Community planning services in Glenelg Shire Council : 1998-2005 ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

30 Did the council comply with key legislative, planning scheme and other requirements? 3.3.2 Application of notification requirements Solicitor’s review The solicitor’s review disclosed that: in 40 of the 100 planning permit applications reviewed, the council’s assessment of material detriment was potentially incorrect (that is, notice was not given to parties assessed by the review as potentially affected by the proposal) for those planning permit applications where notice was not provided, the forms used to assess the application contained a tick in the “no” box against “material detriment”. However, no reasons were documented for not providing notice. 2003 Best Value review The internal Best Value15 review of the council’s planning services indicated that the council had not adequately involved the community in making decisions on planning permits. Specifically, the report found that: compared with other councils, notice of the proposal was given in only a small number of council planning permit applications. For example, notice was given for only one planning application during 2001-02, as against 10-15 and 182, respectively, for 2 comparable councils16 stakeholders considered that the council should adopt a wider interpretation of “material detriment”. The council did not adopt the review’s recommendation to increase the level of advertising of planning applications because it would: result in an additional cost of about $100 to applicants potentially delay processing by up to 8 weeks depending on whether or not the public made submissions and whether the matter needed to be referred to the council for decision. However, in mid-June 2004, following a further review by the council of its planning services, a decision was initially taken to publicly advertise all planning applications. After a month or so, the council returned to assessing material detriment on a case-by-case basis. 15 Under the Local Government Act 1989 councils are required to undertake a periodic Best Value review of their services against 6 key principles of service delivery (quality and cost, responsiveness, accessibility, continuous improvement, regular community consultation, and regular reporting). 16 Information gathered by reviewer from 2 other councils, which were both rural and similar in population to Glenelg Shire Council.
Did the council comply with key legislative, planning scheme and other requirements? 31 Findings of our review Our review of planning permit applications supports the findings of both the solicitor’s review and council’s own internal Best Value review. At the very least, we expected decisions on material detriment to be supported by site inspections and some written information about the relationship between the proposal and the adjoining properties. This was not the case for the planning applications we examined. Further, the speed with which many planning applications received approval indicated that decisions on material detriment could barely have been made without due consideration of the application and its impact on adjoining landholders and the broader community. Based on the information available to us, we consider that: the council approved many planning permits without due consideration of the effect these decisions were likely to have on the community, despite this being required by the Act material detriment determinations were not adequately supported. We asked the planning contractor what factors he considered in applying the material detriment test. He indicated that he put himself in the position of an adjoining property owner and assessed whether or not the planning proposal would have an impact. He also indicated that despite a lack of supporting information on file, material detriment had been adequately considered in each case he had assessed. Material detriment: Case study 1 The following case study shows how a planning permit was approved by the council without due consideration of the effect the development was likely to have on the community.
Page 1 and 2: PP No. 162, Session 2003-05 V I C T
Page 3 and 4: The Hon. Monica Gould MP The Hon. J
Page 5 and 6: Contents FOREWORD..................
Page 7 and 8: 1. Executive summary 1
Page 9 and 10: 4 Executive summary 1.2 Overall aud
Page 11 and 12: 6 Executive summary 3. That the cou
Page 13 and 14: 8 Executive summary attempt to res
Page 15 and 16: 10 Executive summary RESPONSE provi
Page 17 and 18: 2.1 Victoria’s planning system Vi
Page 19 and 20: Reform of the planning system Victo
Page 21 and 22: 2.2.1 Council’s planning services
Page 23 and 24: 2.3.1 Conduct of the audit Victoria
Page 25 and 26: Did the council comply with key leg
Page 31: Did the council comply with key leg
Page 79 and 80: 4. Did the council have appropriate
Page 81 and 82: 80 Did the council have appropriate
Page 83 and 84:
82 Did the council have appropriate
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
5. Did the council effectively mana
Page 103 and 104:
104 Did the council effectively man
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Appendix A. Performance improvement
Page 119 and 120:
122 Appendix A. Performance improve
Page 121 and 122:
Appendix B. Contract for town plann
Page 123 and 124:
128 Appendix B. Contract for town p
Page 125 and 126:
FIGURE C1: AUDIT CASE STUDIES INDEX
Page 127:
Availability of reports Copies of a
show all

Community planning services in Glenelg Shire Council : 1998-2005 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?