“The new planning system allows the same authority even more discretion to ignore community-supported, acceptable standards and favour the interests of developers,” writers former planner RICHARD JOHNSTON.

The just released ACT Planning System Governance Review, by Adelaide-based Peg Consulting, notes that its first term of reference is: “The Review will consider the effectiveness of the governance framework of the ACT’s new planning system and whether it supports the delivery of an efficient and transparent planning system within the ACT context.”

The review notes that: “Transparency in decision-making is a cornerstone of good governance (particularly in the public sector), as it fosters trust and accountability. Transparent decisions based on accessible information and opportunities for public input are more likely to be perceived by the public as fair and inclusive.”

Khalid Ahmed, adjunct professor, Institute of Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, has commented: “The Draft Planning Bill incorporates significant changes to the governance of the planning system in the territory. In particular, it:

• Degrades the role and powers of the Legislative Assembly for oversight and input to key planning instruments;

• Provides unspecified discretionary powers to the minister to make planning instruments and directives, and to make rules for community input;

• Increases the powers and discretionary authority of the Chief Planning Executive; and 

• Diminishes the role of the community in planning decisions.”

Unfortunately, the Governance Review was constrained and was only able to consider aspects of governance within the bureaucracy. It only deals with one of the above concerns, the excessive power concentrated in the chief planner and director-general of the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, currently one person.  

The government has announced it will fix this by the appointment of a new chief planner, but hasn’t said whether that person will be independent of EPSDD and will report directly to the minister.

The review does provide some good suggestions about making current bureaucratic processes more “transparent” to interested members of the public. But it does not address “the role of the community in planning decisions”.  

What typically happens for a more significant development application (DA) is that it is advertised with a few weeks to comment, representations are made by those affected by it and nothing further is heard, usually for several months.  

Then the planning authority pops out its decision, which is most often a conditional approval, mainly reflecting the requirements of other government agencies and service providers.  

It appears that the planning authority’s internal processes normally involve one or more officers assessing the DA and comments received, identifying issues and requesting the DA applicant to provide “more information” on these issues.  

The developer’s planning consultants (spin-doctors) leap into gear and bombard the authority with copious “reasons” as to why the DA should be approved regardless. Usually the authority succumbs, perhaps insisting on some minor changes.  

Nothing about the current processes, or the recommendations of the review, guarantees there will be better, more innovative “outcomes” and the “new” planning system allows the same authority even more discretion to ignore community-supported acceptable standards and favour the interests of developers.

When the authority’s decision is made public, all community members can do is to apply to the ACT Administrative and Civil Appeals Tribunal  for a review of the decision.  

Appealing is a costly, very time-consuming and stressful process.  Developers (and the planning authority) are usually represented by teams of well-paid lawyers and other consultants, whereas the community members, who volunteer their time, tend to find themselves at the wrong end of aggressive cross-examination and can be threatened with developers’ costs being awarded against them.

A better model for open and transparent decision-making on more significant DAs, which could easily be adopted by the ACT government, is the kind of “local planning panel” now in use in parts of NSW and SA.  These are composed of experts in various relevant fields appointed by the government on a rotational basis.  

They meet in public and consider written submissions as well as presentations by interested parties at the meeting. Decisions are generally made on the spot and are only appealable on points of law, rather than planning grounds.

The other important part of a good process around the redevelopment of established areas is getting the up-front planning right, with genuine engagement of affected local communities, such that DAs do not contain nasty surprises and the potential for conflict and disputation is substantially reduced. But that’s another story…

Richard Johnston is a life fellow of the Planning Institute of Australia and a former senior executive of the ACT Planning & Land Authority.