliament this week that will further cut planning system red tape and importantly, will increase local Councils' ability to provide greater amounts of public open space.
Amendments to the Planning and Environment Act will also scrap the former Labor Government's divisive Development Assessment Committees which ripped planning powers away from communities in their most important areas.
"The Coalition Government is reforming and contemporising the planning system after a decade of destruction by the previous Labor government," Mr Guy said.
"The abolition of the Development Assessment Committees gives councils real certainty that the Coalition Government will not follow Labor's path of appointing committees to override community wishes in setting planning policy.
"The Coalition Government will introduce a new body of Planning Application Committees which will strengthen the role of Councils in the planning system by acting as a voluntary opt-in body to which Councils may delegate applications, or from which they may seek advice, thus giving a greater level of support to local government.
"The new voluntary opt-in Planning Application Committees will provide a similar level of support in decision making as a Planning Panel, should the Council wish to seek further advice," Mr Guy said.
The Coalition Government will also legislate to strengthen public open space requirements and allow Councils to obtain levels of public open space greater than the 5 per cent minimum, as specified in the Subdivision Act.
"Giving legislative support to achieving greater open space is a key component of the Coalition Government's drive to increase Melbourne's liveability. Melbourne cannot remain the most liveable city in the world unless we do all we can to secure more public open space," Mr Guy said.
Other elements of the reform to the Planning and Environment Act include:
- clarifying which statutory authorities will keep powers of veto over local planning decisions, with some authorities such as CMA's to lose this authority;
- streamlining the planning scheme amendment authorisation process so that all decisions are made within ten working days, or deemed authorised; and
- allowing Councils to vary a permit issued by VCAT if changes are required, rather than applicants having to go back into the VCAT queue.
5 comments:
I'll reserve my judgement on whethers these changes to allow the theft of more private space to public open space will give more powers to ratespayers through their Councillors, or whether it will just give more powers to the Council Officers and Planners which appears to be happening now, because essentially most Councillors rely and accept the advice of Planners too much and dont ask too many questions or show leadership on Planning matters by sticking their head out of the group. I'm of the opinion that ratepayers need to appoint a headhunting firm to go seek out a group of pre-vetted candidates who would be equipped to deal with the challenges ahead of them, which in my view these people need to be not afraid to have different views than made evident yesterday when Lady Hamer reminded us all how socialistic Sir Ruper Hamer and the Liberal Party really where 40 years ago and how they believed in Planned economies to the extent of disposseesing land owners of their natural rights by creating GWZ land and to which enough Liberals still believe and side with the extreme Greenies in the suburbs who are anti everything.Lady Hamer is the Patron of the extreme left wing of the Greens movement in the suburbs should be enough evidence of where some of the older Liberals seem to be stuck even though they deny being socialists by allowing their Liberal Party to continue the restrictions we landowners are enduring today. What was more frightening yesterday, was that Matthew Guy quipped to the media that it was the ALP which had opened up more GWZ land to subdivision than the Liberals had done. It should be a wake up call to voters who are being too nice and diplomatic to their Liberal Party friends and therefore holding back the development of true free enterprise in meeting the modern day demands that lands close to the melb metro areas which should be permitted to be reduced in size by the demand which is there and bulging at the seams. The Liberals need to look at themselves as we dont want them to RULE us; we want them to govern in a true spirit which free markets offer. We landowners dont want to be continued to be stopped from developing our land into smaller 1 Ha sites for eco farming,or for more tourism ideas, afterall how much privately owned open space would be covered with houses and garages on a 1 Ha site if you restricted house footprint sizes to a 150m2 and garages 150m2.? There would still be huge tracts of private open space which I would think would be better than allowing Councils to steal more private land for public open space. Some of the Liberal Party members and most of the ALP are living in the dark ages if only we could re-train them into more modern free market thinking instead of waiting for them to die off.
It does seem to me that we do need encourage leaders and real thinkers in the positions of Councillors, as I'm doubting that most Counci Candidates these days really understand what their ROLE is nor do they seem to be advised when they inquire about what powers they really have. I asked yesterday on my visit to city hall and after several attempts found out that Councillors have NO individual powers on their own and cannot promise anything to anyone, only the Council Group have the power to make decisions.[Refer Part 1A Local Government Act 1989, Local Govt Charter 3A-3F] The ALP were smarter than the Liberals because the ALP opened up GWZ land to development to create more Labour Voters to strengethen their seats and the Liberals are actually opening up more GWZ land for more ALP voters but dont seem to want to want to help more of their own voters or create potentially more Liberal voters in their safer seats. Why?
I urge Liberal Party members to have a hard look at themselves and their ideas of serving their supporters a few scraps of changes without going for the the whole [hog] suite of free market ideals. Dont be shy with comments please.
You state "because essentially most Councillors rely and accept the advice of Planners too much and dont ask too many questions or show leadership on Planning matters by sticking their head out of the group."
Gilly, in relation to the comment you made (above) I have found this to be the other way around.
