Bulletin (PDF 18.3 MB) - City of Armadale

Information BulletinInformation Items from the Development Services DirectoratePageD-3INFORMATION ITEM – COMMENTS ON ASPECTS OF THE APPROVALS ANDRELATED REFORMS (PLANNING) ACT• Simplicity – the Discussion Paper argued that a major attraction was the elimination ofubiquitous dual approvals. Many of the submissions from local government demonstratedthis so-called benefit to be a complete myth. From the WALGA survey it was found thatover the past five years only .006% of DAs required dual approval and only a quarter ofthese would have been referred to a DAP (since then the threshold has increased to $7mwhich would result in even less DAP applications). Ie from the 15,000 applications in thesurvey only 5 dual approvals a year would have gone to a DAP – quite an argument for theintroduction of DAPs!• Transparency – it was claimed that a major benefit of DAPs was that decisions would betransparent and publicly accessible. It was particularly galling that the authors appear not tohave known that local government decision making is already open, it is state governmentdecisions that are in camera.• Sustainability – to claim that DAPs would be more sustainable completely strains credulity.Certainly more unsustainable travel would be involved for members, applicants andresidents. It was contended that the involvement of independent experts would ensuresustainable decisions – but if experts are so important to ensure that planning decisions areappropriately made how come they didn’t use an expert to draft the DAP Discussion Paper?• Accountability – apparently a benefit of DAPs is that they will be subject to a strict code ofconduct! WALGA’s eloquent response to this reads – “there is nothing accountable about abody that is not in any real way connected to the community for which they are makingdecisions. DAPs are completely removed from local issues, and simply including two tokenlocal government representatives in a minority position does not make up for this isolationfrom community needs and expectations.”• Fairness – the claim that it is somehow fairer for an applicant to be able to seek a review ofa decision to SAT from a DAP compared with a Council is astonishing.• Consistency – it remains to be seen whether DAPs will result in more consistency. Anumber of submissions reported on the relatively high congruence between officersrecommendations and Council decisions – but it is a dangerous assertion to suggest thatofficers are always right on discretionary planning matters! I suspect that the propertyindustry was rather hoping for a little inconsistency if it would assist their project approval!• Suitability – This last “benefit” related to a DAP being able to determine applications formatters of state and regional significance. Possibly the author was unaware that for the past50 years the WAPC has had this function. It was also claimed that DAPs would be suitableto determine applications made to a non-performing local government. Perhaps there areunderperforming local governments that need to be brought into line. A number of localgovernment submissions magnanimously conceded that decisions possibly should go to aDAP in these situations so one could ask whether the final proposal will address this?Apparently not. The report on submissions clearly states that – “The panels are not intendedto address underperforming local governments”. (p.7)