I have seen the Planning Dept on many occasions overturned by council.
Our own permit was overturned twice and went to VCAT where we won in the end.
I believe the Planning dept wanted an expansion of the UGB around some townships including Coldstream, but the council did not. The council of 9 have all the power and they do (most of the time) think for themselves.
Mario Galteri
Most planners to their credit tend to follow the law as the State directs in their legislation, whereas the Council members tend to be more dogma based and influenced by the loudest hyper active Greenies who have their own agendas and also advised by faceless planners and others I'm sure.
All the more reason why it is incumbent on the State Government to employ the top legal silks to make their legislation water tight from the outset and certainly not give more flexibility to the Councils as Matthew Guy has announced. Faulty loophole ridden legislation ends up costing businesses like yours VCAT legal and financial expenses.
To be fair to Council, I should ask if any of your readers can list projects in which combined Council action has actually added value to the project above what the Planning Scheme offered?
I only ever hear of the events which have destroyed the value of the ratepayer’s project or land value or where the Council have put in silly restrictions to get the project approved, but which create opportunities for the Compliance Officers to generate fines income. I only hear of land value being reduced by converting land to Conservation Zones...which cost one land buyer $200,000 off the value of his property. I don’t see a Council adding value to the Shires ratepayers by using the flexibility option. I just view the 'extra flexibility'...as another avenue to destroy wealth and stifle enterprise, delay expansions for fear of the huge VCAT and legal costs involved in putting up applications for new projects even though some have the money to expand during a recession.
And if we consider that 55% of Shire land is already protected Crown Land...I view the stealing of more open space land as a misuse of Council Powers as a good reason to question the research upon which the Planning Ministers Department of Matthew Guy has come to the conclusion that councils need more flexibility. More flexibility to create more public open space, more crown land when we already have 55% of non-ratable land? Why not stop stealing more public open space in the Yarra Ranges but let other councils in inner Melbourne buy their open space requirements by using their 5% to buy their own parks in GWZ areas for their ratepayers when their land is too expensive or just not available?
In my non legal experience, Flexibility is a means of creating another loophole for the legal profession to argue over. It’s never that simple.
The big daddy of them all was when our Shire knowingly or unknowingly agreed with an option to Force Down the value of GWZ land up to 30 Ha just so a few farmers could buy the land cheaper, but in so doing would have risked the Mortgage Agreements of all the other ratepayers and businesses in the Shire? Again another potentially catastrophic miss-use of flexibility by Council.
That is why we need water tight legislation WITHOUT grey areas and vetted by the TOP SILKS QC's by paying the legal costs of the TOP QC's to get it right from the start and if any legal expert says that that FLEXIBILITY won’t create or have the potential to generate more legal argument then my opinion would be smashed.
So will any of your readers who must be Liberal Party members please raise this IMPORTANT issue within your party for serious consideration. It should not matter that it might cost the State Parliament $1 million in legal fees for advice if it saves property owners like yours and other businesses $10 million + in expensive and protracted legal arguments when attempting to carry on any of their businesses throughout Victoria where some council areas are made up of some pretty dogmatic anti-business political groups.
As another example Murrindindi Shire is well known for serving up grief to many farm property owners every time they want to do something...there are objections costing the Shire extra in legal fees compliments of the Ratepayers. .but hopefully Matthew Guy has attended to this important issue in his new amendments?
Another example in Yarra Glen where an objection against the removal of a few saplings cost the Shire $50,000 in legal fees. How many replacement saplings could you buy with $50,000?
Dandenong Council Planning Dept required one subdivision owner to reduce carparking on a four x 2 bedroom units 40 year old building from 8 spots to 4 threatening non subdivision forever unless done so or prove that more than 4 cars would be required. Result...new owners cars now park on garden. Was that planner expecting to be paid off while it took them 6 months longer to sign off on it or where they just too busy with a mountain of applications?
Cont…
Cont..
And may I add that in view that not many of your 2600 approx per month readers make any written comment about these important matters indicates that they are being Diplomatic with non-comment and/concerned about making any statement which might bite them back one day or why people tell me never tell the Shire anything...because they don’t trust them....I regard this mistrust of the Shire & their Police as a form of excessive implied bullying [Sheriff of Nottingham style] even though as individuals they are all nice caring people. So am I being foolish raising these issues? Will the next group of Councillors cause me grief...maybe/maybe not and ONLY if the State Government is not serious about corruption which is usually solved in my view by not giving Councils too much FLEXIBILITY on important planning issues.
We appoint and entrust State Govt to make life and business easier for us and many voters just think they will look after us without input...that’s why I have been emailing the Regional food group businesses and farm owners about the importance of supporting the proposed changes or making their views known to the minister and his advisers.
So far only one YG brewer has complained about my emails. Hopefully more actually read them and contribute their own creative ideas..
When we participate ...we are actually minding our own businesses and looking after our families and our assets.
Post a Comment